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 he put it very well,

scrambled in 2013 to come up with the dollars to meet our sequestration marks, there are things that we did that frankly mortgaged our future. we had to take money out of two places, one is readiness. we stopped training. we stopped sending individuals to be prepared at the national training center. a you can never recapture that. what that does is delay the buildup of future readiness. we will have to pay that price somewhere down the road. we simply cannot ever get that back. although we were able to do it for one year, it comes at our risk to respond, our risk to do a contingency. riskis really incredible that i am not comfortable with and the second pieces we had to furlough individuals who work is and therernment

-- this government and they are beginning to lose faith. those are temporary measures we do not want to revisit again. we have to have more permanent solutions. >> admiral? >> mr. chairman, first of all, we have a 2.3 billion-dollar carryover. here it is. that is sitting there and you have to pay about a billion of that. you cannot do for it. these are contracts and things of that nature. in 13, we had a quarter of maintenance and training because he did not start dealing with this until the new calendar year. 34 out of 55 ship maintenance availabilities will be gone. we were able to get some training done. of the nine air wings we will

have five of them in minimum sustaining -- the one that will be affected most is investment. most is ours me the top nuclear strategic this turned by continuing resolution and because we want to grow that programming, we are $500 million off in 14. that comes to roost in the schedule. we will lose a virginia class can't -- class submarine, it literal combat ship. a lot of cost to continue. , we need about $500 million to finish that carrier by spring. >> thank you. can we continue the kind of

temporary actions we took in fy fy 14?f with 14 -- to cooks there's no more money left over from 13 to 14. we were 99.8% obligated by the end of 2013. our count is dry. we are going to live with what we have and on 14 we will have a continuing resolution. we have taken measures in the past. we have gone through the tad travel accounts. we have taken reserves off of active duty to reduce the tad costs. there is no more fat on her bones. what you already heard. we pay about $1.5 billion out of obligated funds on the sequestration bill last year. that was about 20%. that will be at -- that will not be available this year. we begin in 2014, five hundred

million dollars less than we have for 2014. the program did not include funding we set aside for funding. we are behind the power curve and dropping further behind. >> thank you very much. a half.ad >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. -- senator hannah half. >> there are people here who never had the opportunity to know them. i served in the house, we sat next to each other every thursday morning at the house prayer breakfast. he is sorely missed. to have this chart placed up here so you can see it. this chart was put together by the minority and majority on the senate armed services staff. perspectiveput into where we are and where were going. a lot of improvements have been

made. discussed things that have to be done with personnel, the tri- care ends -- tri-care and those things. i remind you that in the blue section dumb below, it is not good to really address the problem that we have. you can see how poor infrastructure is. that's how important infrastructure is. -- important how infrastructure -- how pimportant infrastructure is. my greatest concern is the orange area. it shows clearly that that is where readiness is. that is

where training takes place. i would like to have each one of you respond to your concern about that particular part of this chart, the orange part. i have always said readiness equals risk and risk saves lives. me whatlike you to tell you think in terms of peopling risk and lives lost -- lies lost. do -- are going to >> this chart describes the problem the army has. the only speed it up so fast when you start to lose the money you gain i taken in strength out. have a huge readiness issue between 2014 to 2017 that will snip the impact of our ability

to respond the way we expect. the other piece is lou. have -- we will have to stop the -- we will have to be started later on we get back in the balance. for us it is significant readiness issues. we will not be able to train them for the mission that they are going to have to do. we are going cap is and without the proper training and perhaps pop equipment they need. -- reps proper equipment they need to do this. >> for us it is -- we man equipment. what that means to deal with reduction like this, we have to deal with infrastructure. starwood estimate come in the navy, how much structure we would have to give up the nearest term in order to garner savings.

for me it is for presence and i make sure they are ready. those that are there for crisis response, right now i am sitting at two thirds reduction. you have to be there with confident proficient people. if they are not confident proficient you're cutting more casualties. yet keep a pace with the capabilities of the future or you're an able to deal with the potential adversary. we will be slipping behind, reducing interest -- reducing force structure, and increasing contingency response. we are going to have increased cavities if nobody is up there. >> the thing you want to add in your opening statement and terms of this readiness act and how it relates to risk and lives?'s >> as you know, we move moneys to maintain risk.

mine is smaller than that's the that is the near term because i'm paying that price to maintain the rate it to be your crisis response force. that will last probably no later than 2017. i will start seeing erosion at a year and a half. we are paying that with other trainingfrastructure, the correct that is what you referred to in your opening statement. arebsolutely, yes costs senator. -- yes sir senator. will bedo deploy, they in harms way and we will end up with more casualties. >> responding to the question, i -- i that i heard somebody heard someone talking about an experience in alaska. can you share that with me? i will remind people that as the hear this, the costs to get

someone to a level of proficiency and -- of is $7iency in an sistine million. we're are talking about huge investment in personnel. would you like me to repeat the statement you had made? >> i actually had this conversation multiple places in the air force. at one of our bases i was talking to a group of young pilots who are eligible for an aviation career. tothat group there were six eight, none of them had accepted the bonus to that point. that doesn't necessarily mean they are planning to leave the air force. it certainly means they are keeping their options open. --as in another base for another base where very young airman told me they love the air force but they were bored. their particular squadrons were not flying. at the end of their less meant they find work they thought was

more exciting. that got my attention. i appreciate that. my time is expired. i want to read one of the most alarming concerns that we have , the belief that your service would not be able to support you -- support even one major contingency. i would like you does that to respond to that and think about the collective force and service . we are talking for a lot of history. to respond to that in not being able to meet one contingency operation. >> thank you. >> thank you, gentlemen for your service to the nation. i think one of the issues we have to ask is -- because so much is not ready for what, that will be answered in the cutie are.

that will be affected by the budget regardless if we are -- regardless of whether we are able to work our way out of the problems. can you give us a sense on how effective -- ready for what? -- aswe look to the past we look from the past and look into the future, it is the capability to do a multi phase, combined arms tempe and that operates in a very complex environment. a conventional component, irregular warfare, counterinsurgency is -- counterinsurgency. that is where warfare is going. is gradinghe army counterinsurgency. we have to build our combined arm joint capability to do a for a majorcampaign contingency operation. we were supposed to begin training in 2013, we were not able to because of the cuts we

had to make in our training dollars. we are now behind. that is the problem we have. right now we have a limited number of brigades that are capable of doing that right now and are falling further behind. >> one of the reasons we are so well schooled in counterinsurgency is reinvested billions of dollars in counterinsurgency over the last decade. looking forward, is that going to be a prime raise or ancillary mission in your view as we look into the cutie are? if that is the case, we invest a lot of money for capabilities that we might not be using. is awould say it capability that is going to be needed but it will not be in the forefront as it has been in the past. >> the same question essentially . we are embracing a lot of the issues. >> for us is is to ensure that we have a turn on track. it is a top priority for the

ohio replacement. subject to my comments in my opening statement, this issue we have to get the continuing resolution, we need to grow the program. i cannot do that until we get a bill and 13. we lose $150 million through sequestration. design engineers hired pretty even when you get the money you cannot click your fingers and higher 600 specialized engineers. we have to keep this co-care and. we are on a very tight schedule to deliver on time. also it is the undersea domain. we have to own it quite simply. it is my job to keep that on track. i'm concerned that we fall behind it, keeping pace of our potential adversaries. is a priority, regardless of sequestration. air and missile defense, and that gets into the electronic spectrum.

nuclear abilities for jammers to cyber warriors. it is just flat out presence. quantity has a quality of its own. the righte we have ships with the right capability with my partner to my left and any become -- a navy marine corps team we can take your these little crises so they do not fester and become bigger crises and we get into the situation of the major contingency. senator the priorities for the marine corps before -- the response to any crisis today. as we move money around to maintain a level of readiness, we have to be balanced force. as a go for to the sequester and thekey dr force -- and cutie are force, we need is a balance between modernization readiness and personnel.

not hollow but a high state of readiness forces. to do that we are balancing this thing down, dialing back all the bottles and tried to make sure we end up with something that is not a hollow force. as we go forward, my focus -- regardless of how big the marine corps and the ping as a result of how much money i get will be a balance of high state of readiness to respond to today's crisis. think the dilemma that we all face is the choice of readiness today versus a modern capability for tomorrow. the air force is no different. that is the thin line we are trying to walk. for us we have a requirement for readiness to respond rapidly. that is what we bring to the journal -- to the force.

we are a high-tech force. we are platform based. invest -- to invest now to make sure we have the proper capability 10 years from now. from the appropriations perspectve, giving certainty to a cr, but two years of certainty and total

relief of sequestration would put you in the best position. thank you. >> senator mccain. >> i want to thank the witnesses. i wish every american were tuning in to your testimony today so we could have a sense of urgency that certainly is not significant enough to bring us back to a raitonaationl approach to our nation's defense. i share all of your views but you left out a couple of items. admiral, you just talked about

$500 million for the gerald r. ford. you didn't mention we have a $200 billion cost overrun. has anyone been fired as a result of a two billion cost overrun? >> i don't know. >> you should know, admiral. billion onve a $2 askngle ship -- i would teh same question of the general. has anyone been fired? i don't think so. we have had hearing after hearing concerning the first trillion dollar defense acquisition in history. our numbers are astronomical in

the increase in size of your staff. that has never been brought under control. have only 1.3 million personel. the number of civilian contractors and personel do not fight. they have great jobs but they do not fight. this committee may have to impose cuts. they have grown astronomically. finally, despite think,-- uay

i would ask if you would the number ofess years before retirement. two, in position of increase of tricare. also, perhaps even looking at things like the contribution that used to be made for off base housiunng and other costs that have grown so dramatically. not only would i like you to answer that question i would

like you to respond to my comment.s >> on compensation, we have to compensation. the cost of a soldier has doubled since 2001. it also doubled by 2025. we cannot go on like this. we have to come up with compensation factors, not taking money away but reducing the rate of increase and pay increases of basic housing, as you brought up . look at health care. we have to have a total package that allows us to reduce this cost. >> can i interrupt. you know of a single soldier, airman, or marine who joined the military because of tri-care? collected would be difficult to answer that question.

-- >> it would be difficult to answer that question. in terms of cost overruns, i agree with you. andre tackling this problem -- this problem. we are holding people accountable but we are not holding them accountable enough. >> these attributes i would look at favorably. you are speaking my language. i would -- i'm sure my colleagues feel the same way. it is about 50% of every dollar that goes to personnel as compensation in the dod. if we go this way it will be 70 in a decade. it is a responsibility to take a hard look at it. when i talk to my people, they say my quality of life is pretty good. my quality of work, i need some help.

i want training, where is my chief? i want to get spare parts. that is what i want to do with that kind of money. it has been referred to by some of the best and brightest considering their options, or to something that never shows up in the profit and loss basis. is that correct? >> you are right. if i could talk to staff for just a second. we are going beyond that. we have a goal of money and we are looking at four times of that reduction. we had a goal of 400 civilian personnel. we are looking at five times that. we are taking a hard look. we are working our blade down. as you look at this orange and blue efficiencies, we are looking at 25% of our reduction in overhead and contractors. we are taking a pretty robust look.

>> you will find a ready audience for benefits. it is more than just a tri-care, it is everything. i pay $.62 on the dollar right now. my portion of the budget is smaller. that is going to go well over 70% if something is not done. you are going to see the joint chiefs come to congress through the president, talking about a package of cuts and reductions, how we can put that down. that is in route. as you are looking at the retirements, we are open to just about anything. it is in our best interest and our nation's best interest. bywe stay on this budget, i am eliminating

entire marine expeditions and three-star headquarters. it goes away. reducing tie-ins, regiments, air groups, pretty significantly. we are pairing that down. as it relates to -- i cannot speak to that. management with both lockheed martin and my service. we pay pretty close attention to it. our vector is actually heading in the right direction. >> the short answer is yes. i absolutely agree that you need to get entitlements and benefits reform. there's no question about that. i would hope that we can enroll the savings we make back into the tools and training our people need to be fully ready. if we did that they would understand and see the results in a meaningful way.

it will be a bigger problem for them. i agree with everything you said, there is no excuse. we are looking at every headquarters from the staff to the component war fighting staff. the process of producing to four stars and 53- star positions and decreasing the number of people and headquarters around. we have to take this seriously. there is no other option. >> thank you, senator mccain. >> good morning. i will admit that i am frustrated that this committee has once again asked you to come up here and testify about the harm caused by sequestration. we and the congress created this monster and we keep dragging you up to the hill. i met with my constituents in colorado springs last month. they made it clear to me they are tired of congress's unwillingness to compromise and soft problem.

that view echoed everywhere i travel. the bottom line is we all know we have done serious harm to critical programs and our people. it is very clear that none of this is going to save us any money. i think you have made that case very powerfully. it is going to cost us more in the long run than if we just buckle down and put strategic budget architecture in place based on the simpson-bowles plan. you lead haveople been paying the price for our failure to lead and to act. i am sorry for that. i apologize for that. should have been hearing make it clear that we need to reach a bipartisan agreement, pass a budget, and get back on track. let me turn to you in that spirit. in your opening statement you said if you are given the flexibility to make prudent cuts over time we can make the savings required under current law. could you be more specific about

the kind of flexibility that you are asking for. i've been working with senator collins and others on pushing for better budget flexibility when it comes to making cuts in government wide. it is important on how we can get this right and be more helpful. >> in my view, and i think everybody in the room would agree, sequestration is a horrible business model. the mechanism is a horrible business model. no successful business would try to downsize its product line or its cost in this way. anyone would take the time -- you take the beginning of that of that time to reinforce the n infrastructure saved into the successful product lines you want to continue, restructure your organization and create savings at the back end of this. more to saything with the number is, we have to be part of the solution for the nation, the financial solution

for the nation. this mechanism that makes us take big chunks of money for the first two years is what is putting us in this readiness versus modernization dilemma. of overall process sequestration reduces our capability and capacity over time but it does not break us. the mechanism is what breaks us. trustd say if we have the available to believe that the department would return over 10 years and we can show you a plan on how to do that, eliminating this abrupt nature of the mechanism at the front and would be a much more sensible approach. >> that is very helpful. i know this committee is going to listen as we move forward. the economies of the military communities. it sequestration remains in place, i was thinking about the situation you face, general, for cutting down to 400 50,000, probably as low as 390,000.

there could be damage done to cities like colorado springs. the same, general welsh, would apply to the air force. in colorado over the last couple of years we have had some real challenges. we had the battle floods and wildfires and without being cripple support of soldiers and airmen i can't imagine how much worse the losses would have been if we didn't have assets like aviation brigade or the great airmen at peterson and treiber. that and thent on studies that have been done? >> a lot of people don't understand that in many cases for hood in texas fort campbell in kentucky, there are probably some of the biggest generators of revenue for the states.

you don't realize it at the installations go way you're not just using the soldiers and what they do, all the businesses that are around those installations for probably a 50 mile radius are impacted by the shutdown and loss of the installations losing people. -- i don't have the numbers with me but we have numbers for every installation. when i visited recently, this is the leading employer of the state, either first, second, or third. it is very close to the top. this.eople forget about that is in addition to what i'm concerned about as the national security impact. >> would you care to comment, general? >> 1.3 trillion dollar reduction to dod or 10 years is going to leave a bruise in a lot of places. we have to understand how significant the pain is at each pace before you make final decisions.

i think it is going to affect a lot of people and a lot of places. just in colorado visiting with a bunch of the firefighters from fort carson. we were walking through the actions they took in battling the fires last year and this year. contributionby the they make to the community every day. nobody wants to reduce that contribution. we lost just the civilian furloughs last year as a corporate body, 7.8 million man- hours of work -- -- for the government shutdown. -- -- for the government shutdown. see the effecto with the short-term losses. long-term it would be more dramatic. them -- i seesee my time is expired.

national thank the yard who came to colorado for the incredible work they done not only immediate but after the .loods it is a testament to the work ethic and teamwork those units brought to our state. i want to thank you all for coming. i am sorry we are meeting under the circumstances but i am pleased to see senator in half here. he is too tough to let a few arteries to keep him from doing what he's city. -- from what he is doing. he had a habit of saying i'm just an old country lawyer. i know everybody who served with him felt the same way. >> mr. chairman, thank you for this important hearing. we have to get this right. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

likewise thank you for being here today gentlemen. in my 20 years of serving on the armed services committee, we have never had for finer leaders of our respective branches. thank you for what you do every day. as we look at what we are going to do relative to defense spending some i am one of those who thinks that we need to spend more money. sequestration is going to be a bigger and bigger problem. i also feel very strongly about the fact that whatever we are able to add it to spending that we have to offset it somehow. we simply have to get our fiscal house in order. i think if we are going to do that, the first place we have to look for offset this at the department of defense itself. hearing with , we asked the

general dempsey and senator mansion for a list of programs or expenditures that the department does not want to spend money on that had been mandated by congress. we thought we would have that list by today. i understand we are not going to get it until next week. i think for certain one item that is going to be on that list is the purchase of abram tanks that congress keeps demanding that you buy that you do not need. my understanding is you are productiona halt in to 2017 and the cost of that was good to be somewhere between 446 and 3 billion over three years. i don't know what the exact number is but either one of those is pretty significant. is that still the case that you would prefer to spend that money

elsewhere? clock's it is. --have the most modernized we are reducing our is for structure -- reducing our structure so we need less tanks. in manyngs can be used different areas of modernization that we need, for example aviation. >> as a gone to the authorization bill, rest assured it is issues like that who will be addressed. as we talk about sequestration, i know a lot of these programs have taken years to develop and produce food these programs i'm going to mention were not necessarily created or authorized on the watch of the view. they are significant. i understand there are 12 rands -- brand-- grant new new c-287. only 16 of them have been

delivered. the majority of those are sitting in storage somewhere. c-27as.re were 20 they sits unused and are sitting in afghanistan and are slated to be destroyed. although there may be some movement to send those to another agency or entity. understand the maintenance contract was canceled in march of this year. therefore they are unusable. it is a blimp like aircraft that would hover over the battlefield that was canceled after one test flight and sold back to the contractor for $301,000. the army and the marine corps,

as i understand it, will be purchasing 55,000 trucks known as the joint tactical vehicle to replace your humvees, which is probably understandable. it is also my understanding that the committed cost of these per vehicle was $250,000. now it has gone to $400,000 per vehicle. not unlike what senator mccain alluded to earlier. the dod inspector general found a contractor overcharged dla for spare aircraft parts. it was an aluminum bearing sleeve that should have cost $10. 2000 $286 -- 2286 dollars her. that were nots necessarily created on your watch.

you are in the process of looking forward with respect to the systems. i hope you will keep that in mind. there's one other area i wanted to mention as we look for savings. that is in the area of medical research. and theeneficiary research has been done on prostate cancer. they do a great job at nih on prostate cancer research and every other cancer research. what i don't understand is why the military is spending $80 million per year on prostate cancer research, why we are spending $25 million for year on ovarian cancer research and 150 million on breast cancer research. we are also doing lung cancer research. there are particular needs that the military has regarding military research. they are so particularly because of the casualties we have

suffered recently. research thats of simply have no place in my opinion at the dod. at nih.ht to be done i understand further that there is not real coordination between the research done among the medical research done at nih and what is that of the dod. that is not an item that these gentlemen have a lot of control over. it is certainly an item that we need to look at. the money would be better spent as a replacement for sequestration. prostate cancer research money went to the dod. several years later he announced on the floor in the senate that he made a mistake. he should never have done that. that ought to be spent on research. it ought to be spent at nih and not at the department of defense.

as we go forward with the defense authorization bill in the next couple of weeks, i look forward to seeing that list the general dempsey gives to us with respect to items that come out of each of your budgets that hopefully we can have get a standard to stand up and say irrespective of interests, we have to look at our men and women and they need this money to be spent in other areas rather than in areas where the military themselves say we do not need to spend it. thank you very much. >> senator shaheen. >> thank you mr. chairman and senator imhoff for holding this hearing. i would hope, as the sentiment is expressed by some of our colleagues, that our congress would do with sequestration and away the means you do not have to be here year after year after year talking about the challenges that are -- that our

military faces because we haven't done our jobs here in congress. i would like to begin with you. the naval shipyard is the premier shipyard for modernization and maintenance. from theletter president of the metal trades council, who talks about the impact of sequestration on the workers at the shipyard. i'm going to ask you to comment. phrases thatd two epitomizes the challenges they are facing and >> with nine and a half years over sequestration, nine and a half years of furloughs and layoffs, how will we attract the best and brightest young men and women to the top -- to the most technologically sophisticated industry echo he goes on to say

the security, instability, and volatility of sequestration on our shipyard in national workforce cannot be understated. personal impact, mission impact, and national security impact our real and contrary to the best interests of america. thisld like to ask that letter be entered into the record. i wonder if you could talk about what you are seeing with respect to the long-term impacts of sequestration. >> thank you, senator. i'm glad we get to see that letter. it very clearly states the debilitating effect of doing this year after year. it is inefficient and i lose rocktivity. this fine gentleman described you cannot hire people so you cannot distribute your workforce. you furloughed him here and there. they're going to go elsewhere.

sony has to write the contract, so he has to get the logistics done. you can stand there with a wrench in your head and a welding rod but they need to pay for. it is all a team. we think we are saving costs. we are not even avoiding costs, we are deferring cost. it is a fill-in the blank factor later on. that right there describes the maintenance conundrum that we have. by the way, that is in a nuclear shipyard, which is one of our most stable enterprises out there. we hire people for the longer- term come along fanning and all that. it is a per meter shipyard and we have lots of use for it, if you will, in the future. i am concerned about, and i did not mention earlier, but we have keeped infrastructure to forces forward. we went from 80% of our model, which is nothing unnecessarily

to be excited about. it with 50%. fortunately, we were able to meet thanks to the congress on reprogramming and getting that six or -- that six percent requirement done to recapitalize. i am very concerned for fiscal year 14. we have millions of dollars we need to do that right. hopefully we will get reprogramming or a means or a bill to do that but that infrastructure is very important to us. >> thank you. senator champus talked about areas where there is money being spent that may not be most sufficient reason -- most efficient. one of the things we have looked at on the readiness subcommittee is the air force's proposal to spend 260 million for two hangers in guam. my understanding is that hard and hangers cost twice as much as those that are not hardened.

i wonder if you can prioritize the need for that versus the other needs that you and other members of the panel have identified with respect to readiness and training and other challenges we are facing. >> i don't fink it is a matter of comparing them in every case. guamardened facilities in respond to a command quest -- to commit request because it increases the capabilities of service to surface missile attacks. he did not request everything be hard into much as those key facilities that you could not improvise if there was -- that you could improvise for there was damage on the airfield. that is what those facilities are based on. we try to support u.s. pacific command in that effort. the readiness and modernization requirements are bigger than his

$256 million. every dollar will help. the readiness problem we face over time is significant. to fully restore our normal readiness levels it could be almost re-hundred million dollars. -- $3 billion. this is going to take us 10 plus years to get us readiness back the level that we want. smaller force ready, which means less capacity, less capability to respond globally. >> i think we all appreciate that. has as one that significant cost. to hundred 50p million projects, pre-simi are talking real money. i do hope this is one you continue to look carefully at.

thank you. > thank you, senator ayotte? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank all of you for your service and your leadership. let me just echo what my colleague from new hampshire has and where are we as a go forward with the sequester in fleet size and the attack submarine fleet. i know you mentioned in your that oneestimony marine would be pill that would be built during the money. -- d you give us >> our goal is 55. i use that as a benchmark year. to do sequestration, we lost the

u.s. to miami. the overruns, the furloughs, and the need to have to go to a commercial workforce instead of using federal workforce, it was just too much. we cannot afford that submarine and continue to do the other thing. >> my understanding is we are not meeting combatant commanders with respect to the request they make on their fleet now, what is in terms of are we combatant commander requests? >> the look of the world distribution of submarines for an intelligent surveillance and reconnaissance -- they need 19,000 summaries at any time deployed. we can support about 10 to 11. we broker how that works. we are about 50%. that is pretty reductive of the overall fleet request versus what we can provide today. box general welsh, when do you 35a to achieve full

capability e >> we hope 2021. >> you and i talked about this when we met. what is your assessment of a 10 -- how closely to important are they to the army? >> i know a general who say they are the best platform we have today. in afghanistan, when they put the lightning pot on it became the most complete -- complete closed air support system. it has performed incredibly well. our soldiers are very confident in the system as it goes forward. air supportt close aircraft. >> can i ask you something? we talk about the savings issues. something i noticed this whole immittee signed up on and

thought very hard not to appropriated, i think it highlights the issue that we andd from senator chambliss senator shaheen on examples of we are all concerned about sequester but making sure that we use the best way possible. one of them that leads to mine -- where we spent $3 11lion between fy four and and i look at some of the -- please tell me that you aren't. >> we are very focused and we have to make tough choices, so we had to spend money on programs that are best for us. i would make one comment and i will make a chart -- only a general comment. the reason someone would go up is because we are pursing -- because you are purchasing a .esson

that drives up the cost of some programs. he look at it very carefully. it is the programs we need that we are going to invest in. programst investing that we are not investing in programs that we don't need. -- we havewant to talked about a topic, afghanistan. ?ow do you assess the situation haveworried that we still men and women serving in afghanistan. to do tot we need secure our interests in afghanistan? can you tell us where are we on this decision and where forced structure will be? with that decision can we get to a point where ever that is it is actually too small. not only the isr issues we

address in afghanistan but also ensuring that our own forces are protected. you and i talked about that. where are we? >> thank you. until we get the bsa approved, that is what we will start we are certainly hopeful that we will get that agreement with the afghan government that allows our soldiers, sailors, and marines to continue to operate in afghanistan. the other thing i would say is i believe we are making incredible progress in afghanistan. we don't talk about that a lot. responsibility but we have to stay with them. it is important we stay with them and they continue to have the confidence of the multi- force behind them. make decisions on residual forces, there comes a time when if we get to for -- two small

and the ability to protect our own forces is at risk, we need to be sure we communicate that to the president. the joint chiefs had these discussions and we will communicate that. >> i understand the feeling people have given the conflicts of wanting to withdraw. what are the interests that are at stake in afghanistan in terms of getting the correct ratio of follow-on forces? >> we need to be sure to protect our soldiers. want to get them there that allows them to do their job and continue to support afghanistan. it has come so far. it is hard to describe to someone who is never been there how far the country has come. made,ogress that has been the security the people feel.

the fact of the afghan security forces are stepping up in a big way to support their own people. but they're not ready to do that on their own so it is important -- we have to provide new kinds of support, training and advising, building institutions, making sure they continue to move forward. there are those that want to take control and they are extremist organizations that will directly threaten the united states. we have come too far, we have invested too much for us to back away from that now. we are on the cusp of being successful. i think it is important that we understand that. >> thank you. donnelly. i want to thank all of you. it is an honor to have you serving and leading our country. privileged to serve with and he was the model

of how to serve the committee, humble, hard-working, incredibly smart. know, his reading list was required reading for the rest of us as well. is -- thisn i have ties into a conversation we once had and you mentioned earlier today that the one-time paying benefits as one third, it looks like it is heading for two thirds -- for each of you, what is it about the proper balance in terms of those cut costs and everything else? what is it about the right balance for each of your forces? >> the best case for us as we between 42% and 45% of our total budget. we are over that at this point. >> admiral?

i agree with the general. 50%. now we are about then we need to look internally and see what it means to our constituency. doesn't really affect them that much? there's that piece of the balance across entitlements. >> owed be thrilled if i was in the low 50s. i don't know if it was realistic that i will be in the 45 to 50 mark. >> it is a shared budget with a -- with the department. it is a pungent of being able to get that down. there are ways we can do that and we can absolutely commit ourselves as the department of defense and commerce to help us do that. that is going to erode my mind power to the point where we

if we stay on the course we are on, somewhere around 2025 will have $.98 for every dollar going into benefits. >> depending on what you include in your accounting of entitlements and benefits package, we are somewhere between 38% and 50%. it is the growth we are worried about. by the way, i think we owe you and the other members of congress a vote of thanks for the great job you have done compensating the men and women who have served all of our armed services over the last 20 years, but growth in that category is now the threat to modernization and readiness, so we believe we need to control that growth over time. >> it would be help to get your best ideas on how to accomplish that on our end as well as we

look forward to how we put these future together for the to hit that proper and right mix. does flexibility help all of you? how significant would that be? >> it depends how you define "flexibility." if you are saying flexibility within each budget, it helps a little bit, but are my line, just around the fringes. probably different for each service. what we need is flexibility across the whole sequester action, as general wells mentioned earlier. of the frontloaded nature of it, it throws us off skew of how we sustain our balance. yearu gave us year to flexibility, there's some things we can do, but in my mind, it's only around the edges and does not really solve the problem. you,is would be to all of but in particular, general brodeur know.

i was in afghanistan in late april, early may in the helmand .rovince as well we had measures we were looking at saying that if we were able to keep on these metrics by december 14, we would be in a position to basically turn everything over to the afghans with some presence of residual forces. there was some controversy -- i should not take controversy, but disagreement. are we ever going to be able to hit these metrics and stay on target? i was just wondering if you would be able to fill us in on where we are. we have turned over responsibility to the afghans and really over 90% of afghanistan. there's only a very few places where they have not taken complete control of their own security. in my mind, they are ahead of the metrics we have established, and they continue to move

forward and do better than we expected faster than we expected. >> senator, we are in exactly the same position. we transitioned about a year ago to training, advise, and assist missions instead of combat operations. we put more senior leaders on the ground so they could partner the battalions, so we built that structure, and we put a one-star general in charge specifically to focus on that. starst brought the one general home, not because we are trying to cut the force, but because it has been met with such great success. by december 2014, will it be just phenomenal? what, we will you have set the conditions for the greatest opportunity for the afghan people to take charge of their lives.

i actually feel very good about it. >> thank you. i see my time is up. >> thank you. .enator vedder >> thank you for your service. i understand you have articulated real problems and readiness, number one, and ofber two, that lack readiness costs lives, and lives are directly at stake, and that concerns us all. thisnk the last time possibility of a real hollow force and significant lack of readiness happened was in the .990's general, i will start with you. would you consider that challenged and -- excuse me, let me rephrase it -- would you consider our challenge today greater or lesser than that

challenge then? >> i believe our challenge is much greater today than it has been since i've been in the army in terms of readiness. this is the lowest readiness level i have seen within our army since i've been surfing for the last 30 years. >> general, i agree, and i think the numbers confirm that. in the 1990's, the general theode i'm describing, military described 80% of conventional and unconventional forces as acceptable with "pockets of deficiency." onay, in contrast, at least the army side, you have said that only 15% of army forces are with 85% being below that. is that correct? >> that is correct, senator. >> that certainly puts numbers on exactly what you said, but today's situation is much worse. in the 1990's, there was a

response to that. president clinton's administration made a specific or postal and worked with everyone, including republicans in congress, to get 20 $5 billion allocated for readiness. will there be a specific administration proposal anytime soon to this far greater challenge? >> i think -- i cannot answer your question, senator. as the chairman said earlier, the negotiations are going on for the budget deal. we hope that there will be something that comes back to the department of defense that allows us to deal with this three to four-your window we have and get rid of this sequestration, which is, as everyone has said here numerous times, a horrible way to do .usiness

>> while i'm familiar with those negotiations, i don't think anything is being discussed currently that approaches a specific, concrete response to this particular problem, and i would urge -- i know you all are not the ultimate decision- makers, but i would urge the administration to put forward a , as presidentstal , and a did in the 1990's situation that i believe you are correct in saying was far less challenging, although it was serious. also want to ask about some readiness issues readinessjoint training and the like. i have a particular interest in that because some of that happened at fort hope in louisiana. sequestration has forced the cancellation of several combat training center rotations. can you describe how important

those rotations are and the impact on that readiness? >> in fiscal year 2013, we had to cancel seven rotations. 5000ave usually a force of to 60,000 men and women going .here we were not able to do that. knowing that, you lose a significant amount of experience and your leaders, which equates to about 250 company commanders, about 50 battalion commanders, and those who did not get the training necessary to do the operation, and now also includes their soldiers. keeps happening. it continually degrades the readiness. in 2014, we will have to focus all of our dollars to seven brigade elements. that's the only money i had to

do that. everyone else is going to go untrained. they will not be able to do the training necessary. forf that is accomplished seven brigades only and no more, how would you describe the impact on critical core competency and readiness? >> that means we will have a force --er 20% of the maybe 25% of the force that is trained in its core competency. the rest will not be trained in core competencies. >> i just want to underscore the specific training we are talking about is the training that is most relevant to the sort of operations we face today. >> that's correct. if we had to deploy the middle that is the where kind of training they are not receiving. what keeps me up at night is that if something happens, they might not be prepared in the way i think the american people expect us to have them prepared. >> right, a final question for

theor all of you -- has standards, in terms of what we are preparing for in fact been lowered over the last few years? the readiness requirements? >> i don't know if i would say lowering. let's take afghanistan for an example. training in afghanistan is very different today. they are being trained through training and advisory missions. they are not training to do full-spectrum operations, which we would normally train them to do because they are just going to do that. they have not been trained in the things that we think are important as we develop the readiness levels in order to respond to contingencies. >> i guess what i'm asking -- let me try to be clear. overall in 2010, the requirement

was to fight two wars on whilele fronts and win engaged in significant counterterrorism operations. has that far been lowered significantly? >> it has. >> as that bar has been lowered significantly, do you think that will -- do you think the world has become a safer place? >> this is the most uncertain i have ever seen the international security environment. >> thank you. chairman.ou, mr. thank you all for your service and for acknowledging the of theutions and service congress. you have all testified with quite a lot of specificity about the negative impacts of .equestration i look at the defense strategic guidance, and i think each of

you has acknowledged that this is an articulation of future threats, challenges, and opportunities, and we face in the form ofes increasing personnel costs, ,ithout meeting the goal without the mindlessness of sequestration. were are some who say that should just give you more flexibility. but in my view, giving you flexibility, which takes sequestration as a starting point, is like moving the deck chairs on the titanic. would you agree with that? is nottor, flexibility the ideal solution. it is getting rid of the mechanism of sequestration. help if we is a cannot do that. >> would you agree that what we need to do is replace sequestration with a more rational approach to what you

all need to do? would all of you agree with that? >> yes, ma'am. >> there are questions related to the unsustainability of personnel costs with regard to all of your budgets. we god like to know, as forward, you must have done some thinking on what kind of factors you would apply in making on changes tos your personnel cost. your philosophical perspective going forward in ?aking your recommendations >> senator, i will take a crack at it if you do not mind. we look at a news that would be reversible. for example, if we were to slow pay raises or something in that regard, something that when done, looks at the impact on the constituency and if that can be reversed because we have to

maintain the all-volunteer course. that is very important. second, it has to be transparent. we have to speak to our folks and make sure they understand why, what, how, and so they understand where they fit in and their families. three, i kind of alluded to this before -- i believe there has to be a balance. housing, tuition assistance, to be able to get agree, is the quality of their life, but when they go to work, what is that polity? do they feel appreciated in that job? do they have what they need -- tools, personnel, oversight, leadership, training, so they are proud of what they do and they can do that? >> senator, from my perspective, i think there's a couple of categories. first one is internal controls to thingslike bonuses we do to recruit and assessment

rings. we have gone back to that in the last 12 months and called out .ome significant savings internally, those are the mechanisms we are balancing with regard to retention and recruitment. but this holistic package of force -- i had a piece we are writing on because will you do not break the all volunteer force. i think there is plenty of room to maneuver, by the way, before you get there, but we just need to be mindful that we have had this all volunteer force. we have asked a lot of it, and i have actually done remarkably well, and it's probably a model for every nation around the world, but inside of that, there is room to maneuver on health care costs. there is room to maneuver

perhaps on pay raises. there is room to maneuver on basic allowance for housing. right now, it is typically on a rise.rcent -- 2% to 3% there are things like that we are working on. >> my time is almost up, but i take it all of you would make these kinds of recommendations with the view to make sure that of thereally mindful need to support our troops and to support their families so that we are not going to take away the kinds of benefits and programs that they rely upon as you move forward to decrease these personnel costs. >> that is exactly right. we have to take into consideration what it takes to maintain an all-volunteer army. theave to maintain that in front of our minds. but the best way to take care of a soldier and a family is make

sure he is properly trained, and when he goes somewhere, he comes back to his family. part ofto balance that it with making sure they can live the quality of life with the service they are giving to our nation. it is finding the right balance, and we think we have networks to do that. >> my time is almost up, but i have questions i will be submitting, having to do with how sequester is impacting the research and development efforts across all of our services and making sure that we maintain an industrial basis point of view. i think it was admiral greenert who mentioned it's really important to maintain our industrial base. thank you. >> thank you. >> thanks to all of you for your service to our country and for joining us today. i deeply appreciated -- appreciate it.

on behalf of the constituents i have back in utah, i expressed my gratitude to you. for the last two years, we have heard a lot from a lot of high- military officials like yourself who have come before this committee and others in front of the men and women they command and in front of the american people to express the great concerns they have about sequestration and what it could do to our military readiness and everything we do through our military. i have urged members of congress on both sides of the aisle and ends of congress, and i have heard my constituents, many of whom are currently serving or have served in the military expressed similar concerns. it is an interesting conversation. sad that we had to be having this conversation, especially since sequestration was something put into law at a time

when nobody believed it would ever happen. it was supposed to do -- supposed to be so bad that we would do anything and everything in order to avoid it, and yet, it has arrived. my first question, which i will leave open to any of you who might want to answer it, i want to know about the means by which, the format by which, the regularity with which you communicate these kinds of concerns, the sorts of concerns we are talking about today, about the impact of sequestration on readiness and the department of defense generally. how and in what way do you communicate those concerns to the white house? off, as say that first the joint chiefs, we meet twice a week to discuss many key ,ssues to include policy issues and we clearly have discussions, and the chairman -- as the

chairman take steps to the white house, but we also have periodic meetings with the white house. in fact, we have one next week where we will be able to discuss many of these issues with the president. i think he has been very open in meeting with the joint chiefs on these types of things. there are forms in place to do that. we also obviously meet on a regular basis with the secretary of defense, where we have the opportunity to talk about the issues we have, and he has the opportunity to take those forward. there are avenues that we use on a quite regular basis. >> if i understand you, you do meet regularly with the white house, and you are able to communicate these openly and effectively to people at the white house at the highest levels. that is good to hear. i have not sensed the same level

of alarm coming from the white , i have not sensed that same level of concern coming from you. i have not heard the same level of concern, the level of alarm that i'm hearing from you, and that does cause me some concern. it seems if the administration think the situation is as dire as you are explaining to us, i would expect to see that issue, though set of issues receive a lot more time and attention. going along with that, on preparing for sequestration in 2013 were not until just a few months before it went into effect.

the president did not consider the possibility of sequestration in his 2014 budget request despite the fact that it is law, despite the fact that that law has not been repealed and has not been modified in a way that makes it irrelevant or less relevant. can any of you described for the committee what instructions if any you are receiving from the white house and from omb with regard to how to deal with and theation in 2014 budget for fiscal year 2015? >> that is being prepared, and today, we are deliberating on

that public program request review. there is also a secondary level that is under consideration, a higher level that we also will deliberate over. there's an option available, but we are focusing in the department right now on the .lternative but there are two options. that.nk you, admiral, for when you say so that there is an option available, you mean so we have options on the table? >> there are options. chosen and will be under what circumstances i really could not tell you, senator, but if you wanted to know what we are directed to do, that is what we are doing. again, those two levels. >> is a mobley, those options would be considered by the president and the secretary of defense, and at some point, the decision will be made.

>> yes, sir. >> i see my time is expired. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. there's a lot of discussion about flexibility. it seems to me in this situation, the way to think about it is we are telling you you have to cut a finger off, and you get to decide which one. that is an unattractive form of having to make decisions. want to talk about morale and the effect of this. impression i came back from the middle east with an extremely favorable impression of the young people we have working for the united states government in the military and the intelligence community, in the state department. these are idealistic, hard- working, dedicated people who we are, frankly, not treating very well. they've and through furloughs.

they've been through a shutdown. they've got a sequester. they do not know what the future of their benefit programs are. is this starting to play itself out in terms of retention and ?ecruitment and morale >> thank you. i would say this to pieces -- the civilian workforce and the military workforce. the civilian workforce, we are seeing -- i'm not saying morale issues, but there are questions because they've been through a furlough. they went through shutdown, and --hink they are questioning and a reduction along with that, so they are questioning how stable their work environment is. in terms of the soldiers, the way i explain it is morale is good, but tenuous. reenlistments are fine. recruitment is going ok. angst, and a lot of the angst is kind of what you just said. people talk about benefits.

people are talking about -- obviously, in the army, we are simply reducing the size of the force. they are worried about the future, but what makes me feel is whatgood about it you just described. the morale is high. they are doing exactly what we asked them to do. they are training as hard as they can with what we give them. they are working to the best of their ability, and it is frustrating to me because of their personal dedication to our nation and our army, and yet, they have a lot of angst, both individually and with their families because of the discussion that is going on, that they might lose jobs, might lose benefits. as theynspiring continue to do what we asked them and they do it to the best of their ability, and that's the best way to describe it to you. >> i think our civilians -- i do not have any metrics for this yet because it's too soon to tell, but when i talk to our mentionedarines, as i

in my opening statement, our civilian marines are looking at this going, "i love the institution. . love being a civilian marine i like what it stands for. i just don't have confidence in it now. -- and it now." is going the sequester to require a cut in civilian personnel. it will require a cut in civilian personnel. there's no question about it. you look at all the things they gone through. i don't see people jumping ship, but i do worry about it he cuts they are the professionals. that's the civilian side of the house, and they are the shock absorber for us. inside of my force, the marine corps is a young marine corps. they are somewhere between 18 years old and probably 22.

they did not come into sit down at home stations. they actually like deploying. when you go visit them in afghanistan, in the western pacific, you do not get questions like, "what is the e?"uester going to do to mak they want to know if it will be their last deployment. our morale is pretty high right now, and i think it's going to stay high as long as we give them something to look forward to. the reorientation to the pacific is just reenergized -- has just reenergized a lot of marines. we talk about darwin, australia. we talk about japan. we talked about guam, and their eyes light up, so the morale in my service is pretty high.

>> an anecdote -- i had two of -- my systems commands, they have a lot of civilians, and they came to me and said, "you will not have to worry about headquarters reduction and a reduction in force. we have a lot of people retiring, so that struck me because that's a lot of seniority and talent and experience going out the top, and we do not have a lot going in the bottom, so we will be out of balance, and i spoke about that in my statement. kidsal wells mentioned getting bored. in the navy, we are starting to develop a situation where when you get ready to deploy, you are going to get ready, but you got to do it fast and hard. -- they are flying a lot and training a lot for about seven months, and they barely have time to get there will done, their power of attorney dunn, and then they are months, and they

longingly look up the window at , and saynet aircraft they wish they could fly again. when that gets into service records, you're going to get kind of a have and have not feeling about it, and i worry about that in morality and eventually retention. you would commend to all of gentlemen an extraordinary speech that was given just in the last couple of weeks. he talked about what you have been saying all morning, but he put it very bluntly and sustainably. he said the greatest threat to american national security now lies within a square mile and encompasses capitol hill and the white house and that we are the .roblem it was very stark, and i think that's the point you have been making today. what we are talking about here is not academic. it's not dollars on a balance sheet. it's lies, readiness, and the

ability to defend this nation -- , readiness, and the ability to defend this nation. >> thank you, and i would add my thanks to you gentlemen for your service to this country and also to the men and women who served under you for their commitment to keeping us all safe. i would like to go on a different track here a little bit. july, senate secretary hegel released a statement on the strategic choices management review, and it is basically how the department is going to cope with the sequestration over the next 10 years. before thetimony house armed services committee, you stated that the skimmer was based on assumptions which you somewhat as rosie and dangerous. specifically, you pointed out that it assumes conflict will last just six months, little to

no casualties will be sustained, stabilityup operations will be necessary, u.s. forces deployed elsewhere disengage ando redeployed to support a major regional contingency, and the use of mass weapons of destruction was not considered. can you elaborate on those assumptions and the danger you refer to about building pore structure based on those assumptions? >> if you reduce the requirement, you reduce the amount of forces that are necessary. we do not have the ability to .eplace our soldiers it's about quantity, and so, for example, a career would last less than a year, there's nothing that makes me feel that that is a good assumption, that casualties have any

during a war somewhere around the world. the fact that we do full disengagement -- we just fought two wars. we did not disengage from other places around the world. it's just not assumptions i believe are appropriate. what i worry about is in the end, the weight of those on me.ions will not be it will be on our young men and women who are asked to do a mission they simply do not have the capability and quantity of capability to accomplish, and it ,esults in more casualties which is in my mind the most critical thing. it also makes rosy assumptions about our ability to quickly build a larger force. 2000's while we were fighting two wars, it took us years to make the decision to say we could grow the army. once we did that, it took about 32 months because you have got to recruit them and then trade them -- and then train them.

it is impossible to do within six or eight months. we had this assumption that we would magically be able to build a huge army and a short time, and it does not happen that way unless we go to national mobilization, go back to the draft. even then, it would take longer than six months to a year. assumptions like that that i think are incredibly risky as we go forward. >> do you think this review is helpul in any way to planning within your different departments? >> it is. there are some things that are good about it. efficiencies.out there are clearly efficiencies that we still have to garner out of our own budgets, and we have to do that, so some of that is very good, but i do significantly worry about these assumptions we make about our war fighting capabilities. i think they are rosie and

somewhat dangerous. >> thank you. admiral, do you have anything to add? to keep inwe need mind, it was options for a future, which was described. that's nice, but we have never been able to predict that future, so it is kind of dangerous if you are wrong. for writing presents we reduce force structure to a level where we are not out in about, our allies are wondering about our reliability. our allies, therefore potential adversaries can get out of hand, if you will, and we can pretty much have a mess because we are not deterring those by being together with our allies, and that is a great deterrent effect. lastly, i would say the ability to produce ready forces -- you have got to look at that very closely. there were some assumptions made, and we talked about the

debilitating effects and the industrial base. that can be quite extraordinary. >> i have had some comments made to me that president reagan was able to build up a force fairly quickly when he became president. would you agree with that? both of you have said it is difficult to build a force up quickly. has it happened in the past? increase the size. what he did was increase the investment into the force. during the reagan buildup, we increased our readiness. we significantly increased our modernization programs, which had an incredible impact on the .apability that was developed >> yes, ma'am. world, they of in my ships and aircraft, took place quite a bit after the investment, if you will. the same thing occurs when you draw down. boom, they are gone.

you have to make sure you have shipbuilders and aircraft builders as well, so president reagan was fortunate in that regard that he had a broad enough industrial base to be able to respond. >> just briefly. i'm with my colleagues on president reagan. we lived with his legacy through the 1990's. cameed the equipment that from the reagan buildup, and we sustained that even through the 25%, 28% reduction of forces in the 1990's. but it takes a long time to build a force of people. in today's market, it takes a long time to develop ships, airplanes. we are seeing that right now. >> and your opinion of the assumptions of the skimmer. did you have an opinion on

those? did you have any thoughts you wanted to share? >> i share my colleagues' apprehension. i think the assumptions were too altruistic, but i do think it was helpful because it gave a range of what a service should look like, and i think that is helpful because it energized the dialogue and got everybody moving. >> thank you. >> another assumption that a significant based on where we are today is that skimmer was underlined by the assumption that our force was fully ready, and that allowed you to execute the strategy. we are clearly not there today. the other thing i would mention about the reagan buildup is during the timeframe of the reagan buildup, we purchased new aircraft, and the latest buildup built topline budget, we 260, so we cannot modernize.

a lot of that is due to the rise in personnel costs that we discussed, so the force still needs to be modernized. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chair, and to the witnesses. appreciate your patience with us . the effect of sequester on virginia is just so palpable in all the communities that i visit . i gave a speech on the 27th of february, and i think most maiden speeches are, "here's who i am" or "let me tell you about my state" or "here's what i want to do." i don't think many maiden speech were -- i don't think many maiden speeches were like mine -- "let's not do something it was right on the eve of the sequester kicking in.

53 votes was not enough to turn off the sequester. i just think it's always very important that we say this, and you can be more diplomatic than i will be -- it's because of congress. sequester is because congress had not done a budget. sequester is because we have not been able to find a deal in normal order. we have not been able to find a deal in supercommittee's. we have not been able to do anything other than kick the can down the road continuing resolution. have fixed this. congress should not have put in place. congress can fix it, and the one bit of good news is there's a budget conference finally going on right now. one of the things i would certainly ask everyone connected with the military or who loves it, whether you are an active veteran or just a patriot, tell the budget conferees, and there are some of us around this table -- tell us to get a budget deal by the 13th of september -- the 13th of december.

there have been questions along the lines of have you explained to the president how sequester is hurting national security, and i found those questions kind of odd. the president submits a budget .very year to congress i imagine that you talk to the .resident about your needs if congress would just pass the president's budget or pass the dod portion of the president's budget, or pass something within the general time zone of the dod portion of the president's would our readiness issues be much easier to deal with than they are under the sequester? would. sir, they was submitted and testified to, i, for one, found that it was acceptable. >> so there's not a need for a president to come and bring a special request.

"we are having readiness problems. here's my proposal for how we deal with readiness problems." all we do is pass a budget and get in the general time zone or area of what the president is proposing. while it would not eliminate all the challenges we have, we would not be here looking at charts like this, would we? i want to ask you a question. i looked through your written testimony quickly. you said something pretty blunt in your opening comment. i think i heard you use the word "ashamed, and i think it was in connection with you are ashamed of the way we are treating our civilians -- i think i heard you use the word "ashamed." could you refresh me on exactly what you said? i want to understand what you meant by it. >> i said i'm ashamed of the way

we have treated our civilian marines. wentlook back at how we through the furlough and how we went through this government shutdown, i'm looking at them -- them asay, we required soon as they came back to help us get this budget put in, close out all the deals at the end of the year. these are the professionals that do that. it's typically not military people trying to get all the money obligated. the professionals that are working on our airplanes, ships, tanks, our equipment. i will be honest with you -- when i look at them in the eye, i'm embarrassed. i'm ashamed. i think they are every it -- every bit as much patriots as we do wear the uniform are, and i think we treat them poorly. that's what i meant. >> i appreciate you saying that. dealing with the problem that congress created

and only congress can fix. peppering you with more questions about whether you are appropriately informing the commander-in-chief about these effects is an effort to kind of .void looking in the mirror we just have to look in the mirror in this place. again, we do have a good opportunity right now because the budget conference that should have started in march is now under way to try to find some certainty. general dempsey was with us the other day and said the problem with sequester is its money, timing, and flexibility, and all s.ree of those create problem' i worry about your planners. i think you have some curb landers, but instead of -- superb planners, but we are tying up their time making them figure out how to deal with an uncertain budgetary situation. you do not have a budgetary number right now. you do not know when you will

have a number, and you do not know what the rules will be about the number you will eventually get at some uncertain time. we are in an uncertain world. we are making your task almost , so i feel ashamed. i feel ashamed to have you come back here again and again and again and tell us the same thing and not see any action and do anything about it. >> sir, can i comment? under continued resolution. you know that. it's a forced diet that prevents us from signing multiyear .ontracts 3/4 of it is for the president's the rebalance to the pacific. i will not be able to commit that. i will not be able to do those kinds of things. i was just looking through numbers in preparation for this hearing. ,s a result of sequester alone

just in marine aviation alone, .t will cost me $6.5 billion we talk about cost overruns and all the other things we are trying to call the money out of -- 6.5 billion dollars because of multiyear contracts that i cannot sign or that are canceled, so i have to pay penalties or airplanes that i'm buying on an individual basis. simply because of the inefficient way we are going about doing business in this sequester. another hearing on this, i'm going to suggest something you are all too .iplomatic and reasonable to do if we have another hearing on sequestration, you can bring whatever charts you want, but i

suggest you just bring a bunch of mirrors and put them up so we can look at ourselves and our own faces as we talk about this. it's the only place he are going to solve this. this is not on you to solve. it's not on the president to solve. only congress can pass a budget. a congressional budget office not even go to congress for a signature. it is fully within this body and fully within our power to solve this. i pray that we will. >> the public gets this. the public understands it. that's why our approval rating .s below al qaeda it's a sad statement. theid each of you support president's budget request? >> yes. >> yes, sir, i did. >> yes, sir. >> second, would you give us a breakdown for the record of that $6.5 billion that you made reference to? realize we are going to vote, so i'm going to be very

quick. >> i will turn the gavel over to you. is it safe? >> that's an awesome responsibility, but i think i'm capable of it. we are in the middle of a vote, so i will be very brief. first, i understand, mr. chairman, and a glaring omission on the part of our committee, we have not yet wished general amos a happy birthday, even though it is a little bit early. happy birthday. >> thank you, senator. >> for the record, i do not want to take your time with this, but senatorwith what the just said about the responsibility being on the part .f congress i think part of the way to deal with this crisis -- and it really is a crisis -- is to perhaps modify some of the long-term, some of the procurement process, which is not your doing. you are not the ones who in effect burdened the military

services with the way we do srocurement, and the contract which in effect penalize the united states when it fails to make certain orders or when there are cost overruns that are not your doing. i would like the panel to look at some of the procurement decisions, such as general amos has just described, where we are in effect going to pay a lot more for weapons, whether it's , as anes or ships consequence of sequester so that we have some example. they do not have to be in charts, but we need to be able to convince the american people about what the impact of sequester is because right now, it's a word. it's a term that has little or no meaning to 99.9% of the american people.

one of the other weapons systems you described -- admiral thenert, i understand virginia payload module, which results in a $743 million design to the virginia class submarine has been undermined by a potential cut in the 2014 budget. , support that design change and i think it will measurably add, and toly remove the money for designing and researching it i believe loss of aally a tremendous opportunity. would you agree? will., sir, i we talked about the undersea domain. it is a high priority for us.

as i discussed the concept of reprogramming, we will search for that money. we are fortunate that it is a long-term program and we are in the early stages, but obviously, the impact if we continue this will be dramatic. >> i also want to raise again issue,-17 helicopter where i understand there may be limits to what we can do to reprogram money. i just want to state for the record $1 billion to buy helicopters from the russian export agency that is also filling orders to serious -- have when we do not afghan-trained personnel to maintain those helicopters will strike most americans as a tremendous waste of money, first because we are not buying american helicopters, which we should be doing if we have to provide helicopters at all, and second, because the afghans

cannot use them as we would hope they would. i understand that you may have different positions, meaning the united states army or the department of defense, but if we are going to buy those helicopters, we should be buying them from american manufacturers and training the afghans how to use them. i wantuld just say that to make it clear we are not buying those helicopters for our forces. >> right, i understand. >> second, that was a decision made in theater based on their assessment of the ability for the afghans -- they think they could in fact learn and train on them because that's what they had in the past. agent to purchase those aircraft for them, but that's a decision made i those closest to that issue. >> i understand, we are not buying those helicopters for american forces. they are being bought for the

afghans, but we are using american taxpayer dollars, which could be used for the virginia payload module, or any other of the very important needs that you have and that we need to address. that thosed decisions have been made as a result of recommendations by commanders in the field, and i just want to state for the record my reservations about that decision. very much. thank you to each of you for your service to our nation. i think i am in charge of gaveling to close, even though i do not have a gavel, but this hearing is adjourned. thank you very much for being here and your excellent testimony. >> monday is veterans day, and we will bring you live coverage of the ceremony at arlington national cemetery beginning at 11:00 eastern.

the president talked about veterans day and contributions made by u.s. servicemen and women in his weekly address. indiana representative todd young delivered the republican address talking about the impact of the health care law since its implementation on october 1. >> hello, everybody. veterans day weekend is a chance for all of us to state two simple words -- thank you. thank you to that greatest generation who fought island by island across the pacific to free millions from fascism in europe. thank you to the heroes who risked everything through the biddle -- bitter cold of korea and stifling heat of vietnam. thank you to all the heroes who have served, most recently our 9/11 generation of veterans from iraq and afghanistan. now that more of them are coming home, we need to serve them as well as they serve us, and that requires more than a simple thank you, especially from those of us who have been elected to

serve. i have often said that my top priority is growing the economy, creating jobs, and restoring middle-class security, and a very important part of that is making sure every veteran has every chance to share in the opportunity he or she has helped defend. in addition to the care and thatits they have earned, means a good job, good education, and a home to call their own. if you fight for your country overseas, you should never have to fight for a job when you come home. i've made sure the federal government lead by example, and since i took office, we've hired 300,000 veterans to keep serving their country. our new transition assistance program is helping veterans and their spouses find that new job and plan their career. i will keep calling on congress to do the right thing and pass the veterans job corps. put our veterans to work rebuilding america. let them gain unmatched gills --

skills. we are also doing what we can to connect more businesses with highly skilled veterans. to earn licenses and credentials for civilian jobs, and new tax credits for companies that hire veterans and wounded warriors. tax credits, which congress should make permanent. and america's businesses have worked with michelle and jill 's joining forces campaign to help heroes find jobs in the private sector. they have already hired or orined 200,000 veterans military spouses, and they've committed to hiring over 400,000 more. we are also committed to giving today's veterans and their families the same shot at a great education this country gave my grandfather when he came home from world war ii. we are helping more of them earn their degrees under the post- g.i. bill. we have worked with thousands of schools across the country to set new standards to protect against dishonest recruiting and predatory lending practices that target our veterans, and we are helping hundreds of community

colleges and universities do more to welcome and encourage our veterans on campus. thanks to these efforts and the efforts of the private sector, we have made progress getting our veterans back to work, but we've got a lot more work to do, and is more than one million of our troops returned to civilian life, we will have to work even harder because the skill, dedication, and courage of our troops is unmatched, and when they come home, we all benefit from their efforts to build a stronger america and a brighter future for our kids. so to our veterans on behalf of our entire nation, thank you for everything you have done and will continue to do for our entire nation. as your commander-in-chief, i'm proud of your service and grateful for your sacrifice. as long as i am president, i will make it my mission to make sure that america has your back not just one day or one weekend, but 365 days a year. thanks. god bless you, and have a great

weekend. >> hello, i'm congressman tom young -- todd young from the great state of indiana. i've heard heartbreaking stories from many hoosiers about the impact the new health care law is having on them and their families. i would like to share with you some of their experiences. mike from bloomington wrote in to say that the plan he has now, which he likes, is being canceled at the end of the year. this, of course, is exactly what the president and other champions of the law promised would not happen. him's new plan will cost $900 more a month. scott from salem shared his story about how shortly after being told his company would cover the 20% increase for employee health care coverage, several of his coworkers were laid off. and annual christmas bonuses were canceled. alan from jeffersonville asked us for help with his wife laura 's situation. for eight years, she's been

battling a form of incurable cancer. she was getting insurance through a pool which is dissolving because of the new law. after 25 days of trying, the couple was finally able to get only tohcare.gov discover that just one company currently offers insurance for them through the website. unfortunately, that company will doctors andura's her out-of-pocket expenses to keep those doctors would go up by more than $20,000 a year. it, their family basically has two choices -- one, and her treatment, or two, go broke. and there's morgan from bloomington, who shares with me this cancellation notice his wife kathy received. to afford a lapse in coverage, she must sign up for a new plan. i hung up this letter last week

at a hearing with the medicare administrator responsible for the exchange. her suggestion was that they go to the website. sure enough, they tried. because the white house said the problem -- was to meet people trying to sign up at once, marvin and kathy even set their alarm clock in the middle of the night. after a month of trying and it looksowhere and now like they will have to buy private insurance. they know it will probably cost more, but they would rather have that certainty and avoid federal penalties and more worried and sleepless nights. this is what the trail looks like. here you have hard-working people who are repeatedly told not to worry and that their coverage would sit insane and, if anything, the cost would go down. just the opposite