everybody else. so what we are saying here, mr. speaker, is if these exemptions are good enough for big businesses, and if these exemptions are good enough for insurance companies, shouldn't they also be good enough for hardworking taxpayers who are struggling in this bad economy that the president's given us, and under the weight of this unworkable law that the president himself is acknowledging is unworkable by giving all these exemptions away to everybody else? now, if you look at the law, mr. speaker, the president doesn't have the legal authority to just waive a law, to literally take out a pen and change the law. what the president does have is the ability to work with us in congress in a bipartisan way, which when you look at the vote on this bill it will be bipartisan in support of giving these hardworking taxpayers that same exemption, but this law, obamacare, is built on a foundation of broken promises. if you like what you have, you can keep it. of course it's probably the most broken promise in political history. but there's more, the president said insurance costs will be

lowerment insurance costs are higher for families. the president even said he'll meet with anybody who has a better idea. we do have a better idea, mr. speaker. over 120 members of congress, including medical doctors, have co-sponsored the american health care reform act. we took the president up on his promise now almost three months ago and the president has refused to fulfill that promise of meeting with anybody who has a better idea. he won't even sit down and talk with us about a better idea to put patients back in charge of health care. there is a better way. we ought to treat people fairly. this bill does it. i urge cooperation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from kansas reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: is the lady from kansas ready to close? ms. jenkins: i see no other speakers, so i'm prepared to close. mr. mcdermott: i have one member in transit. let me say a few things until he gets here. i listened to this and i've been in congress 25 years, and i have

listened to republicans talk about what we ought to do about health care. and they have never brought a bill to the committee, chairman's mark, for us to mark up and bring out on the floor. now, if you have a solution for the fact that health care costs re you biggest costs driving bankruptcy in this country, where is it? you don't like what you have here. now, when i was younger, i lived through the implementation of medicare. american medical association and everybody was just up and down and it was the worst thing. if we put in medicare, that was going to be the end of the world and we never would have health care in this country and

we went on and on about that. they so poisoned the well that when people went out to recruit people to get in the medicare program people said, i am not going to have none of that socialistic medicine in my house. because that's what it was called. that's what people were doing in 1964 and 1965. this is a rerun of that very same movie. the republicans want to kill the idea and leave the american people out there on their own. it is -- it is probably the single best example of the difference between the republicans and the democrats. the democrats have put something out here and we're trying to help all americans. is it perfect? this isn't anybody on my side who had' say it was. we had some -- who'd say it was. we had some hearings. there's all types of problems out there.

but there hasn't been any hearings on this bill, how to fix it. i talked to bill frist some months ago. he said, jim, there's no reason to repeal it. you ought to fix it, make it work. make it work for the american people. one of the interesting things that i hear out here over and over again, it must be confusing to folks at home. the president said if you like our health care you can keep it. , the t will still exist president didn't say, i'm going to tell the insurance companies you got to keep those plans out there. that wouldn't be the -- that wouldn't be the free enterprise system. what you have, you don't like the free enterprise system. as soon as the president passed this bill, immediately we had people in the insurance industry pulling down plans all over the country, sending out

mailings saying you lost your health care coverage. i sometimes wonder if global warming isn't really -- climate change is really not because of obama's health care. i hear it's the cause of every evil. people losing jobs. people -- i don't know. whatever's going on in the country, it's because of obamacare. that's foolishness. when you try and change a program for 20 million or 30 million people, you are bound to have some problems, and we're having them and we're working them out and it was awful at the beginning. it's better now, and it's better today than it was three months ago and it will be. it will continue to improve because the american people need it. they absolutely need it. and the foolishness of coming out here and trying again to convince the american people, if we just got rid of this -- i had a woman in my district who was an opera singer. she went to germany.

she got on the german health care system. instantly, boom, you're in. anybody who goes to germany's in, and her daughter got leukemia. her daughter was treated for leukemia and got into remission and the mother finished her contract and came home to the united states. she could not find an insurance company anyplace in this country that would give her insurance for her daughter. none. now, that's what you want to go back to. you want to go back to the time when a parent can't find an insurance company that will take care of their kid, and that's the kind of thing we've been watching for as long as i've been in congress and before that. nd this bill has begun to stop that. we had lifetime limits. some cancers eat up a lot of money real quickly. bone marrow transplants,

$125,000 or more. and people wind up unable to purchase the medication. all of that is covered by this bill, and you're saying to people, no, we want to go back to 1930. we like the dust bowl. we like the hard times of the 1930's. we don't want any of this stuff. and in my view this is a perfect place for democrats to vote no and republicans, of course, will vote yes and the american people will make a judgment in the recognizes the

gentlewoman from florida, ms. new biography of stokely carmichael. defense secretary chuck hagel was questioned about proposed cuts laid out in the president's budget plan for the pentagon. the obama administration wants todo reduce defense spending 490 $5 billion in fiscal year 2015. that is $113 billion less than last year's budget proposal. secretary hagel was joined by joint chiefs of staff chairman general martin dempsey, carl levin chairs the senate armed services committee.

>> good morning, everybody. we meet today to hear from you about the fiscal year it 2015

and we do so at a time of extraordinary challenge and uncertainty for the department of defense and for the nation. members of this committee are well aware of the threats that face our military around the world today from an unreliable arner and the president of afghanistan to a dangerous and unstable situation in ukraine from an al qaeda resurgence in syria and iraq to a new set of challenges in asia and the pacific rim. hanging over all those issues is a fundamental question. the budget proposal before us makes clear and stark terms. the question is whether the resources that were providing -- we are providing to the department of defense are adequate to enable our military to meet its national security missions. the proposal before us makes reductions and structure and

compensation that will be difficult for many to support. these reductions are driven by the top line of the budget, a top line that congress dictated when we enacted the budget control act of 2011. and reaffirm with minor relief for the department of defense in theer agencies bipartisan budget act we enacted earlier this year. the top line of $496 billion established in law for the budget is5 defense unchanged from the funding level 2014.cal years 2013 and andrew means more than $30 billion below the funding provided to the department in fiscal years 10, 11, and 12. put simply, the spending caps included in that legislation

seriously challenge our ability to meet our national security needs and to meet our obligation to protect and promote public safety, health education, justice, transportation, the environment, and other domestic needs. the budget control act cut $487 billion from the department of defense budget over 10 years and the sequestration cut another $500 billion on top of that. the bipartisan budget act that that wetly passed means will partially avoid 15uestration for 2014 and but only partially. while we have made some progress against the deficit, we have done so not by making these structural reforms to revenues and entitlement programs that would put us on a sound financial footing, but by continuing cuts to the funding that the department of defense and other federal programs need

to meet important national priorities. this shortfall requires painful trade-offs and just about every area of the department of defense budget. for instance, the budget proposes significantly lower and strengths for the ground forces including a further reduction of army and active duty strengths with smaller reductions in the guardian reserve. the budget restricts the pay raise for service members below the rate of inflation, freezes pay for general and flag -- freezes pays for general and flag officers, begins a phase reduction in the growth of the housing allowance that will result in service members paying five percent out-of-pocket for housing costs, reduces support to commissaries

and makes significant changes to the tri-care benefit. the budget also calls for retiring the air force's a-10 and u-2 aircraft, and activating half of the cruiser fleet, reducing the size of the helicopter fleet by 25% and terminating the ground combat vehicle program. if sequestration budget levels remain in effect in fiscal years 2016 and beyond them a the department of defense has informed us that it will request further reductions in end strength, the retirement of the entire tanker fleet and the global hawk block 40 fleet and reducing joint start fighters and unmanned vehicles, the inactivation of ships and produced purchases of destroyers and the elimination of an aircraft carrier and a carrier air wing. the argument for these cuts is

that they are needed to pay for the restoration of some of our reduced readiness and protect the investments in technology and equipment that we need to ensure that our men and women in uniform will continue to be the best prepared, best equipped force in the world in a time of sharply reduced budget. the department has wisely chosen to increase its investment in the areas of cyber operations and special operations. need for increased capability is most clear. the department has also correctly recognized that while our military may need to be smaller, it must not the hollow. what ever it size. actinghacking -- as the deputy secretary of defense told us last month if we do not provide enough funding, the latest technology they need, we're doing them a disservice and when we send them into harms harm's way, that the service can

quickly translate into a breach of trust created we went to restore funding cuts proposed in the president's budget, we have two choices. we can raise the statutory findng caps or we can other savings in the defense budget to pay for any proposed cuts that we do not want to make. the budget proposal itself takes the first approach with proposed spending above the statutory caps. this is the so-called opportunity growth and security initiative which would provide an additional $56 billion of funding government wide in fiscal year 2015, including an additional $26 billion for the department of defense. in addition, the future years capsassumes that the established in the balanced budget act established in law

would be modified and that the department would receive $115 billion above the statutory caps for the four years starting in fy 15-16. we're told the administration has proposals to pay for these increases but we have not yet seen the details. the many other program and budget issues that we need to address, we are interested in hearing more specifics from today's witnesses about proposed funding above the statutory caps. the $26 billion in the so-called opportunity fund for fiscal year 15 and $115 billion above the .aps in subsequent fiscal years we need to know how this additional money would be used to help restore more of our military readiness and what the

consequences would be if congress fails to provide this additional funds. while these funds would not be -- fully offset the damage that spending caps have done, the added money would hopefully help make our looming collision lessbudget reality damaging. the corner that the budget control act has painted the department into has forced you to make some difficult choices. we will scrutinize the recommendations. i have no doubt that in some cases our choices will differ from yours. that should not distract us from the larger issue. that is the budget caps are not -- now in law provided department of defense and the entire federal government with

resources that are unequal to the mission that we expect you to carry out. up hope that we can come to an agreement that will provide more adequate funding to meet our national security and other vital priorities. you to commentk as part of your own statement on the current situation in ukraine and to inform us and the public as to what your view is on these rapidly unfolding events. >> the recent events across the middle east and ukraine has brought into sharp focus the reality that president obama seems unwilling to accept. that the tide of war is not receding. u.s. national security is being charged in ways we have never seen before. during a recent trip i made through africa and europe and

afghanistan meant -- and met with our foreign partners to my they made clear that the global security environment they're facing a small -- more volatile and complex than anytime time in recent memory and growing or dangerous by the day. ukrainept invasion of only underscores his troubling reality. the director of national intelligence told this committee in february that looking back and -- and-century intelligence i have not experienced it time when we have not been more beset by crises around the globe. women are being robbed of tools at a time when we face the most damaging threats to our national security. we are poised to cut a fence

budgets i $1 trillion during this decade. been there.t the navy is at a historical low level of ships. the air force the smallest in history. ground forces may fall to the level below the beginning of world war ii. use the termw hollow to describe their ability to defend the nation. last october general cody are now said he had two brigades and combat teams out of 40 that were ready for combat. secretary hagel, you said last week you said america -- american dominance on the skies and seas and space can no longer be taken for granted. i appreciate your honesty. military's technological superiority is

being challenged in ways i have not seen before. some in this town have accepted ist cutting our military necessary to rein in debt. defense spending is not what is driving our debt crisis. runaway entitlement spending is the real reiber. accountsty is defense for 16% of annual spending while entitlement spending accounts for more than 60%. if you look at the last two bars, that is 14 and 15 which shows that your benefits are increasing even more. that is two percent more while our defense is going down from 17 to 16%. it is not getting any better. it is getting worse. over the last five years the president has chosen to ignore the facts. not once during his time in the

-- in office has the president put forth any reform to entitlement spending. he has demonstrated that politics takes priority over our fiscal house and far too often it is our military men and women that are paying the price. this year's budget is no different. the growth and security initiative continues this troubling trend and holds necessary resources for our military that can be used to begin rebuilding readiness and capability. that is irresponsible. what is being done to our military is not new. we have made the statement before. s werelitary drawdown budget driven. it left the country with the military too small to meet the stability -- and stability and

rising threats of a dangerous world. today our forces are being asked to do more with less training, and equipment, and untimely less capability. lacks an increased assessment of the [inaudible] our servicemen and women are forced to make. as we have said, risk equals lives. thank you for this opportunity to present our budget for fy 2015 and to address some of the specific questions that the chairman noted as well as ranking member

hof.alf -- im how we made those decisions. i appreciate being here today to chairman =-- dempsey. hisve valued his counsel, leadership, his partnership. i appreciate his service. i know this committee appreciate his leadership and service to the country. i want to acknowledge bob hale who is our current comptroller who will be involved in his last after fiveentation years of very distinguished service to this country and the

department of defense. as secretary of defense and i suspect my would say the same, bob hale has been an end of the -- indispensable part of the process at a difficult time. hale and his people have worked tirelessly at a time when it is uncertain as we have been through maybe any time since world war ii. when we talked about government shutdowns for 16 days, furloughs, budget uncertainty, been his, it has remark will leadership that has helped us. i do not think i ever state bob hale's value to our department in this country. suggest our focus

budget, let me suggest [indiscernible] general dempsey for his comments. touche been in constant with our fellow administrators at nato as well as russia, ukraine.

i spoke saturday with the russian minister of defense about this. we have also constantly been in ourch as i said with collaborators on our side of .he atlantic, i was at nato last week where i regularlyhe administered nato meeting. the minister of defense

with us and spend some time with him. across the administration, our efforts as you now have been focused on de-escalating crisis. supporting the new ukrainian government with economic assistance, and reaffirming our commitments to allies in central and eastern europe. i strongly support the administration's approach to this de-escalation. secretary kerry was in kiev yesterday. he is in paris today. there was a nato meeting yesterday and another nato osce is sending

representatives. has had one security council meeting, i suspect there will be more. and other activities along the diplomatic and economic front. directed theweek i department of defense to suspend all not terry to military engagement and exercises with russia. , that includes two trilateral exercises that we had scheduled with the russians, one with the canadians and russians and the other. the defense department is pursuing measures to support our allies including stepping up joint training through our

aviation detachment in poland. it is an area that i visited a few weeks ago and augmenting our participation in nato's air policing mission on the baltic and insulin. [indiscernible] think everyone on this committee knows and i know senator mccain was in ukraine a few weeks ago. this is a time for wise and steady and firm leadership. it is a time for all of us to stand with the ukrainian people and we're doing that. that in particular is what president obama continues to do as we pursue diplomatic and economic options.

i would like to thank the committee for your role in this. aboutis another point supporting the administration's approach to how we are all coming at this, this crisis. this economic package that we know,oposing, as you all the osce has proposed a package with the imf. ukraine is an important part of this and we will work those channels as well as the diplomatic channels. chairman, i think it is clear as you have noted, and the

ranking member, the events of the past week underscore the need for america's continued global engagement in leadership. the president's defense budget reflects that reality. it helps sustain our commitment and leadership at a very defining moment. is farve this budget more than a set of numbers and a list of decisions. it is a statement of values and priorities. it is a budget grounded in reality. you noted some of that reality and -- in your remarks. prepareseality that the u.s. military to defend our national security in a world that is becoming less predictable. more volatile and and in some ways more threatened -- threatening to our country and our interests as was noted in the ranking member statement.

it is a plan that allows our military to meet america's future challenges and our future threats and it matches our research is to our strategy. and it is a product of collaboration. all of the military and civilian leaders were included. the chairman and vice chairman and service chiefs all of our people, we value their leadership and their input. input was enlisted important. as we all know, america has been at war for the last 13 years. our second war of the last decade, our longest ever, this budget adapts and adjusts to new to tg realities and fiscal constraints while preparing for the future. .his is not a budget this is not a business as usual presentation. is the budget that makes the

hard choices that will have to be made. the longer we differ these difficult decisions, the more risks we will have down the road. congress will have to face more complicated and difficult choices. you have outlined in your reflection of the kinds of cuts the department of defense is had to take over the last couple of years and what is out ahead of us. december is bipartisan budget act gave dod some temporary relief. it was really from sequestration and he gave us some certainty for planning for a year. -- imposes more than $75 billion in cuts over the next two years. unless congress changes the law if you have -- as you have noted, sequestration the cut another 50 ilion dollars

starting in fiscal year 2016. the five-year plan provides a realistic alternative to sequestration. morecting $150 billion than current law allows. dod requires that additional funding to update our defense strategy as outlined. the strategic priorities articulated represent america's highest security interest. defending the homeland, building security globally, deterring aggression, and being ready and capable to win against any adversary. the funding levels let us execute the strategy. with some increased risk in clear inreas. i made my much longer written statement

it is quite rare what the risks are. we have not held back on these risks. --y would be reduced whether [indiscernible] providing dod with an additional $26 billion in 2015. you have asked the question to improve readiness and monetization. the $26 billion represents an effort that would help dig us back out of the whole that we have been in the last two years on readiness and focused on modernization. i submitted statement as i said contains details of this initiative which i strongly support. although our five-year budget plan exceeds the sequestration levels. dod has prepared detailed planning for cuts showing even

harder choices we would have to make in order to comply. those two are laid out. even though we are requesting spending levels above sequestration, we have maintained flexibility in our budget. flexibility to respond immediately to the lower topline should sequestration be reimposed area and we did this by reprogramming some of the sequestration level for structure reductions that take longer to plan and longer to implement. ofh as the decommissioning the aircraft carrier the uss george washington. this was the responsible thing to do. it was responsible given the continuehat dod might to experience a large -- the large cuts in budget and sequestration laws because of tong back reverting sequestration in 2016. that is why i have issued formal guidance to service leadership

that these specific reductions will not be made if congress indicates it will make future appropriations at the top line levels of our five-year plan. dod has the responsibility to prepare for all eventualities. just as congress has the responsibility to provide dod with some budget predictability. my submitted statement explains our budget details and rationale behind those key decisions. i wanted to as a close -- as i closed really address some critical issues. the balance between readiness capability and capacity. to meet our national security needs under constrained budgets, we have focused on the balance, the balance that will be required to defend this country going forward. of longre than a decade and large stability operations we've traded capacity to protect the readiness and modernization capabilities as we shift focus

on future requirements. these are shaped by and during an emerging threats. we have to be able to defeat terrorist threats and deter adversaries with increasingly modern weapons and technological capabilities. we must assure that america's economic interests are protected through open sea lanes, freedom of the skies and space, and deal with one of the most urgent and real threats facing all nations, cyber attacks. that is why we protected funding for cyber and special operations forces. for the army we proposed drawing or 450,000ut 440 soldiers. less than 10% below its size pre-9/11. i believe this is adequate for future demand. we will continue investing in high and ground capabilities to give our soldiers the most advanced honors. army national guard and reserve units will remain a vibrant part

of our national defense and will draw down by five percent. who also streamline helicopter structure by reducing the fleet by eight percent. active army's fleet will be cut by 25% but we will still maintain and keep these helicopters modernized with the latest technology. as we move from a fleet of seven models to four models. these decisions including a recommendation to trade out for werefor the guard driven by strategic evaluations. guard units may prefer the apache but under constrained budgets, high demand resources like apaches must be where they .an deploy fastest as our north com commander testified, homeland missions do not require armed attack helicopters.

the navy will take a live and of its operational inventory but they will be modernized and returned to service with greater capability and longer lifespans. the ring core will continue its planned drawdown to 182,000 that will devote 900 more marines to increase embassy security. though smaller the marines will remain ready and postured for crisis response as they moved back to their expeditionary amphibious roots. the air force as you have noted , replacing the a-10 it with more modern and sophisticated aircraft. the specifics, numbers, and reasons for my recommendations as i have noted are included in my statement. close, regarding compensation reform. taking care of our people means providing them with both fair compensation as well as the

training and tools they need to succeed in battle at any time anywhere and return home safely. to meet those obligations under constrained budgets and achieve that balance, we need some modest adjustments to the growth and pay and benefits. all the savings will be reinvested in training and equipping our troops. there are no proposals to change retirement in this budget. let me clarify what these compensation adjustments are and what they are not. first, we will continue to recommend pay increases. they will not be as substantial as in past years, but they will continue. second, we will continue subsidizing off-base housing costs. the 100% benefit of today will be reduced but only to 95%. overt will be phased in the next several years. third, we're not shutting down any commissaries. we recommend gradually phasing only forsubsidies. but

domestic commissaries that are not in remote locations. since commissaries will continue to operate tax and rent free, they will still be able to provide more people with a very good deal as they should. we recommend simplifying and modernizing our three tri-care systems by merging them into one tri-care system with modest increases in co-pay and deductibles that encourage using the most affordable means of care. active duty personnel will still receive health care that is entirely free. this will be more effective and more efficient. it will let us focus more on quality. overall, everyone's benefits will remain substantial, affordable, and generous as they should be. president's defense budget is responsible, it is balanced, and it is realistic. strategyts our defense and defense this country and

keeps our commitments to our people. not only ensuring that they are well compensated, but they have the best training and equipment in the world. however, these commitments would be seriously jeopardized by a to sequestration level spending. my submitted testimony details how sequestration would compromise our national security. the result of sequestration level cuts would be a military that could not fulfill its defense strategy. putting at risk america's traditional role as a guarantor of global security and ultimately our own security. that is not the military the president and i want for america's future. i do not think that is the military this committee wants for america's future. but is -- it is the path we're on. leaders and i look forward to working with you as we make these difficult choices, these

hard decisions that will be required to ensure america's therity today and into future. and protect our national interests. thank you. >> thank you. general dempsey. >> thank you. it is a privilege to be back here to provide you an update on our armed forces and to discuss our defense budget for 2015. i want to add my appreciation to ale for hisary h service. i will begin by acknowledging the alarming progression of events in ukraine over the past few days. our senior leaders have made it clear that they wish to see russia's provocation resolved through diplomatic means with coordination and collaboration with our allies. i have spoken with most of my nato counterparts. they are concerned are you take -- concerned.

we committed to developing options to provide those assurances and to deter further russian aggression. we agreed that together we must past [inaudible] simply put the allies stand together. as you know, i recommended suspension of our military and military exchanges with the russian federation. the nature and extent of russia's actions left this little choice. european command to consult and plan with the construct of the north atlantic council. we want to provide nato's leaders with options that stabilize and not escalate tensions in the ukraine. we are one part of that equation. i spoke this morning with my brush and counterpart and i conveyed to him that the degree which russia's territorial aggression has been repeated mobley, i urged restraint and to preserve room for a diplomatic solution.

russia's actions reminds us that the world remains unpredictable, complex, and quite dangerous. we cannot think to nearly about future security challenges nor can we be too certain that we have it right. the world will continue to surprise us often in unpleasant ways. that was how my last week ended. it began in afghanistan. same -- addressing the security remain. challenges that inspired.re they remain fully engaged on the missions set before them. they continue to build the institution of the afghan national security forces which, given the right political structure along -- around them, has the ability to sustain the fight. we will be prepared to support a variety of options as our relationship with that -- afghanistan moves forward. this includes the option to drawdown by the end of the year if that is the decision made i our elected leaders. our joint and nato team has much

work to do this year and they're ready for it. the global commitments to the joint force are not shrinking. neither are our global security threats. the most likely threats emanate from violent extremist groups and from ungoverned spaces yet we can never discount the possibility of state on state conflict created force must remain postured to provide options across the full spectrum of potential conflicts. at the same time, the balance between our security demands and our available resources has rarely been more delicate. that brings me to the budget. yousecretary has walked through the major components of the fiscal year if teen budget proposal which is a pragmatic way forward. in my view, it balances as best as he can our national security and fiscal responsibilities. it provides the tools for today's force to accomplish the missions we have been assigned. rebuilding readiness in areas that were deemphasized during

the past decade. it modernizes the force for tomorrow ensuring that we are globally networked and we continue to provide options for the nation. and it assures that we are working to ensure it is in the , even whilee transitioning to a smaller and more affordable force overtime. year, we need time. we need certainty, and we need flexibility to allow us to meet the needs for the future. the funds allow us to buy back some of our lost revenues and continue to make responsible investments in our nation's defense. -- change thedy short term. it does give us stability.

the joint chiefs and i will never and our campaign to find every possible way to be affect them. we will do everything in line with fiscal reality. we will seek innovative approaches as an imperative, not just in technology but also how we develop our leadership and work with our partners. we will improve how we buy weapons and goods and services and invest that every level. we ought to be able to reduce. systems,egacy weapons and with your support we ought to be able to retire. we have arsenal that has grown at a disproportionate rate and that we ought to be able to slow in a way that makes the all volunteer force sustainable over

time. we faced cuts to modernization. we simply can't ignore the forcences that make the less effective than what the nation means. kicking the can down the road will set up our successors for an almost impossible problem. we have to take the long view here. i know these issues weigh heavily on the minds of men and women in uniform and their families. ofy are less understanding uncertainty and piecemeal solutions. they want and deserve predictability. i have said before we must be clear about what the joint force can achieve, how quickly it can achieve it, and for how long. this means under certain circumstances we could be limited by capability, capacity, or readiness, and these are the

risks we have to manage. i support this budget, but it was not without risks i conveyed in my assessment. more conventional sites. we must rely increasingly on allies and partners, and our global responsibilities will have to be placed in balance. if sequester level cuts return, or we cannot make good on the promise, then the risk will grow, and the options we can provide the nation will dramatically shrink. that's a gamble none of us should be willing to take because it is our coast guard, america's sons and daughters who will face the challenge with whatever resources we develop. our most sacred obligation is to make sure they are never sent into a fair fight, which is to say they must remain the best trained, best equipped force on the planet.

that objective is a guiding principle as this budget was prepared, and it is one the joint chiefs and i remain committed. your outstanding commitment to men and women in uniform, and i stand ready to answer your questions. >> thank you for your service. comments arehe very appropriate. have a sevento minute round. we are all going to have to stick to the seven minutes if we're going to get our time and by a quarter to one to 1:00. i think we can do it. stackeda series of votes at 11:45. we are going to have to work through those votes with some of us leaving, coming back, and so forth. we are used to managing that kind of situation.

it may be a little trickier than usual, but if we stick to our seven minutes, i think we can do it. your statements will be made part of the record. ask -- i guess this would go to you, general dempsey. includesdget request numerous personnel related to -- proposals, which are intended to slow the growth of personnel cost. you mentioned a pay raise below , a rate of inflation reduction in the growth of basedg allowance reduction and subsidies for seriesy commissaries, a of changes to the tri-care program, and reduction to the army particularly. hagel, you mention the

savings achieved by these proposals was used to invest in readiness. do the joint chiefs including the national guard bureau agreed to these changes? >> yes, we spent about a year working comprehensively to come up with that package. i just want to mention one other thing. our goal here was to do this in --ay that we can particularly our purpose, which is to put it back in the services so they can apply to readiness counts -- the cap. thing our members suggest -- let's not do this every year. >> if congress rejects those proposals, is it not true we would have to find approximately $31 billion that those proposals

provide for readiness and wouldization, that we have to find the 31 billion if we restore those cuts somewhere else in the budget. is that true? >> unless the comptroller has any other opinion on this, it's true. we try to articulate that in the statements. i want you to talk about the opportunity fund. add to the26 billion caps that are in law, and it requires congressional action. the budget believe you are requesting today if approved by congress without the fyitional $26 billion in 2015 would enable our military forces to fulfill its assigned missions to meet our national

security strategy? first, if we do not add the 26 billion, can we carry out the missions needed to achieve that strategy? >> we can fulfill our national security missions, but it will come at higher risk. >> it is an acceptable risk? risks as tot those what we would have to do, and they are pretty specific. mentioned some of them in your statement. soon will you be providing a specific list of what would be funded with the additional 26 billion dollars if you were to get it? >> we have a general breakdown, withse i asked the chiefs the chair man to give me their list of how they would use that money. we have pretty good indications

now, and we provide that. the comptroller may want to get into that. >> we will have that next week, a line item detail on the growth and security. >> i would add that both of it goes to modernization and readiness. then i think the last 10% or , 100% of the 26 billion would be to try to recapture a lot of the deferred maintenance over the last two or three readiness it's modernization. >> we will get the detailed list. assumes theplan statutory caps are going to be modified and that the department will receive 100 $15 billion above sequestration levels for the four fiscal years after fy 2015. us and theent told

public if they get that extra money, they would be able to , 440,000 orrriers 400 50000 and and army national guard of 330 5000. however, the budget documents were submitted by the department include the 115 but still andide for only 10 carriers strengthen the army of four hundred 20 thousand and national guard strength of 315,000 instead of what your statements have been, which is that with that additional money, those numbers would be higher. my question is if you plan to spend the extra 115 billion as you request to maintain the 11 for the active army and

army national guard, why is that not reflected in the budget? >> the direct answer to the question, and if you want to go is the specific areas you , we have got some time to make those decisions based on knowing with some certainty what sort of resources we are going to have. publicly in aaid letter i think yesterday, and the comptroller talked about it in some of his briefings. we laid this out in our , toow-up documentation, too answer the question of why we would have to come back and make thecision planning for

worst, planning for the reality of the law, which is sequestration, but if that $115 million would be funded, then we thed be able to have carrier because these are commitments that have to be made in the longer term. >> the documents we are going to get show the carriers would be retained? would they show the strength would be capped at 440 or 454 the army? would they show 345 or not? >> no. show 10 carriers. >> there is a problem. >> i didn't say the budget would reflect that. i said the explanation. i sent letters out yesterday to the chiefs noting all this for the record. of whys an explanation

we are doing what we are doing to give our services the time they need to adjust to this. you know, we have an air wing that would come with the carrier. these are longer-term obligations. if we do not believe we are -- g to have the resources >> i think there is a disconnect with public documents. chairman, the cutie are that that came- the qdr out spent a lot of time talking about the risks associated with it. it's very often the risks means lives. discusses risk so much because this administration has put our national security at more risk than i have seen in the years i have been here. the direct or of national

intelligence agrees that on february 12, looking over my now more than a half-century in intelligence, i have not experienced a time when we have been beset by more crises and threats around the globe. despite the fact the world is becoming more dangerous, this risk is growing as a direct result of the dismantling of our defense over the last five years. winter felt told the committee, for the first time in my career, there are instances where we may be asked to respond to a crisis and will have to say we cannot. general dempsey, i appreciate your assessment and couldn't agree with you more when you say, when we commit american sons and daughters into combat, we must ensure they are the best forceed and best fighting on the planet. unfortunately, that's not a certainty anymore. said our aging combat

systems are increasingly vulnerable to adversaries who are modernizing, and you discuss they diminish our present military advantage and compromise our ability to meet strategic objectives. the loss and deaths across the force could reduce our credibility and intimidate escalating conflict. i think that means we will have more events like ukraine. in georgia right before the winter olympics. georgia goes right to the area russia has confiscated by 20%. it goes right up to where the winter olympics were. about the leaders in georgia. the same thing that happened in ukraine was going to happen there. what i see is serious. if you look at the chart on this side, it shows the entitlement

again inare going up this fiscal year we are talking about now, and it's going down now. the wrongis going in direction. do either one of you want to comment on the continued decreasing the entitlement program as opposed to defense? >> senator in half, my job -- my job is to -- the defense department. i have presented the reality of the budget. >> i understand that, because you are doing the best you can, as general dempsey within the confines of the budget you have to work with. is that what you feel? >> we are defined by budget

caps. that's the reality. it's the budget cap congress , andd to that confines me i start from there. >> what i am talking about here advisable,that whether it's got budget caps or not? i want to get to a couple of other things. it goes beyond just the entitlement reform i referred to. that's very real, but i have a crs report that shows -- i have been working on this for quite some time -- that in the last five years between 2009 and 2014, the president has spent $120 billion on the environmental agenda, mostly global warming, climate, and that type of thing. i did a little bit of math talking about the crisis we are in, and i have appointed so many people saying this is a real

serious crisis we are in. respect, if the amount was not authorized i congress. 1400 f 35actually buy , and people need to understand there's a price we are paying for these agendas that are rejected by congress. honesty, and the american people do also. i think secretary hagel, when you said american dominance on the season skies and space may no longer be taken for granted, the general said such reductions will not allow us to execute the 2012 defense strategic guidance. it will make it very difficult to conduct major combat operations. general dempsey said we are putting our military on a path where the forces so degraded and so unready that it would be

immoral to use force. general amos that we will have arising, less trained, later to the fight. casualties.n that is how risk fits into this. the chief of technology under-secretary said on the third of january, we are cutting our budget to standley while some of the people we worry about are going in the opposite direction. we have had 20 years since the end of the cold where -- cold war and the presumption that we are technologically superior, militarily. i don't think that's an assumption anymore. i have another chart over here. it's just kind of a reminder. i put one of these in place of each member -- the talks about the cuts in the fact that the defense consumes 16%, down from

the total 16% of budget, yet is responsible on for 50% of thert cuts. about, and wealk talked about several times during the course of this presentation, that we are alleviating $26 billion to help at the same time it is being held hostage because there is another 30 billion more than that that will be given the same relief. that's my seven minutes. is that fair. >> is your question is it fair? >> that's the question. i have a said, responsibility for this budget. every item you listed on your inventory as a risk of profits that is whye with

we have come back with an additional 26 billion dollar request. that's why the president of the united states has asked for an additional $115 billion over the next five years. >> yes, but it's still disproportionate. you folks are given a budget. to the american people this itsn't look very realistic. needs to be articulated as to why we're in the situation we are in right now. director is making a presentation. thank you. >> thank you, senator reid. i first want to begin by

thanking the secretary for his distinguished service. can you give us an idea of the .ssumptions and ideas are twome level those different questions. what we deem to be an optimum presence of search capabilities -- surge capability measured against war plans, so when we laid out this force against thee activities, and at request of this committee i asked us forus you

many sessions to find a place where we think the risk becomes too high, and we see that point. it's called sequestration. the force we have gotten this budget can meet the requirements of the defense security guidance, which was the foundational document on which wascutie are -- the qdr developed. i think we have a discussion of what this force can do, there is higher risk in certain areas. one is conventional forces, which will take longer to generate. that's a much longer conversation. the short answer is we have done that analysis. >> let me follow up with a quick question. we have to operate on the notion of rapid deployment of initial forces, the ratio

andeen your active force your reserve components is based on the fact that you have to generate forces fairly quickly and have sufficient active forces to get to the point where reserve forces can be mobilized and effectively integrated and trained. is that the concept? >> it is. this is about balancing such that we have it immediately available. one of the other assertions is that conflict will generally occur faster and more predictable -- unpredictable ways with higher degrees of technology. we have to make sure to balance the active components and rely upon reserves beyond that. >> thank you. it is a very fundamental issue we are struggling with. that is the commitments we have made to future generations and

the resources we have available not only for the military but for education and investment. there is not a precise .omparison you are battling the same .imilar dynamic these are all earned benefits through sacrifice and service to the nation. if we don't accept or somehow ,ccommodate your suggestions the effect will be that you will have less resources and active resources will have to go in harms way. it affects the training. it affects everything. that's the fundamental trade-off you are trying to negotiate. is that fair? >> it is fair. part of the overall scope

of the balance. strategy, any perspective on not just short-term but long-term responsibilities has to include the balance the chairman talked about, which we spent a lot of time on. your specific point about repairing our forces i noted in my statement. it would be the most irresponsible act of a commander in chief or his secretary of defense or any leader to send men and women into war not .repared that is part of the balance. we have to assure that would continue. we would see degradation of that, but at the same time, the be earnednsation,

benefits, that has to be balanced as well. what we are trying to do -- we think we are coming up with a reasonable balance. subject to analysis. balanced probe it. the is significant part of how we came to this. >> in regard to your colleagues for these proposals with benefits going forward, you have had a dialogue with not only active-duty personnel but retired forces. you have talked to them about these issues. do you feel you have done an effective job, and have they

responded terms of recognition of these issues and a sense that we do it right and it is acceptable? >> i cannot guarantee there will .e universal acclamation my senior adviser is sitting behind me. we had enlistment involved throughout the process. >> they have the qualifications

to be integral parts of what we do. thank you. >> thank you, mr. secretary, general dempsey, and thank you, secretary hale for your outstanding service. we come here for a budget today, and i appreciate your comments that you are doing your best under the budget constraints that you are forced to abide by, and certainly some of the challenges you face by inuestration, as senator out, but i don't think it's in dispute that this would give us the smallest army and the smallest air force in that. of time. capable, butre

smaller. >> there is more to it than that. there is capability. >> i'm sure there is much more to it. there are also things such as presence and others. those are not disputable. your timing is exquisite. with theoming here budget we agree on, at least on the numbers. time when the world is probably more unsettled than it has been since the end of world war ii. the south china sea, china more and more aggressive. syrian forces turned into a regional conflict, and the list

goes on. today or yesterday china announced its biggest rise in military spending in three years . they increased their defense budget by 12.2%. i am sure she was appropriately disciplined, but apparently katrina mcfarland, the secretary for acquisition, said right now .t is being looked at again she later was disappointed and retracted those remarks. you come here for a budget that constrains us in a way that is unprecedented since serious times. are unnamed quotes. no more land wars. that is why we are reducing our forces.

we have seen that before. you and i have. we saw it after world war ii. we weren't prepared for korea. we saw it after korea. we weren't prepared for vietnam. after vietnam we had a chief of staff who came and told the committee we had a hollow army. now we are going through the same, ignoring the lessons of and it'st again, really a shame, which brings me to crimea. it's widely reported in the media today that our intelligence sources did not predict the russian invasion would take place. is that true with your intelligence sources as well? to get to going intelligence matters here at an open hearing, but -- >> i'm not asking for intelligence matters. i'm just wondering if you are made aware that it was going to

take place. i don't know how classified that would be. >> i know i was at nato last week, and there was an nato ukraine commission meeting, and early last week we were made well aware of this threat. >> so despite all the media reports, our intelligence woulds predicted lavrov invade crimea? >> i don't get to the specifics in open hearing, but if you would like a briefing of your staff on the specifics of the question. >> how about commenting on news reports that say it? >> news reports are news reports. not real intelligence. >> in other words, the fact is, secretary, it was not predicted by our intelligence, and it is already well-known known, which is another massive sell your because of our misreading of the

intentions of vladimir putin -- massive salfailure because of te misreading of the intention of vladimir putin. he was not about to see it go into the hands of a government that was not his. now please a fact. go ahead. >> i said early last week we were well aware of the threats. was in nato again. there was a meeting about the threat with the nato-ukraine commission. i have been speaking over the last couple of weeks to the ukraine defense ministers. to are now gone. this wasn't new that we didn't know what was going on. >> the president and the secretary of state said this is not east-west.

this is not cold war rhetoric. do you agree with that statement -- cold war actions, when mr. putin denies there are troops in russia? says they cannot withdraw russian troops because there are no russian troops in crimea? those that have some echoes to you to the cold war? >> i think secretary kerry addressed this pretty clearly in his comments, specifically about your point, about no evidence -- >> i was asking for your views. >> i agree with secretary kerry. we dod it all out that not accept anything president putin said as fact about why they had to protect the so-called ethnic minority in crimea, and the other reasons the russians have laid out as to

why they took the action they did, i thought secretary kerry did a good job of directing his comments to president putin's and i agree with what secretary kerry said. >> i thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. >> first of all, i want to thank you for your service, and next secretary, for making a valid effort of putting the budget together. what would the defense look like, and why should it look differently from what it looks like today. all work within the recommendations you put forward. i thank you for that.

as far as the defense budget being under extreme budgetary pressures to do more with less, we understand that they have always risen to the occasion, and i expect the same to be done. first of all, i appreciate the efforts. the defense budget reflects a number of savings. i am concerned about the plans for the 2016 fiscal year and beyond. appear to favor the realities of sequestration. i hope sequestration is going to go away, and i know you have talked about that briefly. if it doesn't, do you need that flexibility that was not in the previous ceqa are? >> thank you. senator, we do need that. as i go intod greater detail in my written add onet, and i would other thing. i appreciate your comments about

trying to prioritize budgets. governors probably know more about this than anyone. >> i have had concerns about afghanistan since i arrived here years ago. thatnot of the belief 10,000 troops being left in afghanistan will trade the direction. i have always said if money or military might would change that part of the world, we would have done so by now. knowing the unknown as far as elections coming up, do you truly have a plan for pulling out of afghanistan? i know it has been said the president has been given the order to move in that direction. are we moving in that direction? >> first, i want to speak briefly. you mentioned if we go back to

weuestration, does that mean need more flexibility? absolutely, but flexibility alone will not answer our problems. the draconian way it was being administered is not fair to anyone. >> on afghanistan, as you know, we are there as part of the nato mission. i always remind us of that. they have a plan that and ministerial development and so forth. 8000 to plan calls for 12,000. that includes a regional approach. a modest presence in the four corners of the country, in particular because during this period after the election there will be greater instability as possible, and we think it

prudent to do that. in the meantime we have had a challenge of getting a bilateral security agreement and have been directed to make other plans. we have got options between 10,000 and zero. those options are being refined because every day that goes by some of them become more or less likely. our retrograde activities are ongoing. those will not be a limiting barring our officials from making a decision. i think bob graham, were we to consider increasing our presence were we toaghram, increasing our presence, would be key. >> my concern, and i met with senator john campbell last week theerning the reposition of

army as the budget was put forward. my concern is with the national guard. the guard is very crucial to all of our states. knew not the guard we growing up. i filled the guard can be used in a much more cost efficient matter. recommended of them . -- reduction. >> both of them recommended reductions, although the recommendations we made were definitely less than the act of duty. start with this. the importance, the relevance of the guard and reserve continue.

there is no question about that. accomplishments and what they have achieved over the last their teen years. noted, the guard today is a different guard. we don't want to lose that. absolutely. their mission is different from active duty. it goes back to the question senator reid asked me about balance. we have tried to balance this with all the forces. need?re we going to how are we going to merge all of our forces together, and the guard and reserves are a critical component of that? >> the amount of private contractors we have are at a much higher cost, i have been critical about the amount of

money and effort we put forth on the amount of contractors and should be back to the military. i know you're looking at long-term cost as far as legacy also, but i believe we are much stronger with those people in uniforms and we are with contractors we are using, and i know it is cost savings or you believe that. i cannot for the life of me understand why i had so much opposition for reducing the capital -- the cap on contractors salaries. they still believe it needs to be around 500. directive the first we have gotten from the congress that came out of this committee has been very clear. significantade progress. we are not where we need to be yet, but we are making tremendous progress bringing that element of our workforce down.

controls, restrictions. we got it. we are doing it. appreciate it. my time is up. >> general dempsey, the command and control, intelligence that form provides the it are with .ital ground surveillance the air force chief of staff general wells -- general welch has made it clear the top for the long-range strike bomber, but right behind that is the replacement of the tee. stars as a top pirate the budget proposal calls for a 40% reduction. presumably to fund the acquisition of a replacement

platform. can we meet requirements for the proposed reduction? what is the proposal to replace this platform? it,he proposal to replace that is to say the next generation capability is a question i will have to go back and get with the chief of staff for the air force, but i can say, you asked the right question. can we meet current demands with the current inventory of that that form? the answer is it is difficult. it is one of our low-density platforms. often we are faced with employing it in the korean peninsula or north africa. those are the trade-offs we make. what we try to do is meet combatant commanders at times when they need them the most. it's hard to maintain a persistent presence globally. we have other assets that fill in the gaps. this is a valuable asset. isthe proposed replacement

with a business gap. that platform was old when we got it. it has gotten older over the years. i tell you the folks under you in the army break out into big smiles and their eyes light up when i talk about joint stars in theater. we simply have no replacement weapon system i know about, and the number in the budget is far enough to even begin the gig about replacement. i would urge you to rethink this and think about what we are going to do long term. does it need to be replaced? i agree with that. i think it's time. thatther options are not concrete and not that positive. as you think about that, i look

forward to engaging with you. >> they are so useful, discounting its capabilities and forward air control roles. while there are other assets that can perform the mission, none can do so with the same maneuverability and targeting capability. i think it is wishful thinking to believe pilots of the other platforms will receive training necessary to be proficient in close air support. it not make sense -- we are going to phase it out. it is an old platform, but it has done such a great job in the recent the editors we have been engaged in -- recent pa terror have beentheatres we

engaged in. does it not make sense that is the point we phase out rather than arbitrarily cutting off. we are going to take those butlanes out at 15 or 16, we are not scheduled to even think about another f 35 being or 24.ted until 22 >> i am one of the few people come to my an a10 rescue. you don't have to convince me it has been an extruded early valuable tool on the battlefield. oft we are seeing is some the difficult budget decisions we have to make.

the logistics trail is more .ffordable we are going from seven rotary platforms down to four. we have toecision make with current budget pressure. i support the chief of staff of the air force and the chief of staff of the army on their decisions. hegel, an issue are always raises concerns commissaries. they are a core benefit. they contribute greatly to recruitment and retention. i am one of those who thinks you may get just as good a deal at some other retail outlets from around the country accessible, be as but the price may be better. you are going to be reducing the $1.4 billion in subsidy we pay

by $1 billion over three years. at the same time, you are going to encourage them to act more like a business. we have a study that is going to be forthcoming in the early part of 2015. doesn't it make sense to see what the study recommends, which frankly may recommend a limitation of commissaries? i don't know what they might recommend. doesn't it make sense to see what the study says before we go about reducing the subsidy in a significant way? >> senator, are you referring to the compensation retirement? that's an important question.

we did look at that issue. we did not come forward with retirement suggestions based on let's wait. on the other compensation issues we did come forward with, commissaries being one of them, it was the feeling of our senior and significant analysis that we knew enough about where we will have to eventually go with commissaries that they felt they could make the decision now. we have about 250 commissaries around the world. we think if you phase out the subsidies or the time we are

, not unlike the way they are funded and self sustained, it makes sense, and very good deals will be given to servicemen and women. it was a consideration we did make as a set of overall recommendations. >> thank you, senator. senator hagan. >> thank you. welcome. thank you for being here. this budget would result in the in activation of the air force of 440th airlift wing at fort bragg in north carolina. with it and acted there would be no airplanes stationed at pope airfield.

the four 40th provides critical support to the 82nd airborne division and all the other major units. airliftludes the total for training missions. i just want to reiterate my strong disapproval of this recommendation to enact a great the 440th airlift wing. i want to go to my questions now. secretary hegel, last week i had to lead a bipartisan group of 51 about our congress concerns over sudden change in reimbursement policy for s.itical medical test as you consider your response i want you to think about the real

.xamples this applies to service members and retirees. the first part, a military carrierss found to be of the gene. this testing was covered by tri-care at the time. the delivery of this couple's child was moved to a hospital . . if these were to occur today the same cystic fibrosis test would not be covered by tri-care. if not the baby would not have been born in an appropriate

setting. his civilian oncologist monitors special blood test for him every 100 10 days. this test is considered the most sensitive test available to track this type of cancer. -- special blood test for him every 110 days. they would consider it practice if he did not use tests to monitor his cancer. the alternative is for an invasive bone marrow biopsy. last summer this individual over $1000bill for for the blood test because tri-care no longer covered it. while appealing the charge he learned this would have been covered if it had been ordered through a military treatment facility. .e are showing the dichotomy these tests truly provide useful information to help physicians determine the best course of

treatment and are widely considered to the medical community to be the normal standard of care. needs to reverse this decision so those who sacrificed for this country are not forced to pay out of pocket or forgo these tests. secretary hegel, i just want to give you the background and say, would you promptly respond so we can fix the problem? >> of course i will. i am not aware of the specifics of what you are talking about. get the specifics and details, and we will find out. >> inc. you. i want to give you real life examples of how this impacts military men and women. as part of the fiscal year budget request, the department is laying out a number of proposals that would negatively affect compensation. fiscal understand

challenges, we cannot seek to balance the budget on the backs of our service members. includes a pay raise, increased cost for housing, increased tri-care fees. general dempsey, i am particularly concerned about the combined impact of all of these benefit cuts. how do you see these impacting our service members, especially younger members enlisted with families? >> first, i mentioned we spent every bit of the year working on and we have got any number of programs and data management instruments that can lay out exactly what the affect ourand the cases we use e6, and weare

project that to the 30 year point. we can project that information, but we think this is a reasonable approach to getting paid compensation health care back in balance. hear theme to characterization of balancing the budget on the backs of our servicemen and women. this weighs heavily on all of us. the fact is the manpower cost can be anywhere from a third to a half of our budget. we are trying to find about 10% of what we need to balance the budget out of that account. and 90% out of the rest of the budget. we have been extraordinarily careful not to take some sort of template or approach to this. it has been carefully managed. >> thank you for your comment. secretary hegel, has the department considered the impact of these cuts it will have to

, anditment and retirement with military compensation and retirement set to release their findings in less than a year, does it make sense to make sense across the board cuts before we see the results of that report? >> we did take into consideration all of these different scenarios, possibilities i think. the chairman laid out pretty quickly not just the balance but the responsibility we have to our men and women in uniform, the commitment they make to their families and the future. that is the priority. have come up with a set of recommendations. we slow the growth of increases. i have laid out some of the specifics of that. we did not do this unilaterally,

i took recommendations as the secretary of defense from the chief and the secretary and dempsey. i know we cannot continue to sustain the kind of growth we are on and still make certain that our men and women will be ready, are ready and equipped and especially in light of a number of whites made here earlier this morning about emerging threats and merging technologies. some of our adversaries are developing pretty significant capabilities and technologies that we have to stay ahead of. that is part of the balance. we did look at everything. >> the reason we need to move now is the budget caps are in place now. we have the information to go forward and if we do not, we will have to cut training and

maintenance and we do not want to do that. >> i thank all of you. you mentioned the emerging threat. the committee is clear on what they need to do. all of you take the best interest of our men and women who are serving at heart. i know you have a lot on your plate today. thank you. >> thank you. ayotte.a at -- kelly >> and want to thank our redness is during challenging times for our country. i wanted to follow-up on some of the remarks that senator chambliss made. i am he -- glad to hear how you yourself were actually assisted an a-10. that story can be told many times especially by those who serve on the ground in behalf of our nation and our army, general and described the

a-10 as the best support. it has performed incredibly well and our soldiers have confidence in the system. i wanted to ask you this is not the first time that in the past even before the performances we and anen from the a-10 iraqi and afghanistan that the air force has tried to eliminate this platform. >> no. >> we have been here before and some of the biggest advocates for the platform have been -- your fellow soldiers who have had similar experiences with the 810, isn't that right? >> absolutely. i said this before and i will say it again. i will tell you what is different now as we had some slack in our budget over the last 10 years. there is no more slack. the margins are just really very tight. theif you're asking me,

a-10 is the ugliest, most beautiful aircraft on the planet. lex i appreciate that. let's talk about the slack. i understand the difficulties that you are under in terms of the budget challenges. it seems to me as we talk about values and priorities, the biggest values and priorities that i know we all share is to that the men and women in uniform have the best support in protection they need. let me say that i agree with senator chambliss said. that the a-10 is not a single purpose airplane. is's talk about what we know it's very important purpose. as i understand it recently in an article, air force officials and knowledge to win this article does cost the elimination of the a-10, getting rid of the a-10 could lead to higher depths, longer battles, even defeat on the battlefield.

this is from air force officials and major general paul t johnson, the air force director of operational acquirement said the risk is higher than it should be. that is a clever way of saying more people will get hurt and i and extreme risk is that you might not win. here is my concern to all of you in question. i understand the budget environment but we are in these proposal this is your is to eliminate and phase out the f10 before even we have an f perform close air support and will not be operational until 2021. you have it phased out by the 19. we have that gap there. thingsthis of all the that we talk about fire days,

when we hear -- priorities, when we hear air force and i have heard similar concerns, that lives will be at stake, while we not preserving that priority over other priorities? >> because i do not want to leave it hanging in the air that i would take a decision or supported decision that would put our men and women at greater risk, i would not. 's --u know, support can be .e provided >> i do not think you would disagree that the re-attack times are different. so therefore if you are talking about one or two minutes that could be the difference between life and death on the ground. i understand that other be parts can certainly of this mission but the question

is, is it worth that time for our men and women in uniform on a platform that has performed consistently well? the other concern i have is that it seems almost like an assumption that we are not going to fight another ground war. you do not share that assumption, i hope. forward think we can go with that kind of assumption. >> i do not share that view at all. to would be fortunate enough have the chief staff of the air force appear before you who happens to be an a-10 pilot. >> i hope he thinks back to hits -- his roots. a let me ask you about the priorities of where we are with regard to defense pending right now. just your concern you hear echoed across this committee, as i look at the president -- i also serve on the budget committee, the president proposed budget and fiscal year

15, thinking about the threats we face around the world right now and obviously, i know all of you have laid out in your testimony that this is a very dangerous time around the world with the threats that we face. actuallydent's budget proposes in the fiscal year 15 .9% reduction in defense. -- 3.4% increase in nondefense spending. as we look at this in terms of this threat we face around the world that unfortunately we are not meeting as we look at the threats and the foremost responsibility to defend the nation as the ultimate prior it he that ensures that we can do and preserve everything else including our freedom. and the other thing i wanted to get your commentary on is if you look at what we spent on defense historically between 1946 and 2014 we spent roughly six percent of our gdp on defense

spending area where we are headed based on the president's inposed budget is that fiscal year 2014, a goes down to 3.4% of gdp and as we go forward with this budget proposal, by 2024, we're down to 2.3% of gdp on defense. will that be different -- sufficient to defend this nation? >> let me go back to a couple of points i made earlier. the president is requesting a 150 doubt -- $115 million request. the defenset puts of this country as its highest priority. he knows that is his highest

responsibility. he knows that he is responsibility -- has responsibility to fund the national security interests and carry out security measures. i think the numbers are somewhat reflective of that commitment. i think if you go back to my i will let the comptroller respond to this if it is ok. the budget that this president has presented, they have been above would have been eventually the ultimate number that we receive. i do not think there is question about this president -- >> if the president's number one priority is protecting the decreasehy is it a 1% for nondefense spending question mark that shows me where the priorities are. number one priority is

defending this nation, his budget does not seem to reflect that priority. >> aren't you on the budget committee? that is the questionnaire. >> i will ask it. thank you. >> just to clarify one number. more that islion requested is on top of the $26 billion in year one. >> that is correct. >> it is a four-year figure. five-year. thank you. >> thank you. all very much for your service and for being here this morning. i would like to begin by echoing some of the concerns that many of my colleagues have already expressed that you all talked about in your testimony with respect