i visited a chemistry lab at the tulsa.ity of >> it's null one in chemistry, it helps that they are working as graduate students, working as docs and faculty members. most of the graduate students school beocs at any going to be foreigners. so these students when we get then they contribute by working in those research labs in pharmaceutical in chemical companies. and they do that work that ultimately results in the of society. >> meeting incredibly talented people, i was astonished that be discriminated against civil my because of where they are from. >> one of the most negative aspects of our current imgriggs system is the labeling. we talk about bullying in school and name calling and how wrong that is. as leaders, ass,

lawmakers, as elected representatives, we're the worst lot.e i bring you back to the word illegal. aslabel a group of people illegals is very damaging. the scarlet letter, that's what germany did to the jews. >> i don't know what illegal member until high school, year, they'dhomore ask for your social security number, and once again i couldn't. >> they're not criminals. to change there pld line, they're not here to change the culture of the language or the food. >> i rebel men tary school pledging allegiance to the flag. up and, not knowing that i was plentying allegiance to a i was not a part of. my parents, yes, they crossed illegally. but as those people call it i seecrossing illegally,

it as something heroic. you sacrifice something to give life.etter who came here, she was the valedictorian of her class. she was on jawt standing -- student.ng >> they don't want your hungry, your tired and especially your poor. we got to support your children and obamacare? no. they need to erase that from the statue of liberty, just like they closed ellis island. that's why the statue is there, because but were literally boats.ng the >> i was thrilled when the u.s.

senate did what was right for america, they pass an bill.ation they came up with this 845-page bill, which is great. overwhelmingly the senate passed it in june. >> the bad us in is that bill is in the house of representatives, they have not been able to move it forward or get agreement. no intention of ever going to conference on the senate bill. that college student should be go tothe opportunity to college. because home is here. papers. them their so that when that brain surge on graduates, they can go to work and save some lives. the dream was, part of me would be happy. me wouldn't because

my parents are not in protection. separating families is not the solution to solve the broken system. visionaries. be the people we have elected, they noses.ee past their >> they weren't all val valedictorians. there's another 100 out there that have are hauling marijuana the desert. >> this is not immigration, this is an invasion. shooting really ourselves in the foot. when we say to some of the most in the world,e we're not going to let you in, we're not going to let you stay to let you not going become part of the united states. that's the exact opposite of what we've done through most of history. we would be harming ourselves to policy.hat kind of

>> to watch all the winning and to learn more about our competition, go to c-span.org and click on student cam. what you think about the issue this student wants consider.o post your comment on our facebook page or tweet us using cam.ash tag student >> coming up on c-span, members the victims ofor the fort hood shooting. ray army chief of staff odierno on the army's budget. today's "washington journal." on the next "washington chairman of the federal election commission, legal mcgahn and strategist brenda wright discuss the future of campaign financing after the supreme court decision. then peggy carr of the national statisticseducation at a recent assessment of

math and reading skills from districts.l "washington journal" is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. seeing long lines to today, this moment, and across afghanistan, people who are waiting to get -- de-- voter card. despite 20 million voter cards millcountry with 11 to 12 eligible voters, there are still long lines of men and women in and other cities who want to have access to a voter card, indication of the building up of enthusiasm among the population. should not judge the afghani lexes by the same standards that we judge our own

elections. we've had 200 years of democratic evolution. a democracy in its infancy. in fact, if this election does credible result it will be the first peaceful power in afghan history. we want to be careful not to rush to judgment ahead of the afghan people. to make,ir judgment whether the ultimate outcome is legitimate and credible. we want to be second guessing that issue at along the way. >> the absence of the international observers or the should really say is a drawdown in the number of international observers that be present will have a psychological effect on the impact, it will have an on how the international community views it. numberreduction in the is unfortunate. i'm not trying to gloss over fact.

but the truth is, it's not going to make a huge difference. enough international observers there to do their job, and the real story here is this an afghani lex. tong under taken preunt afghan institutions. are reallyobservers going to be the first line of defense in ensuring a good election. c-span, withnd on the afghanistan presidential elections saturday, a look at what to expect. morning at 10:00 eastern, and live on book tv this weekend, saturday 10:00 and later at 12:30 panels on gun control, the civilency, fracking, rights, and politics, from this year's annapolis book festival. atht in the middle of that 11:00 talk to michael lewis, the of moneying author ball. on indepth,t noon u.s. military policy in the

mideast, your chance to talk to bingr defense secretary west. and on american history tv, a to fraunces tavern museum, where general george washington farewell to his officers, c-span 3.6:00 p.m. on bringingr 35 years public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting new the room at hearings, white house events, briefings and conferences, and offering complete gavel to gavel coverage of the u.s. house, all as a public service of pretty industry. c-span, created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago, and brought to you as a public by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in h.d., like us on and follow us on twitter. fortmass shooting at the hood army post yesterday left three people dead and 16 wounded.

members of the texas congressional delegation reacted to the killings and observed a moment of silence in the u.s. house. this begins with congressman john carter. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas, mr. carter, seek recognition? mr. carter: mr. speaker, i ask >> i ask unanimous the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. carter: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, yesterday afternoon, tragedy struck the heart of texas at fort hood. which we know as a great place. a gunman whose motives we do not understand took the lives of three american soldiers and wounded 16 more before taking his own life. unfortunately, mr. speaker, this is not the first time fort hood has had to endure a tragedy like this. our thoughts and prayers are with the victims, their families, and the fort hood

community. we pray far speedy recovery to the wounded and extend our deepest condolences to the friends and families of those soldiers who lost their lives. we stand ready to provide any and all assistance we can to support fort hood, the soldiers serving there, and the surrounding community. now i would like to recognize my good friend and colleague and ally in supporting this incredible community which we both have the honor to represent, congressman williams. mr. williams: thank you. it is said that all give some, and some give their all. once again, we've seen a tragedy at fort hood, the great place, and already we are witnessing the strength and resilience of a community of brave men and women who not only serve our country overseas in enemy territory, but right here at home on military posts around the nation. our prayers are with the fallen troops, those who were injured and are still in recovery, and

the families of all those involved. our thoughts are with the entire fort hood community and great leadership under general millie as they stand together and push through this tough time, we'll continue praying for the excellent medical team that assists the injured. perhaps most importantly, we kill not forget the troop -- we will not forget the troops whose lives were lost yesterday. the best and brightest is what we offer at fort hood. their service and sacrifice are an inspiration, reminding us that america doesn't give because it's rich, america is rich because it gives. it's given us all of those we honor today. may god bless all the fort hood community during this time and may god bless america. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas, mr. carter. mr. carter: at this time i would like to ask the house to join me in a moment of silence and hopefully prayer for the fort

hood community and all those families of the injured and dead at fort hood today. the speaker pro tempore: will all present rise for a moment of >> the senate also honored the victims of yesterday's shooting. leadere senate majority harry reid and minority leader mitch mcconnell. to reflect on what took place in fort hood yesterday. another tragedy. motives, we have just a general understanding, but our hearts are all broken as a result of another tragedy at this great military training facility. it was just a few years ago that there were mass murders on that

military base. our nation mourns every casualty that befalls our brave service members, but these seem so unnecessary, and it's such a sad thing. fort hood has seen more than its fair share of tragedy in the last few years, and we know this community and their families are grieving and questioning this latest act of senseless violence. the chairman of the joint chief of staffs, general martin demsey, said it as follows -- quote -- "this is a community that has faced and overcome crisis with resilience and strength." close quote. that's true. we stand with the people of fort hood today. we stand with all of our military wherever they're si mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i'd like to start this morning with a word about yesterday's tragic shooting at fort hood. as the investigation continues, we'll learn more facts. but what we already know is that

fort hood has faced a great deal of adversity and challenges over the past few years, and that the community there has rallied around our uniformed personnel. we also know that the on-base military police appeared to have responded quickly, appropriately, and obviously at great personal risk to themselves. so as always, in a tragedy like this we admire the courage and the commitment of those who rushed to help the victims. and of course we are thinking and praying today for the victims, their families, and victims, their families, and at a news conference, defense commented on the shooing. this was from a meeting of southeast asian nations in hawaii. minutes.

>> please, when i do announce who you are, who you work with question. get to your secretary hagel? >> john, thank you, good morning. the 10 defense ministers and i i believe isd what an extremely valuable meeting hawaii. one that affirmed the deepening bonds of friendship between our nations, and the growing opportunities that exist for us partner together, continue to partner together to meet new and enduring security challenge as cross the asia pacific region. this gathering was an important milestone in america's growing oseonment with the

nations, and another signal of have tortant role they play in pro meeting regional prosperity.d i'm grateful to all the ministers for making the trip, easy, they all have many responsibilities, so i their time for their efforts andf their energy to make this happen. theso appreciate hospitality that's been shown to of hawaii,the people the people of pacific command, particular admiral locklear and his men and women who have much not only that assist us in putting this forum together, but what they do for the united states every day in this region of the world. meeting was hosted by the defense department, we greatly benefited from the

partnerstion of our across the u.s. government. particularly yesterday's session humanitarian assistance in disaster relief operations noaad by the administrator, dr. catherine some ran and moderate bid the usaid, dr. shah. hours after the tsunami warning was lifted for hawaii, the presentation and roundtable underscored that natural disasters and humanitarian will be defining security challenges of the 21st century, not only for southeast asia but for the world. the frequencythat and the complexity of disaster relief and humanitarian missions will increase. these missions demand cooperation between nations, across their government agencies, ngo's and the private sector. the discussions we had yesterday which focused on lessons learned

recent operations will help identify new proposals to improve our preparedness and future.ion in the as one example, in our singapores yesterday, proposed using a naval base as a regional humanitarian assistance disaster relief crisis coordination center. an important venue for nations in the region to coordinate military responses to disasters and it's an idea that we are going to pursue. many ideas that came out of our last couple of discussions. today's discussion addressed a range of other regional security matters, including improving maritime security cooperation theaddressing tensions in south china sea. i told the ministers that the is increasingly concerned about the instability the territorial disputes in the south china sea.

the rights of all nations must respected. it's important that all orimants avoid the use threat of force, or intimidation. or coercion. all claimant in these disputes to clarify their basis inncluding their international law. and to use internationally standards ofs and behavior. as many of you know, tomorrow i china andt for japan, mongolia, representing my fourth trip to this region. trip and the forum shows america's rebalanced asia pacific remains a critical part of our national security strategy. the securityted to and the prosperity of the recent on because of our interest and also our close relationships and alliances and commitments. america has a long standing engagement and commitment with region. pacific it's a commitment that we will

meet in the 21st century. know that we are all following event at fort hood, texas. i've been staying in touch with leaders and our senior d.o.d. leaders and will continue to do so. we need to let investigators do their work. understand all exactly how this happened. as you all know, the department process of implementing recommendations of the reviews that followed the shooting last year. as the fort hood investigation unfolds, we will continue to a close look to identify learned andons implement those as well. in the meantime, we will all the victims, and their families. whohe fort hood community yet again are experiencing a grief.e tragedy and much thank you.

>> we have time for some questions. i'm going to give this mic over here, so please wait until you get the microphone before you ask your question. >> thank you, mr. secretary. i'm from the "wall street journal." i want to ask you more about fort hood if i could. you know in 2010 secretary gates called for dozens of defense policy to deal with the insider threat from the first attack. issued weeks ago you your own report which found that many of those recommendations implemented. since that time there have been two shootings on military facilities that have exposed even new gaps in security procedures. and i'm wondering why does it years and four reports to address these security thatems, and isn't unacceptable? why should people believe that

what you're saying now means that the pentagon is going to take this challenge seriously? >> well, first, let me assure people who, the serve in our armed forces and their families, we do take this seriously. there's nothing that we take more seriously than the safety who work for our department. imperfections,e we recognize the risks. every day risks. in the jobs that these men and women do for our country. is no mistaking the priorityization along our service commanders and leaders is the safety of those men and women. now, obviously something went wrong. recommendations based on those reviews, and we have implemented those recommendations in almost every

case. back to 2009. and as you noted, 2010. make theontinue to adjustments and implement those recommendations. we have a gap. individual lose an something has gone wrong. but i also noted and i think it's important here that we all keep in mine, let the investigators do their work. all the factswhat are. we know a lot of things 24 hours later, but we don't know everything. happened, what motivated this person to do this? gap? was the why did we have a gap, why did it happen? because istop there, think we are going to find out everything do possible to implement the kinds of reforms and fill those gaps the security of the men and women who work for our armed forces and assure their families.

>> thank you. ccb america.rom the rebalancing to asia, some have suspicions that this is all a policy to contain china. how would you respond to that what will you be saying to the chinese when you visit them? a well, this visit was not visit to contain china. my threeid that in previous trips to the asia pacific. rebalanced asia pacific was strategy.ain china president obama has made that point very clear, secretary has, i have. as i said in some of my remarks continuation of the relationships, the friendships, the partnerships many yearshad for with many of these countries in asia pacific. the united states has been a power for many years. tremendousresents

opportunities the three largest the world are here in asia pacific. states.apan, the united so we're no strangers to this area. my trip here and my invitation came as aan ministers result of the continuation of our relationships, enhancement deepening of those relationships, where can we cooperate more fully. certainly much much yesterday's that, was about humanitarian assistance, .isaster relief i thought the noa administrators presentation was pointed yesterday when she talked about this part of the world being visited by more big natural of thers than any part world and that's going to continue according to our science and according to what we

can predict. we need that collective talked aboutat we yesterday. security, prosperity, peace. that also is not only focused on humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, but it's anticipate sea lanes, it's open skies, space. prosper, alls can nations can be free, all nations can trade, all nations can have opportunities. to do better. military relationships are important to help that security, to help that stability, to help assure that prosperity. but all instruments of power and instruments that governments have including outside sector,nt, private ngo's which were represented yesterday are part of that as well. i'm here.why i hope that point is clear. as to your question on what will i say to the chinese, i'm looking forward to meeting with

the chinese leaders to talk about the further cooperation in cooperatedwe have with china, will continue to cooperate. we do have differences. we are competitors, certainly the points on the south china sea, we havena differences there, we will talk differences. but i welcome and i know president obama does, our senior leaders, the integration of china into global forums, into responsible behavior. play -- play by the international rules of engagement, code of conduct, that.courage but i also want to listen to the will do theers, i same in japan. that's why these trips are important, to be able to have and dialogue, to sit down close the door and talk very directly to our

friends. and i consider the chinese as friends. differences. we are competitors. we disagree in areas. enemies. certainly not we're doing a lot of things together where we can find some interest. the "new york times." i'd like to return to fort hood if i may. think that american military bases have become so dangerous to the servicemen and who work there? do you think this is an issue with the military, or is this an or problem about, does it say something about america itself? >> well, elaine, not to minimize happened at fort hood, or what happened at the navy yard, week, thosed last specific incidents, because i've

you loseaid any time an individual it's a terrible pay attention to it and we're going to continue andry to resolve and fix adjust to make these places safer. not sure, we have a lot of bases in the world and the united states, and there are a safe places, too. if you have one that's not, then many, of course. but i'm not sure we can draw any answer yourto question yet. we just don't know enough, first all, about this latest episode in fort hood. learning more about what happened last week. to bethink we have careful not to jump to any conclusions or try to frame this a sociale kind of statement. yet.st don know enough and we will know what we need to problem.ix the

mr. secretary. defense minister visited the united states with president johnson. years after that --toric the defense minister was invited by you. question is, what is the drivingon and what is you to do so, especially these the --hile

(inaudible). i get the essence of question, first, our our country has laws rights.man a nation, like other nations, who respect humid individual rights and individual liberties. and we base a lot of our onicies, foreign policy, those kinds of relationships. tried tolways nationsen and encourage rights andhuman individual liberties. violations of are those laws, then that's an

issue. i think many nations of the a long way ine to comply with these human rights.s of and we encourage that and we try countries to do that. and, but at the same time we're very clear with all nations that not only do we comply with our laws, but this is what the states is, foreign policy is much about, is human rights. seriously.t >> over there.

>> mr. secretary, with a.p., specifically out of this meeting i'm wondering if you got any from any ofuests the asean nations for any equipment assets or other from the united states including the minister of gotten anyf you have additional requests from them, and did the u.s. make any otheric requests of the asean nations in terms of cooperation?is >> no additional requests from actingaysian transportation minister, defense the unitedre made of states. nor, that i'm aware of, of any other asean members. i would say, and i think the verysian minister has been clear on this and very public, his he complimented all of asean counterparts and all the was veryf asean, and oferous in his compliments

our efforts, the united states, and what we have done to assist. this is an area where i think we point to and certainly the malaysian minister has, of common interest. are a number of nationalities represented on malaysiant, that flight. china, all the nations of asia pacific who have been asked for any assistance by malaysia have and complied completely. this is about people. all, isn't that the essence of what we're all about, citizensting our own and helping others when they help. this in an interesting way has countries together, maybe not forever, there are we understandces, that. there still will be differences.

but when you define down to the lowest common denominator is about people. and i know the malaysian minister has made this point, and he made it a number of times in the meetings we had. but no new requests were made of us. clearly if hey has additional requests to talk been,e directly as he has as he's been calling me. and i told him if at all possible, absolutely we would do everything to honor any additional requests. he made anythink additional requests of any other nations. >> thank you. thank you all very much. >> we are also seeing long lines of people up to today, this moment, and across afghanistan

people who are waiting to get a voter card. despite 21 or 22 million voter floating around in a 12 millionh 11 to eligible joars, there are still long -- still longre are lines of men and women in kabul and other cities who want to have access to a voter card, which is an indication of the building up of enthusiasm among the population. should not judge the afghani lexes by the same standards that we judge our own elections. we've had 200 years of democratic evolution. a democracy in it's infancy. in fact, if this election does credible result, it will be the first peaceful in afghan power history. we want to be careful not to ahead of theent afghan people. it is their judgment to make,

whether the ultimate outcome is legitimate and credible. to bet think we want second guessing that issue at step along the way. >> the absence of the international observers or the really say is a drawdown in the number of international observers that be present will have a psychological effect on the an impactt will have on how the international community views it. numberreduction in the is unfortunate. i'm not trying to gloss over fact. but the truth is, it's not going to make a huge difference. enough international observers there to do their job, and the real story here is this an afghani lex, being under purr seunt to after began insteutions, and afghan first lineill be the of defense in ensuring a good

election. >> this weekend on c-span, with the afghanistan presidential election saturday, a look at what to expect. saturday morning at 10:00 eastern. and live on book tv this weekend, saturday morning at later at 12:30, panels on gun control, the presidency, right, andivil politics, from this year's annapolis book festival. atht in the middle of that 11:00 talk to michael lewis, the of moneying author boss, he looks at how bankers have rigged the system in their favor. at noon, u.s. military policy in the mideast. your chance to talk to retired former assistant defense secretary and author, bing west. c-span 2.ive on and on american history tv, a fraunces tavern museum, the reconstructed 18th century building where general jonl bid farewell to his officers, sunday at 6:00 p.m. on c-span 3. >> at a senate armed services

the army hearing on budget, chief of staff ray commented on the fort hood shooting and how the healthy handles mental problems. >> good morning, everybody. the committee meets today to hear testimony from secretary of the army john mchugh and chief of staff of the army general ray odierno. our hearing is on the army's fiscal year 2015 budget request and current posture. we meet with heavy hearts. once again, our army must recover from an act of unspeakable violence here at home. much remains unknown about the shooting incident yesterday at

ft. hood including the question of what prompted this horrible attack. all that is certain is that lives have been lost and that families are grieving, and we all share in their grief. secretary mchugh and general odierno, please convey this committee's condolences to the men and women of ft. hood and the army and please be assured that this committee will fully support your efforts to care for those who are affected. for more than a decade, the men and women of the army have had the burden of the wars in iraq and afghanistan. they've done all that we have asked and more to succeed. and remain resilient through repeated combat deployments. last year, the sequestration required by the budget control

act, along with a higher than expected operating tempo in afghanistan, led to a $12 billion shortfall in army operation and maintenance accounts, resulting in the cancellation of major training exercises and the deferral of requiremented equipment, maintenance and repair. last year's bipartisan budget act has begun to relieve those readiness problems by providing added funding to reduce somewhat the impact of sequestration in fiscal years 2014 and 2015. but the budget gaps and sequestration will apply, again, with full force in 2016 and beyond. the administration has proposed we increase the -- increase revenues so that we can raise defense budget gaps by $26

billion in fiscal year 2015, the budget before us. whether by additional revenues or other means, raising the budget gaps to reduce their impact is essential and is contingent on bipartisan congressional agreement. i believe we must pursue just that, continuously and with determination in the months ahead. under existing strategic guidance, the active army will cut its end strength by approximately $30,000 with a planned force of 450,000 by the end of fiscal year 2017. if the budget gaps remain unchanged, however, the army would shrink to an end strength of 420,000. a force size which general odierno publicly said is

inadequate to support our national defense strategy. end strength and force structure reductions of this magnitude must be managed carefully to avoid the risk that the army could become a hello force, hollow force. a look forward to the testimony of our witnesses on how the army will reorganization to make the reductions required by the budget gaps now in law. how the army would spend additional money if congress would raise the caps as proposed by the administration. how it will decide which installations would lose combat brigades, whether additional reductions can be born by units based overseas. what the impact of reductions required by the statutory budget gaps is likely to be on military and civilian personnel, families, readiness, modernization and our defense posture around the world.

in developing a plan to address the statutory budget gaps, the army has also had to make difficult decisions about distribution of proposed cuts between the active force and the reserve force. the department's planned end strength reductions would, at the end of fiscal year 2017, provide an active army of 450,000 or 20% less from its wartime high of 569,000, an army national guard of 335,000 or 6% less its war time high of 354,000, and the u.s. army reserve at 180,000, or 10% less than its high of 205,000. the army's decisions on aviation assets between active and reserve units have been

particularly controversial and we'll hold a hearing next tuesday focusing on the army's plans for change in active and reserve component force mix due to the end strength reductions over the next several years. the army has repeatedly canceled equipment modernization programs due to problems with costs or performance or with budget. this year's budget request proposes to cancel the army's ground combat vehicle, the gcv. the army has three remaining new vehicle programs, the joint light tactical vehicle, the self-propelled howizter and the armored multipurpose vehicle. upgrades for the m-1 tank and m-2 bradley are scheduled but remain a year or two down the road. the cancellation of the gcv, the gap in the abrams and bradley

programs, and the slowing of other vehicle programs combine to raise serious questions about risks to the army's ground vehicle industrial base. and i look forward to hearing from our witnesses how they plan to manage those risks. finally, the army has been devoted to addressing the physical and emotional toll, the 12 years of war have taken on our soldiers and their families. while there are programs now and significant resources dedicated to support our soldiers and their families before, during and after their deployment and service, there is more to do. we remain concerned with the incidents of suicides and sexual assaults and the continuing problems faced by many of our soldiers as they return from deployment to war zones, leave the military, seek new jobs and transition to civilian life.

committee's interested to hear updates from secretary mchugh and general odierno and their assessment of the steps that have already been taken to address these problems and the steps that remain to be taken. i invite them, i invite you both, to begin your testimony by updating us on yesterday's events at ft. hood. again, the committee's grateful for your great contribution, to ourinhofe. >> thank you, mr. chairman. coincidentally, i was with secretary mchugh when the news came and we both got it at the same time, the tragedy at ft. hood. i can pretty much identify too, given the deterioration of the military readiness and capabilities over the last five years and the significant end strength cuts planned for the

army. we're all concerned that we can't meet the missions outlined in the strategic guidance without unacceptable risk to the force in our country. we have to remind ourselves and others that when risk goes up -- you were talking about lives. we've been wrong before in the past when it comes to assumptions recordiassumptio assumptions regarding the size of our ground forces. sat income next to each other o house armed services committee when we heard testimony in 1993 by some expert in ten years we would no longer need ground forbeses. so we've been wrong before on where we are. today, the greatest risk our military faces, a hollow force. that has been accruing. we're digging ourselves a

readiness hole out of which it will take several years to climb. not only does the budget underfund current readiness, it the mo mortgages future readiness. the chairman's already covered the effects it would have in 1415 and of course the devastating effects that, i'm sure, general, you're going to want to talk about, should things happen this way and continue to 2016. yesterday, i don't see her here now, but it was kind of prophetic because -- and i used this morning on a show. senator ayotte asked the question. i'm going to go ahead and repeat what she asked yesterday at the hearing. what steps are you taking to prepare for, prevent and respond to threats to personnel and facilities in light of the 2009 ft. hood shooting? that was yesterday morning before the readiness committee

hearing. we'll have some questions concerning that, where we go from here, what the future's going to look like and the security we'll have to offer. >> thank you very much, senator inhofe. secretary mchugh. >> let me express my appreciation to you, the ranking member, and individual discussions before the hearing, to the other members of the committee for their heartfelt expresses of sorrow and support. it's deeply appreciated. obviously, as you noted, mr. chairman, this long-standing posture hearing is being held now under a shadow of the tragic events that happened just yesterday afternoon at ft. hood. as i know you all understand, any time the army loses a soldier, we all mourn. when that loss comes at the hands of another soldier, and, indeed, when that event occurs at the very place that suffered so much pain, so much anguish,

just 4 1/2 years ago, it only adds to the sorrow and the all-consuming sense of loss the army is feeling this day. our first responsibility, as i know you share, is to the families of the fallen. also, to those of course who have been wounded and those close to them, their family, their loved ones, as they make their way hopefully on a road to full recovery. our thoughts and prayers, but most importantly, our actions and our every effort will be with those families, will be with those survivors, whatever the struggle we have ordered all possible means of both medical and investigatory support, as well as added behavioral health counselors. i want to give a tip of the hat to va secretary rich senseki who

immediately reach out and offered support to needed personnel. in speaking, as both the chief and i did late last evening, to lieutenant general mark milley, for the moment, the immediate needs seem to be met, but we're going to monitor that very, very carefully. as i know all of you recognize, this is an ongoing investigation and one that encourages 15 or so hours ago. even at this point, the circumstances remain very fluid. we recognize we owe this committee, particularly, but also this congress, the facts, what we know, when we know it. i want to promise all of the members here this morning that we will work with you as we go forward together so that we can effectively -- you can effectively discharge your oversight responsibilities. if i may, mr. chairman, i'd also like to take a brief opportunity to say to the ft. hood community

and to the army family worldwide, this is a time once again to come together, to stand as one, as they have so many times before, drawing strength from each other, as this committee knows so well, the past 13 years have been fraught with much loss, with much pain, much suffering. but through it all, men and women of the united states army, their families, the civilians who support them, have come through the storm together. and i know, as we have in the past, will come out the other side of this tempest poor for the losses but stronger for our resolve. mr. chairman, i can take a moment now to give you the updates that you've requested and then defer to the chief for the purpose of the posture statement if you'd like. >> that would be fine, thank you. >> based on our discussions last evening with lieutenant general

mark milley, subsequent conversation i had about 10:45 with the secretary of defense, these are the facts as we understand them that, again, things are changing even at this moment. the specialist, the alleged shooter involved, joined the united states army in june of 2008. when he first enlisted in the army, he was in 11 bravo as an infantry soldier, as most of you know. he later upon reupping transferred his m.o.s. to an 88 mic truck driver. we are tracking at the moment that he did have two deployments, including one four-month, approximately four-month deployment to iraq as a truck driver. his records show no wounds, no involvement, direct involvement in combat, as general milley said, no record of purple heart or any injury that might lead us

to further investigate a battle-related tbi or such. he was variety of treatment and diagnoses for mental health conditions ranging from depression to anxiety to some sleep disturbance. he was prescribed a number of drugs to address those, including ambien. he was seen just last month by psychiatrists. he was fully examined, and as of this morning, we had no indication on the record of that examination that there was any sign of likely violence, either to him or to others. no suicidal ideation, so the plan forward was to just continue to monitor and to treat him as deemed appropriate. the alleged weapon was a 45

caliber that the soldier had recently purchased. he lived off post. we try to do everything we can to encourage soldiers to register their personal weapons, even when they live off post. we are not legally able to compel them to register weapons when they reside off post, but the minute that soldier brought that weapon onto the post, it was not registered and it was under our rules and regs, being utilized obviously illegally. and with not proper clearance or foreknowledge by the command. he is married. his wife was being questioned last i was informed last evening. they are natives to puerto rico. again, the background checks we have done thus far show no involvement with extremist organizations of any kind, but as the general said to me last evening and i know the chief and

i fully support, we're not making any assumptions by that. we're going to keep an open mind and an open investigation, and we will go where the facts lead us. and possible extremist involvement is still being looked at very, very carefully. he had a clean record in terms of his behavioral, no outstanding bad marks for any kinds of major misbehaviors that we are yet aware of. so you know the conditions of those who were involved in the incident. there were three victims who have tragically lost their lives. the other killed in action in that moment was the shooter, who took his own life when confronted by military police officer, a female. 16 others wounded. three that were considered critical. the others varying severity, but

considered by and large stable. but we obviously are going to continue to make sure they get the best of care because we want to insure absolutely that no bad thing comes out of this more than already has. so that is pretty much what we know at this moment. >> thank you very much, secretary. >> and if it's appropriate, i'll yield to the chief for the posture comments. >> general. >> chairman, if i could just add a few comments. first, once again, we talk a lot in the army that we have an army family, and we've lost young people who are part of our army family, we take that incredibly serious. for me, this hits close to home. i've spent a lot of time at ft. hood personally. i was a brigade commander, division commander, and corps commander at ft. hood. i understand the resilience of

that community. the resilience of the people there, how proud the soldiers are of what they do, and we will do everything we can to insure they continue to move forward. i would just say that i believe that some of the procedures that have been put in place following the incident four and a half years ago did help us yesterday. the alert procedures that were in place, the response, the training that has gone into the response forces that responded, i think, contributed to making this something that could have been much, much worse. so we will continue to monitor the force of the army and the resources of the army will be behind ft. hood. we are very confident in the leadership of mark mille, who is, i think as many of you know, just returned from afghanistan as the commander of the corps over there, and is a very experienced commander. and we will continue to support

them. the only thing i would add to the facts that secretary provided is this was an experienced soldier. he spent actually nine years in the puerto rico national guard before coming on active duty, so he's a very experienced soldier. had a one-year deployment to the sinai with the national guard. and then had a four-month deployment in iraq. it was the last four months at the end of 2011, from august through december 2011. we will continue to work and work through this issue, continue to investigate and as we do that, we will provide information to all. the only other thing i'll say, the great interagency cooperation, has provided great assistance, as well as the veterans affairs, as the secretary pointed out. so we will continue to work this. we have an incredibly talented,

resilience army, who will continue to be incredibly resilient and move forward, but we also reach out to our family, the victims and the families of our victims of this tragic incident. and that's all i have. if you want me to continue, i will continue with my statement. >> thank you. i think that would be appropriate to give us now your posture statement. >> chairman levin, ranking member inhofe, other members, thank you so much for allowing me to speak with you this morning. i first want to thank you, chairman, for your 36 years of service. and all you have done for us as the chairman of this committee. and your leadership, your bipartisan leadership and always supporting our soldiers and families, and also holding us accountable for doing what's right for our soldiers and for our national security. i want to thank you, sir, for that. >> i very much appreciate that. thank you. >> despite declining resources, the demand for army forces actually continues to increase.

more than 70,000 soldiers are deployed today on contingency operations, and about 85,000 soldiers are stationed in nearly 150 countries including nearly 20,000 on the korean peninsula. our soldier civilians of family members continue to serve with confidence, commitment, and character that our great nation deserves. a typical day for our soldiers includes patrolling alongside our afghan national army partners, standing watch on the demilitarized zone in brea, continuing security for them to see, manning missile batteries in guam, and assisting in the devastating mudslide in the state of washington. as we consider the future roles and missions of our army, comparative, we consider the world as it exists not as one we wish it to be. the recent headlines of russia's annexation of crimea, the intractable syrian civil war,

artillery exchanges between north korea and south korea, adjust to name a few, remind us of the complexity and uncertainty inherent in the national security environment. it demands we make prudent decisions about the future capability and capacity that we need within our army. therefore, we must insure our army has the ability to rapidly respond to conduct the entire range of military operations from humanitarian assistance and stability operation to general war. we certainly appreciate the short-term predictability and fy '14 and fy '15 afforded by budget levels in the bipartisan budget agreement. the bipartisan budget agreement in fy '15 army level of $120.5 billion, in reality, it's still $12.7 billion short of our request. the budget agreement will allow us to begun to buy back some short-term readiness by funding

additional combat maneuver rotations increasing the amount of forces trained and ready for decisive combat operations, however we still are required to make tough choices and had to reduce our modernization efforts by ending four programs, restructuring 30 and delaying 50 programs. we continue to take significant risks in our facility sustainment and training. the 2014 quadrennial defense review builds on the defense priorities outlined in the 2012 defense strategic guidance. last year, i testified that we can implement the defense guidelines at moderate risk with an end strength of 490,000 in the active arty, 350,000 in the national guard and 202,000 in the national reserve, and i stand by that assessment. however, sequestration is the law of the land. and it will return in fiscal year '16 without immediate congressional action.

the readiness gains achieved in fy '15 will quickly atrophy as we are forced to reduce planned rotations and planned activities in order to fund immediate operational requirements. sustained readiness requires sustained training dollars and investment. our modernization accounts will receive a 25% reduction with no program unaffected. major weapon programs will be delayed, severely impacting the industrial base both in and near and long term. under sequestration, the next three or four years, we'll continue to reduce end strength as quickly as possible while still meeting operational commitments. as we continue to draw down and restructure into a smaller force, the army will continue to have significantly degraded readiness and expensive modernization shortfalls. at the end of fy'19, we'll begin to establish the appropriate balance of end strength

readiness and modernization but for an army that is much smaller. from fy '20 to '23, we'll begin to achieve our goals and reinvest in our maodernization programs. we will have no choice but to crash end strength levels in order to attain that proper balance. as i said earlier, we'll be required to further reduce the active army to 420,000. the national guard to 315,000, the u.s. army reserve to 185,000. at these end strength funding levels, we will not be able to execute the defense strategy. in my opinion, this will call into question our ability to execute even one prolonged multi-phased major contingency operation. i also have deep concerns that an army at these end strength levels will not have sufficient capacity to meet commitment and simultaneously train to sustain appropriate readiness levels.

the president's budget mission supports end strength levels at 440,000 to 450,000 in the national arm and 195,000 in the army reserve. i believe this should be the absolute floor for end strength reduction. to execute the defense strategy it's important to note that as we continue to lose end strength, our flexibility deteriorates as does our ability to react to strategic surprise. my experience tells me that our assumptions about the duration and size of future conflicts outlie contributions and the need to conduct post stability operations are optimistic. if these assumptions are proven wrong, our risk will grow significantly. under the president's budget, we'll achieve a balance between end strength readiness and modernization three to five years earlier than under sequestration, and that would

occur around fy '18. in order to meet ongoing and future budget reductions we have developed a policy with close cooperation within the army and department of defense. the secretary of defense directed that the army not retain structure at its expensive readiness. additionally, the secretary of the army and i suggested cuts should come disproportionately from the active force before reducing the active guard and army reserve. our total force policy was informed by the lessons learned in the last 13 years of war. we considered operational commitment, readiness levels frk future requirements as well as cost. the result is a plan that recognized the unique attributes, responsibilities, and complementary nature of each component while insuring our guard and reserves are maintained as operational and not a strategic reserve. ongoing reductions coupled with sequestration level cuts over the next seven years will result in a total reduction of 150,000

soldiers and 687 aircraft and up to 46% of our brigade combat teams from the active army. the national guard will be reduced by 43,000 soldiers, 111 aircraft, and up to 22% of the brigade combat teams it currently has. and the u.s. army reserve will be reduced by 20,000 soldiers. the end strength cuts to the active army will represent 70% of the total end strength reductions, prepared with 20% from the national guard and 10% from the u.s. army reserve. this will result in the guard and reserves comprising 54% of the total army end strength while the active component will comprise 46%. the army will be the only component where the reserve outnumbers the active component. under sequestration, we can't afford to maintain our current aviation structure and sustain modernization and provide

trained and ready aviation units across all three komponants so we have developed an innovative concept to address these issues. overall, we believe this plan will generate a total savings of $12.7 billion over the following. of the 798 total aircraft reduced under this plan, 687 or 86% will come out of the active component. and 111 aircraft or 14% from the national guard. we will also transfer about 100 uh-60s to the national guard. as with end strength, we are disproportionately taking cuts from the active component aviation. and in fact, we will eliminate three full combat aviation brigades out of the active component while the national guard sustains all its component structure. this plan allows the army to eliminate the obsolete air

frames and sustain pilot efficiency across the total force. the result is enforcements who are more capable in formation that are able to respond to contingencies at home and abroad. let me be very clear. these are not cuts we want to take but we must take based on sequestration. i believe our recommendation delivers the best total army for the budget we have been allocated. the secretary and i also understand that the american people hold us to a higher standard of character and behavior. combatting sexual assault and harassment remains our top priority. over the past year, the army has established more stringent screening criteria and background checks for those serving in positions of trust. army commanders continue to prosecute the most serious sexual assault offenses at a rate more than double our civilian jurisdictions, including many cases that civilian authorities refuse to pursue. we appreciate the continued

focus of congress as we implement legislative reforms to enhance the rights of survivors and improve our military justice system. we continue to take this issue very seriously. i also know how much work remains to be done in this area. we are also aggressively and comprehensively attacking the issue of leadership. individually, organizationally, and through systematic reviews. we have initiated 360 assessments on all officers and especially commanders. we've implemented a new officer evaluation report to strengthen accountability for our general officers, we conduct peer surveys and develop specific ethic focus as part of our senior leadership program. we have also implemented 360 degree assessments for our general officers. we will also appreciate help with two issues impacting our ability to maintain the right balance for our army.

first is the base realignment and closure process. which is a proven fair, cost effective means to address excess installation capacity. with the reduction of over 200,000 soldiers from our army, the lower budgets, we need a brack to reduce unsustainability infrastructure, and we're grateful for the care and compensation provided to our soldiers. we have endorsed proposals that recognize their incredible service while allowing us to better balance future readiness and compensation. we must keep in mind that it's not a matter of if but when we will deploy our army to defend this great nation. we have done it in every decade since world war ii. it is incumbent upon all of us to assure our soldiers are highly trained, equipped and organized. if we do not, they will bear the heavy burden of our miscalculations. i'm incredibly proud to wear this uniform, and represent the soldiers of the active army, the

army national guard, and the u.s. army reserve. their sacrifices have been unprecedented over the last 13 years. we must provide them with the necessary resources for success in the future. thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to the entire committee for allowing me to testify here today, and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you both. secretary mchugh, do you have anything to add on the posture statement at this time? >> mr. chairman, i juwant to be respectful of the committee's time. i have a statement, but by and large, it tracks what the chief said. i fully indorse all of the comments he made, and if it suits the committee and you, sir, i think, if you like, i could enter that into the record. >> we will enter that into the record. let's start with a seven-minute first round. secretary, first of all, let me thank you both for those very heartfelt comments about the events at ft. hood. the army stands as one.

and i hope that everyone in that family knows that congress stands with them as one. and i mentioned anything we can do to be helpful in the aftermath of this, to help the grieving families and the installations, please just call on us. we will all be there for you. and for them. on the question of sequestration, this is one of the issues which i believe we've got to hit head on. it's going to affect not just this year and it already has, despite a bipartisan budget agreement, which has reduced somewhat the impact of sequestration is going to have traumatic impacts as you just described, general, in 2016. in the '15 budget, however, the administration has requested, not requested so much as opened

up the possibility, i guess, and i guess requested is accurate, an additional $26 billion. raising the cap by that much for fy '15 is indicated it's going to recommend additional revenues to pay for that additional $26 billion in spending above the budget control act caps. i believe that the army's share of that $26 billion would be, and correct me if i'm wrong, $4.1 billion for readiness. $3.4 billion for investment accounts. does that sound about right? >> that sounds correct. >> can you indicate what priorities you would spend that share of those funds, if in fact we authorize and appropriate that additional funding? >> senator, briefly, and then the chief has submitted an unfunded requirements list that

embodies the $7.5, and i would let him detail that, but as you noted, it's basically 60/40 with 60% going to try to accelerate our readiness to recapture, and also to some efforts with respect to srn and other modernization programs we view as vital to achieve. >> could you then submit the highlights, in your judgment, for the record? there is a request that we have already, i think, received now. is that correct? >> correct. >> and then within that, are there highlights that you might want to mention? >> yes, chairman. first, again, about $1.8 billion of that would be directly related to operational tempo, which is training readiness dollars which would be invested in all of the components to immediately increase their readiness. we have taken a lot of risk in base operation support, and about $1.5 billion would be

invested. what does that mean? that's our training facilities, our training ranges which we have had to reduce the ma maintenance of and sustainment of and building of which impacts our training. we also have not been able to keep up with our installation support structure. we're only funding that at 50%. we put almost about a million dollars back into that to help us sustaining the facilities that are necessary for our soldiers. we're also investing about $200 million in institutional training to continue to insure that we improve and sustain our ability to train our non-commissioned officers, officers and new soldiers at the rates we think are appropriate to include initial aviation training and other things. and finally, we have -- it would go to high priority modernization programs such as the a-64, the ua-60, the great eagle intelligence platforms we have that are key for the future as well as engineer capability we have not been able to upgrade and update that we know is

essentially based on our experiences over the last 13 years. in addition to that, i have submitted and it will come forward an initial $3.1 million that are not included in the number, and most of that is a carry over from the shortfall we had from the last few years that goes to more readiness. >> thank you. the budget request includes numerous personnel related proposals intended to slow the growth of personnel costs. among these are a pay raise below the rate of inflation. a one-year pay freeze for general and flag officers, reduction in the growth of the housing allowance over time, a phase reduction in the subsidy for military commissaries, a series of changes at the tricare program. do you -- and this further reduction is in the end strength of the army and marine corps. general, do you personally support these proposals? >> i do, senator. >> and were the senior listed

advisers consulted -- consulted during this process? >> we had several meetings that included the senior list of advisers. >> do they agree with these proposals? >> they do, sir. >> on the army aviation, there's restructuring which has been proposed, and i think you highlighted it in your written statement, and i think you may have made reference to it in your oral testimony. including the fact that the army national guard with transfer low density, high demand ah-64 apache helicopters to the active army and the active army would transfer over 100 blackhawk helicopters to the guard. my question is, do all the service chiefs approve that recommendation? i'm asking you now as a member of the joint chiefs.

do all the service chiefs approve that? >> in the meetings we had, we have all agreed to the budget allocation and how we would conduct the budget to include ari. >> and that is included in this. >> yes, sir. >> did the secretary of defense approve? i'm talking about that specific proposal, because that's going to be one of the issues which is going to be very closely debated here, very closely analyzed here. so i want to know if everybody approved that. secretary of defense approve that? >> yes, chairman. >> how about the chief of the national guard bureau? did he approve that or at least have an opportunity -- >> he was in every meeting that we conducted when we had discussions both internal and external to the army and do drb. >> one quick last question. about six seconds left. i believe it would be helpful if the president would announce a specific troop level number for the u.s. military presence in

afghanistan after 2014, as quickly as possible. and not wait for a bilateral security agreement to be signed by the next president. obviously is not going to be signed by this president of afghanistan. and i think it would be helpful in terms of steadiness and stability and certainty and confidence about an ongoing presence in afghanistan if our president would announce a specific troop level for that presence after 2014. my question, i guess it would be of you again, general. in your view, would that be helpful for afghanistan security to the rest of this year? >> senator, i believe that the sooner we can come and provide them information that relays our commitment to them, i think it helps us as we move forward in afghanistan. >> thank you very much. senator inhofe. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

the secretary mchugh, last night, we were together at an event where we had a lot of peop people's support. when you got the phone call of the tragedy that took place. i know that buzzing around the room there, was even though it's happened twice at ft. hood, it could just as well have happened at other places, is that right? from what we know now? >> from what we know now, we're viewing this as a threat across the entire army. >> i think it was kind of prophetic yesterday in the hearing, i think i mentioned this in my opening stable that senator ayotte was kind of challenging that we haven't done enough and expressed a concern, and just coincidentally, hours after that is when it took place. i know that was -- meant a lot to all of us. since this happened just last night, do you have any immediate thoughts about this that you would like to share with us?

>> well, i think senator ayotte is posing a statement that we question ourselves about every day, and certainly particularly this day. while i would suggest we have done a great deal since the tragedies at ft. hood in 2009, both across installation type measures to what we're doing to try to track insider threats and what we're trying to do to make sure we can identify those soldiers who may have the kind of behavioral health challenges that could lend them to violence, we're doing things a lot differently, and as the chief has mentioned, as we watch some of these events unfold yesterday, we saw some of the benefits and gains made out of that ft. hood, first ft. hood

experience. but something happened, something went wrong, and we need to know what that was, and if we failed in some way across our current policies, we need to be honest with ourselves and with you and hold ourselves accountable, but if we identify new challenges, new threats we hadn't recognized before, we have to put into place programs to respond to them. >> i appreciate that. general odierno, i wrote down one of the quotes that you made in your opening statement. you said that we could barely sustain one long-term contingency operation. did i write that down correctly? and were you talking about with a force of 450,000? >> that was with a force of 420,000, and i said in my opinion it's doubtful we would be able to conduct one prolonged sustained multi-phased campaign.

>> that's a strong statement. and this is a time for strong statements. people to have to understand the situation that we're in. now, with that, you would be -- you're probably assuming that would be with a trained and ready force, is that correct? >> that's correct, sir. >> and that would be to moderate to high risk. what risk level? >> high risk. >> already high risk. even with a ready and trained force? >> it has to do with the size. it's about the size, which is, you know, you reduce your active component, you reduce your national guard, you reduce your reserve, and it has to do with assumptions. if it goes past one year, it will be very difficult for us to sustain that in the long term based on the capability and capacities we have. >> general, we never talked about this, but there are a lot of people out there who don't like it. and we've got a lot of countries that have great capability relative to ours now. this is something we haven't

really had to live with before. and i know that they're aware, it's not just us in this room that are aware of that statement. that we can just do one. if we're in the middle of one long-term contingency operation, what do you think is going through their minds, potential adversaries out there? >> well, thing we talk about all the time, one of the things, the reasons we have an army and armed forces is to prevent conflict deterrence, and deterrence is a combination of capacity and comp tense. it's important to us that we have the capacity and competence that compels them not to miscalculate. what i worry about is miscalculations that could occur. >> the whole thing back in the reagan administration was the deterrent offered by our strength, and our force. and i think we all agree with that. i did some checking, just this morning. we've gotten back as far as world war ii. you talked about the fact that

we would, if we're having to go on down to sequestration, big problem is going to be the year 2016. you would be talking about 420,000 active. 315,000 army guard, and 185,000 army reserve. so the reserve component when you add those together is 500,000. i think -- are we overlooking something? because we went back as far as world waur ii, and we've never had the reserve component larger than the active component. do you think that's accurate? >> i would have to go back and look. what i would tell you is over the last ten years or so, that has been the case where the reserve component is bigger than the -- the active component is bigger. >> do you have any thoughts or comments about that? >> it's a tricky combination. what i would say is it is, as i say all the time, we are very complementary. we need all three of the components. they're very important to our

strategy. however, they bring different attributes. the attributes that the active components brings is a higher level of readiness and responsiveness. as we reduce the size of the active component, the responsiveness and ability to do that is significantly degraded and that's cause for concern. we still need the guard and reserve as levels because they provide us the depth and capability in order to execute longer term missions and they provide us a very unique capability that we don't have in the active component. >> well, let me compliment you. you have been outspoken. you have actually said things that sometimes others don't. one of your quotes was if we don't have a legislative solution that provides our leaders with the time and flexible to shape our force for the future, we will create a hollow force. we'll very quickly go to extremely low levels of readiness in the next six months. then you had made a statement before the house foreign services committee if

sequestration were allowed to occur, the army would begin to grow hollow within months. are we hollow now? >> we are in some ways because we cannot sustain the level of readiness that we think is appropriate. we are rebuilding it this year because the bipartisan budget agreement, so we'll make some progress in '14 and '15, but '16 as sequestration come s back in line, readiness will dip again. so a three to four-year period until we can get our forces aligned, we will not be trained and modernized the way we would like to be, which begins to create a level of hollowness. >> my time has expired, but for the record, i would like to have you respond to the relative degree of hollow force that we had in the 1970s and that we're close to in the 1990s and where are we with that situation? you remember that very well, and i thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. senator reid. >> thanks very much mr

mr. chairman, and secretary and chief, thank you, too. this is a tragic situation at ft. hood, and a comment, one of the things that strikes me is that this is a particular situation i have no insight on, but you had an individual who had like so many others in the service, deployment. in fact, his deployment wasn't as extensive and as multiple as many people serving. he's already been identified as having mental health problems. he was being treated, et cetera, so the army was doing its best for one of its own. yet we still have the tragic consequences. one of the great leaderships in the face of the next years is that there are other young men and women who have these issues who may even be treated, some may not even be identified. and we have to obviously get to

the bottom of this and learn from it, et cetera, but this isn't a consequence of ten years of warfare from the army. and many things you have to do and think about are going to have to be in the context of how do we deal with soldiers who have these, some obvious issues and some not so obvious. it's a huge responsibility, and just, i know you understand this, but i think that should be explicit at this moment. >> general odierno, one of the principles of a reduced force is that it gets more readily deployed, faster, quicker, with more lethality, better training, and you know, better not only -- i hate to use the word productivity, but a much more efficient force. and one of the points you just made, and i think bears reiteration, is that because of many factors, the active force

can be faster out the door, better prepared as units, simple things like constant access to ranges, constant training. can you elaborate on that? >> senator, it has to do with complexity, and as complexity grows, it requires more of what you just discussed. for example, there are some things that aren't as complex. let me give you a example. port opening, that's not complex, so that can be done. as you get to complex operations such as brigade combat teams and what we might ask them to do, the amount of training is significant, in order to build the collective capability that is necessary, the integration of company platoons, integration of air and ground, the integration of intelligence, of fires, all of that takes significant amount of training because that integration is very, very difficult and complex. and it requires our leaders to do much training. and that's why we need certainly capability in the active

component, because they need to be ready. if we need to deploy them, they have gone through the training. they are prepared to do that. we can send them and they can immediately begin to do that. that's why it's so necessary to have that capability ready and prepared to go. as you get smaller, it becomes even more important because you don't have the depth that we once had. so that even becomes more important. >> is there a metric for this in the sense that every unit that's notified for deployment has to do pre-deployment training. my sense, and again it's a sense, and get your reaction, is for an active force who has been continually engaged in all these complex operations you have talked about, day in and day out, that predeployment training is a certain number of days, weeks, but for units, in fact, they might have individual members with more expertise, et cetera, but in terms of the unit deployment, it's a longer period

of time. do you have those metrics? >> we do. i can lay this out for you in detail, but what i would tell you is for active component units, in reality, they need to be prepared to immediately go out the door. and it has to do with personnel readiness as well as unit collective training readiness. and that takes a lot of effort to even sustain the right level of medical, dental, other readiness that is required for them to deploy. >> the recollection is that in a unit that was required to deploy, a company within hours, a battalion within a day or less, and then the brigade within, you know, that same s t sort, the notion that it's different than other units even active units. so that's something i think has to be appreciated. the other issue here, too, with respect to size. it goes back to are there technologies that you need to compensate for the decreased

size? put it another way, the soldier of 2014 has a lot more firepower effectiveness than the soldier of 1974, i can assure you that. are there things that you need, are there things that help sort of put in context this number and not just, well, back in 1976, we had a million, now we only have 500,000? >> i'm very aware of that. i don't like doing those comparisons because the capabilities that we have in our army today are much greater than they have ever been. our individual soldier capability has, the way he is equipped with the weapons systems and technology we have given them makes them more capable. the systems we have that are integrated, whether it be a heavy, light, or medium capability is much better than it's been in the past, so you know, our investments have paid dividends, but our units are

more capable than they were before, which allows us to get smaller. genl, there comes a point where you get too small and it's just a matter of numbers. that's what i'm worried about. >> i have a few seconds remaining, so more of a comment than a question. of course, looking at ourselves is interesting, but we have to look at the adversaries also. they're getting more sfusicated, particularly potential, and we have to take every range of potential engagement. some of them are getting very sophisticated in terms of their air power and others, where we have since 50 years the army has fought with total air superiority, and we have to begin to think about maybe it won't be total. and so i think -- i hope that informs some of the issues in terms of your structural changes you're making because at times where you could rely on other

platforms for support, you might have to bring your own. is that in your thoughts? >> if i could make a couple comments. i appreciate that. one is that we have really changed how we use our tactical helicopters. and we use it -- we use it much more in post-support, direct support to our ground forces in a variety of different scenar scenarios. we're also now going to have to use it as a reconnaissance surveillance platform which is critical to any success. that's becoming more critical, how you fight for intelligence and how you understand and develop situations. so the only last comment i would make on modernization. the one thing we have to do that we have not done yet, it is this combination of mobility, survivability and lethality. over the last eight years, we have focused on survivability, but we have lost mobility and we have not increased lethality. as we go to the future, it is

incumbent upon us we have to invest in better mobility, combined with better survivability with increased lethality. that's what we need to focus our modernization programs and have that connected to our reconnaissance and surveillance capabilities. that's what's going to provide us an advantage for the smaller force. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, senator reed. snore senator mccain. >> i'd like to add my voice to all of us in expressing my condolences to the families for the tragedy that has taken place. first of all, john, i would like to associate my remarks with what senator read just stated. we also talk about how more capable we are. we are facing a much more capable adversary as well. and i think that it's interesting to note the efficiency of the recent russian movement into crimea, even

though it was unopposed, it was a pretty impressive operation, wouldn't you say? >> it was. >> and they showed some capabilities and coordination of forces that maybe we hadn't quite expected. >> i look at another force, the one thing you look at is not only its technical capability but it's ability to coordinate, synchronize, organize, and what we have seen is some very sophisticated seek rnization, organization, integration. >> including the fact we did not intercept any communications amongst those various branches, and in the execution of this operation. when did you first start serving in the united states army, general? >> my first -- i entered west

point in 1972, started serving in 1976, sir. >> so you've had a chance to observe a lot of things happen in the world and a lot of engagements and a lot of activities the united states has been involved in. would you say that in your judgment that the world is more dangerous now in many respects since the end of the cold war or the same or less so? >> senator, the comment i made repeatedly, it is the most uncertain that i have seen it, in which in itself makes it somewhat dangerous because of the uncertainty we're seeing around the world and the unpredictability we're seeing around the world, across many different areas. it's not just limited to one place. it's occurring on almost every continent. >> and one would argue it's not prudent to continue to reduce our defense capabilities, wouldn't that make sense? >> again, there is concern

because of the uncertainty that we see. and that's what concerns me. >> we hear statements made by unnamed administration officials that this is, quote, the end of land wars. there are no more land wars. in your experience and background and knowledge, do you think that that's probably a good idea? plan for no more land wars? >> as i said, senator, in my opening statement, every decade since world war ii, we have had to deploy army forces. and we continue to have army forces deployed today. and so my opinion is, we want to have a balanced joint force, which requires also the capability to deploy land forces. >> you know what i find interesting is that when general meyer came here before congress and testified that we have a hollow army, it got headlines all over the world. now, basically, what you're saying is that we're headed towards a hollow army.

the chief of the u.s. military in korea testified here just recently that he had enough operational capabilities for the forces that are now in korea, but he does not have the sufficient or battle-ready units to re-enforce him in case of a crisis in korea. do you share that view? >> i know exactly what he said and what the context, so i feel uncomfortable commenting on that, senator. what i would say is we are working very hard to build a readiness that we can do everything we can in our commitment to support our allies on the korean front. >> but a lot of those units are not combat operationally ready at this time. >> they are not at this time. >> they are not. so now we are presenting you with a two-year reprieve, and

then sequestration kicks in again. one, i would be very curious how that affects your capability to plan. and two, what will further impact of sequestration be on the united states army in your view? >> one of the things i worry about the most is the reason we have been able to do the things we have been asked to do in the past is we had a sustained readiness capability. so in other words, we had consistent funding. we were able to contain to maintain a continuous sustainment of readiness throughout the force. we have not been able to do that. so '14 and '15 helps us. we will rebuild hereadiness to some level, but in '16 we'll lose that readiness again. you need consistent readiness funding in order to sustain the level of readiness necessary for us to be able to respond the way the american people expect us to if we need it. >> so how do you plan?

>> what we're doing is i've got to prioritize. i have to take part of the force and make sure they are ready to go. which means there's others part of the force -- >> i guess my question, sequestration, no sequestration. a dual plan. >> right now, i plan for sequestration. that's the law of the land, senator, and we try to build scenarios and give some recommendations on what funding we might need in order to -- in order to create a readiness level and the size of the army that is accessible, and that goes back to, as we said, we think the force should be about 450,000 and the active component and the money to sustain the force that would be necessary. >> i'm hearing, general, and i know you are, too, and i would like to get your comment on the record. i'm hearing from a lot of very bright and talented young officers in all services that this kind of lifestyle where

operations are canceled, where deployments, they don't know from one day to the next the degree of readiness and training and capabilities they expect to have are not becoming -- are not real. and many of them are questioning whether service in the military is a lifestyle that they want to pursue. are you hearing those same kinds of rumblings, especially amongst the best and the brightest? >> what i would say is, if we continue along this path where we go up and down and uncertainty about what the size of the army will be, what the type of readiness will be, it will start to impact those who want. so far, it is not, and we're doing everything we can to sustain the experience we have in the force. but if this continues for ten more years, i would be very surprised if it does not begin

to impact those who want to continue to serve. it is not about -- >> how about two more years? >> excuse me? >> how about two more years? >> it's unclear. i don't know. what i say often is i don't know what will be the thing that finally the straw that breaks the camel's back on this. we are working very hard to insure we keep our very best. and so far, we have been able to do that, but i don't know how much longer we'll be able to do that. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator mccain. senator mccaskill. >> thank you. secretary mchugh, the defense finance and accounting services was set up by the secretary of defense back in '91 in an effort to try to better manage the business systems at the department of defense. and since its inception, they have consolidated more than 300 installation-led offices and denying sites, reduced the numbers of systems from 330 to 111, and obviously, they work off a working capital fund where

they charge their customers. there's not a direct appropriation. i was a little concerned when i saw you launched an army financial management optimization task force pursuant to your directive that would move from the dfas some functions directly in the army, and i worry about that and so what i need to ask you is why, and because what we're going to do is if everybody does that, we're back to where we began with a lot of duplication, a lot of one branch not knowing what the other branch is doing as far as systems. as we're trying to get to an aud audit, it seems to me that decision you made, at least at a superficial level, looks like you're rowing the boat the wrong way. >> thank you for the question, senator. i know you understand full well the army does not control

defense. so there's been a number of army that was going to close different places, and i have to tell you that's not true. we don't have that power, even if we choose to do so. as i know you understand as well, in the enormously difficult and challenging times, the army is looking at virtually everything we do to try to see where we can be more efficient, more effective, and frankly save money. over the past several years, we have deployed a number of erps, including gfibs. those are systems by which we internally within the army track our bills, pay our bills, et cetera, et cetera. and those have to date been very, very successful. so what i asked our army folks, financial management folks to do, was to set up two hubs to take a look at how we might optimize our structure, and how

we might indeed pursue auditability. you're absolutely right, we're under legislative requirement to be fully audible by 2017. we feel we are on track, and part of the pursuit of that auditability includes the deployment of these erps that enable us to, we think, become more efficient, but we haven't made any decisions or any choices. and we need to find out exactly what these systems look like and if there is opportunity to save money. i've had discussions, our army fmno folks have had multiple discussions with the controller general of the department, at the moment, secretary bob heaal he's carefully watching this. so we don't have an intent one way or another to take business away from defast necessarily,

but i think it's important for all of us to know, you correctly noted, it's run on a transactional basis, in other words, for every action, transaction they complete, they're paid by the service. as we come down in numbers, we're talking anywhere from 420 to 450, as the other services reduce, there's going to be fewer transactions, so i don't control this, but i think they're going to have to make some management decisions. >> i don't think there's any question about it. i guess my plea to you is, i would like to be as engaged in this process as much as possible, and i know bob hale is leaving and his replacement will take this over, but i have sat on this side of the desk way too many times and found inefficiencies in business systems as it relates to the various branches working with and sometimes against each ot r other. if we're going to go in the omzt direction, we need to be very thoughtful and make sure we're not driving up the cost for the remaining branches if you all

decide to take some of this internally, you're going to drive up kaush to the remaining branches and we may be robbing peter to pay paul. that's why i want to stay on top of it and make sure it gets thought out across the board. >> more than reasonable request, as always, and we'll send a team over at your convenience to brief you and make every effort to keep you informed. >> thank you. general odiernodierno, i know ye stood up for the special victims council in the army and i'm very proud of that. i know there are many, hundreds of victims that have gotten their own counsel as a result of you prioritizing that and all of us appreciate it very much. i was very, very concerned about the immediate coverage around the sinclair case because it was so inaccurate, and i want to say very clearly for the records what happened in the sinclair case. the prosecutor wanted to drop the serious charges. the prosecutor wanted to say, i'm done. the special victims counsel, a captain who was working with

that victim as a result of you standing up the unit so quickly, wrote a letter to the command saying this case should not be dropped. that special victims counsel was doing exactly what the senate and the house and the president signed into law. advocating for that victim in that environment. couldn't have been more correct in what she did, that victim's counsel. and somehow, that judge twisted that into undo command influence. well, that's a problem we're going to have to deal with, but i wanted the record to be very clear, and i want to get reassurances from you that the message will be sent to victims' counsel that she did what she should have done, not in any way do anything that's inappropriate within the ucmj, and i don't know how the judge got to that interpretation, i don't know how the command is influenced by a captain who is writing a letter saying this is a serious case, and it should not be dropped. if it were not for that

commander, that case would have been over. there never would have been a cay in court where that general would have had to take the stand and admit maltreatment of one of his subordinate officers or would he have ever had to even plead to the more serious charges that he ended up having to plead to. so as much as people were outraged about the sentence, i want to make very clear this was not an example where it should be some kind of mark on the side of the ledger that we should be doing away with command involvement in cases. just the opposite. and i want to make sure that you understood what actually happened in that case and that from the very top, there is not a message that goes out to special victims' counsel that they should retreat in their obligations. >> if i could just make one comment, senator. i hold the advisory counsel i bring in victims and advocates from around the army, i held one last week. and the one message that was absolutely clear from everyone in that meeting was the

importance of the special victim advocate and the difference that it's making with each and every one of our victims and survivors that goes through go through this. so we are absolutely dedicated to this. and we believe it's showing great benefit for us as we go through the process. >> thank you very much, general. thank you. >> thank you very much, senator mccaskill. senator chambliss, you got here just in the nick of time to ace out senator ayotte. >> we're probably both going to ask the same question. secretary general, let me first express my sympathy to the army nation obviously for what happened yesterday and just know that you're in our thoughts and prayers. gentlemen, one of the proposals that's in the secretary's budget

was the moving of the commissaries towards a more businesslike approach which i agree with. i think that we need to operate our exchanges, our commissaries on a business formula. but what we're doing is we're exacting some pain from particularly some of your enlisted personnel who depend on the commissaries and exchanges probably to a greater degree maybe even than the officer corps. and rather than exacting that pain right now, senator warner and i have a stand alone bill that would delay the implementation of this until -- of the secretary's budget until the study that comes out the end of this year. we don't know exactly when, but it will certainly address the issue of the commissaries. and i'd just like you guys'

comment on that as to where you think we are relative to moving towards a businesslike corm you la wi -- formula with the commissaries. >> so first off as we've taken a hard look at this, in general terms as we look at this commissaries provide about a 30% benefit on items that they buy in the commissary. with the proposal to run a business that is one that runs and pays for itself, that goes down to about 20% savings. we think 20% savings is still quite significant. and we believe that savings legitimatizes the fact we make -- because as you mentioned

improve the business processes of the commissary. we will still, though, provide additional funds for commissaries that are overseas that really it's almost impossible to run in an efficient way because of the movement of goods and things to get people the goods that are necessary. and maybe in remote areas. so for the most part this efficiency in my mind is essential. because we have to improve these business practices. and i think it still provides quite a significant benefit for all of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines as we go through this process. >> any comment, mr. secretary? >> yeah, mr. chairman, i fully support what the chief said. we'd look very carefully at those operations where we had every reason to believe all soldiers, enlisted officers really had no other alternatives other than the commissary. as the chief said, particularly

overseas, but also in our remote locations. but this is something that i know the congress through their nwr activities, oversight activities going back as far as my time on the hill had been looking at this and it's significant savings to be made can dothink that we both. certainly, in a way that does not unduly impact our junior enlisted soldiers unduly impact our junior enlisted soldiers. i would just note because of the fiscal challenges we face, these kinds of efficiencies, economies have already been budgeted in. so if we have an order to stand down while some commission looks at it, we'll certainly respect that directive. but we'd have to find the money have else. generally for all of these kinds of initiatives, we have to go right back to the kinds