more expensive crisis for the general economy, for the actual unemployment level, not the tagline unemployment level. for what was lost to individuals throughout, and relative to the bailouts and subsidies that are been given since.. frank came along and did nothing remotely like dissecting speculation from depositors and traditional banking activities. >> a look at the relationships between 1600 pennsylvania avenue and wall street, sunday night at 9:00 on afterwards, art of book tv this weekend. join other readers to discuss the book at book to the.org. at book tv.org.

>> everyone is coming to the new york world's fair. they're coming from the four corners of the earth. and from five corners idaho. they come down from frisco and hamburg from nineveh, from aurora, illinois. through 295 in the bronx. the wilsons got here last. sphere.t unit they find a machine that playfully demonstrates law of averages. by chance, the to meet and join

up sightseeing. -- the two meet and join up sightseeing. ♪ >> this weekend on american history tv's real america, the experience in 1964 new york world's fair today at 4:00 p.m. eastern on c-span three. >> for over 35 years, c-span brings public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional 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 private industry. we are c-span, created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago

and brought to as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> military chiefs testified on capitol hill. testified.s of staff this is just over three hours. the committee meets this morning

to review proposals relative to costs. we welcome the joint chiefs of staff to testify on these proposals, to explain why they support them. what the impact is on the force and their impact on other areas of the defense budget. our witnesses on the first panel our general martin dempsey, admiral james when i felt, general ray odierno, admiral welshreener, general mark , anderal james amos general frank grass, chief of the national guard bureau. we will have a second panel consisting of nongovernment witnesses which i will introduce later. it is not often that all the members of the joint chiefs of staff testified before us in a single hearing. that we have the

opportunity to thank them as one group for the contributions that they and those that they lead make to the well-being of our nation. thank you, gentlemen. thank you for the service of you and yours. distinguish nature of this panel reflects the importance of the questions before our committee this year. the nationalet defense authorization act for fiscal year 2015 later this month. the decisions that we make, the compensation, core structure and strength readiness and modernization will have a far-reaching impact on the men and women of our armed forces and on the future of our military and our country. the departments 2015 budget request comes at a time of tremendous challenge and great answered before the nation and for the military. the department of defense faces a highly constrained fiscal .nvironment in 2015

the $496 billion top line for the department remains the same from the funding levels in 14 andyears 2013 and remains more than $40 billion below funding provided to the department in fiscal years 2010, 2011 and 2012. sequestration has already taken its toll on training, readiness and modernization. sequestration threatens to return full blast next fiscal we act to mitigate its impact before then. these fiscal constraints of let the department to impose a number of measures to reduce future expenditures. the budget before us reposes -- forcantly lower ground forces in 2019.

including more than had been grievously planned in active duty army and strength the smaller reductions in the guard and reserve. as well as a reduction of over 16,000 in active duty air force and strength this year alone. the budget calls for retiring the air forces a-10 and u-2 , deactivating half of the cruise fleet. reducing the size of the helicopter fleet by 25%, and china made -- and terminating the ground combat vehicle program. those are among other cuts. remainbudget caps in law in effect in 2016 and beyond, the department has informed us that, among other cuts, it would reduce -- it would request wouldr instructions -- it

retire the entire tanker fleet. reduce purchases of joint strike ,ighters and unmanned vehicles and activation of additional ships and elimination of an aircraft carrier and air carrier air wing. the legislative proposals a we are considering this year include a number of measures relative to military pay and benefits. that is what we will be discussing here this morning. paye include setting a raise for service members below the rate of inflation, freezing pay for general and flag officers, limiting increases in the housing allowance below the rate of inflation, reducing the subsidy to commissaries, and making changes to try care that would result in increased fees and costs shares for most non-active-duty beneficiaries. in all, these pay and benefit

proposals would result in savings to the department of over $2 billion in fiscal year 2015 area at than $31 billion 's defenseuture year program. he recently wrote to the that -- allow us to enforce modernization and still enable us to recruit and retain america's best. that delayingt on adjustments to compensation would cause additional disproportionate cuts to readiness and modernization. >> we surely must do all we can

to minimize the at fax -- the adverse results. as long as the budget caps remain in place, we do not have the option of simply rejecting the compensation proposals. under the statutory budget caps, we would then have to make alternative cuts. i look forward, as we all do, to the testimony of eyewitnesses heard again, we thank you all for your great service to our country. >> over the last decade, our nation has depended on the service and sacrifice of our servicemembers and their families. in return, we have steadily increased their pay and benefits , and rightly so. should dotly what we for those who risk their lives to keep us safe. priorities of the

obama administrations and the runaway entitlement spending have forced massive cuts to national security spending such as we have never seen before. these cuts have given our military into a readiness crisis . squatters have been grounded, ships have been tied to peers, training rotations for ground forces have been canceled while much-needed modernization programs have been delayed. we all know this. retired navy admiral john harvey recently said that we are sending the wrong signal to the force that is serving today as the one that fought two wars in the last decade. of course, we are dependent upon them to reenlist tomorrow. we are telling them they just cost us too much, that they constituted ticking time bomb, and that their sacrifice is eating us alive. we are telling them that we're looking for a way out of fulfilling our commitments to them. this is not the right signal to tod those who volunteer

serve in time of war. i think the chairman did a good job of enlisting the systems we have that are no longer -- the effect of these cuts are undermining the military ability to protect the nation. because of misguided fiscal priorities, we are now being forced to make false choices andeen paying our troops their families what they deserve and giving them the training and capabilities required to copper summation and return home safely to their loved ones. this is an irresponsible and reckless choice. think wouldwhat i be necessary and national security, we would not be in the mess we're in today. i look forward to hearing from our witnesses. chairman, thank you. other distinguish members of the panel. you are right, chairman. we don't often appear as a group

before you. particularly with our senior enlisted leaders right behind us. what i would like to do at the beginning here it is, since it is unlikely we will see as a group in your role as chairman between now and the end of the year, at least i hope not. we would like to thank you very and for your steadfast passionate support of america's armed forces, the men and women who serve, and their families. thank you very much. you all for thank the opportunity to discuss military pay and compensation. as you mentioned, this is only one part of a much broader effort to bundle reforms in order to keep ourselves in ,alance. this particular issue paying compensation and health care, is a deeply important issue for our servicemembers and their families. we are working to make sure that the joint force is in the right balance to preserve military options for the nation in the face of a changing security environment and a declining

budget. we have been tasked to reduce the defense budget by up to $1 trillion over 10 years, while upholding our sacred obligation to properly train, equip and prepare the force. this requires carefully allocating resources across the accounts, restoring the readiness we have already lost, and continuing to make responsible investments in our nation's defense. as i have testified before, this requires certainty, time and flexibility. well we have a degree of certainty in our budget for the still don'trs, we have a predictable funding stream nor the flexibility in time we need to reset the force for the challenges ahead. we can't do this alone. our recommendations have lacked congressional support. to require requests weapons systems we no longer need and cannot afford. we're cutting further into

modernization. risks to the performance of omission and risks are those who serve continues to grow. as one part of a broader institutional reform, the joint and select midgrade level leaders have examined paying compensation options for more than a year. we support the three department rebalanceipals to military competition. first, we are not advocating direct that's too troops pay. rather, this package slows the growth of basic a and housing reducings while commissary subsidies and modernizing our health care system. second, we will ensure that our compensation package allows us to continue to attract and retain the quality people we need. , wee step up on this path will watch where the force reacts. if it does, we'll be back to his recommendations on how to adjust. we have to take that step. third, the savings will be

reinvested into readiness and modernization. in all cases, we will continue to prioritize our separate set -- our efforts that focused on wounded vets. we are awaiting recommendations from theilitary -- military compensation and retirement modernization commission expected in february of 2015. you be clear, and two restated, we do support grandfathering any future changes to the retirement program. 31 billioning dollars of savings and pay compensation and health care over the future year defense program. if we don't get it, we will have to take $31 billion out of readiness, modernization and for structure over that same. . delaying the decision until next year will likely cause a two-year delay in implementation , which would force us to restore approximately $18 billion in lost savings.

in short, we have submitted a balance package that needs -- that meets budgetary limits and allows us to recruit and retain the exceptional talent that we need. our people are our greatest strength in the do deserve the best support we can provide. as leaders, we must all exercise proper stewardship over the resources entrusted to the department. we have enough information to make these changes now. we remain committed to partnering with congress to make these and other difficult choices facing us. thank you. >> thank you very much, general. admiral? theistinguish members of committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today. i would like to add some additional context to chairman dempsey's introduction. i think it is important to recall that in the 1990's, military compensation had fallen to deeply unsatisfactory level

relative to the rest of the working population in america. with the help of the congress, we kenexa close at cap, which involved raising the trajectory of our compensation well above inflation. those increases worked. in 2001, u.s. median annual household income equate to the dreck. an average e seven. today, it is roughly equal to the direct pay of the average e five and trending towards he ever g4. it now surpasses the u.s. median household income. educational benefits well surpass the civilian sector. this e five has moved from being in the 50th percentile of civilians with comparable education and experience in 2000 two being around the 90th percentile today . i don't think any of us at this table would say our people are overpaid, and we would love to

be a will to maintain that level of compensation. sized,joint forces to be modernized and kept ready to fight, we will have to place compensation on a more sustainable trajectory. we don't want to return to the 1990's. we are only asking for gradual adjustments to ensure we can recruit and retain the best our nation has to offer while doing everything else it is required to fulfill our obligation to protect united states within the means we are given. these changes would only account for about 10% of our planned cuts within an area that accounts for fully one third of our budget. the other 90% of our cuts are going to come out of the other two thirds of our budget that buys things. we carefully thought through every one of these recommendations over the course of many meetings, even though they are fair and gradual, there is still some information -- some disinformation out there. for example, some say we're

cutting pay. that is not true, as chairman dempsey says. other say we are trying to renege on promised healthcare benefits, again, not true. trying toually simplify a bewildering system while incentivizing our people to help us contain costs. provide theinue to same high quality healthcare to our troops and our retirees and it will continue to be free to those on active duty. percenthers say a one pay raise is not fair when the cost indexes going up by eight percent. just beenvilians have through three years of no pay increases and they just received one percent this year. finally some are also suggesting that we want to close all stateside commissaries. we have never considered that in any meeting that i have ever

attended. in fact we believe our commissaries are important parts of the benefits we offer our families, but we want those stores to have to work as hard as our unsubsidized exchanges in providing a good deal for our people. find at least the first year savings through increasing efficiencies, since we exempted them from the 20% staff cuts that everyone else is facing. --re is the prohibited there's a prohibition on selling generic set our commissaries which takes money out of our people's pockets. i recently bought something which is not a generic at a 73% savings over the brand name that the commissary is required to carry right next door. couldencies and generics offer the savings we could ask -- 2014, savings

that are warriors count on us to provide. to make just the easy choices but the hard ones to, choices that have only gotten harder since the budget cuts and we need your support. my service college will not describe what will happen if we supporteceive -- that and we have to ask our young men and women to fight with 31 dollars billion less of readiness. we want to hear your views in your questions. thank you. >> thank you. general lodi aaron out. >> make you, all the other committee members. it is always a member -- a pleasure to be here. i have witnessed firsthand the cell service, dedication, and

sacrifice. have performed admirably during the longest conflicts in our nations history, but we need to talk about an appropriate level of compensation not only to recognize the sacrifice of our soldiers and their families, and to ensure these are sustain from our all volunteer forces. paying composition benefits must remain competitive in order for us to recruit and retain the very best for our army and the joint force. however a in compensation must be balanced along with readiness and modernization of our force. it is necessary that we take a look at every aspect of our budget. partnersndorse these of defense proposals that do not directly cut our soldiers pay but slows the rate of growth for many allowances that are simply on the sustainable. -- simply unsustainable. we need more efficiencies in our

,ommissaries in our healthcare particularly tri-care. i believe the proposals the sacrifices of our soldiers and their families while letting is balance for readiness nation and composition. taking care of soldiers not just about providing them competitive pay and compensation benefits. having theabout right capacity in order to sustain reasonable personnel moderninvest in the most equipment, and maintain the highest levels of training, readiness, and that the army , we not get the savings will have to look at a further reduction in infrastructure. our overall readiness posture, slow even further our current modernization programs. it is my opinion that it understood is not approve our compensation recommendations, then you must and sequestration

now and increase our topline. we must keep in mind that it is not a matter of it but when we will deploy our joint force to defend this great nation. we have done it at every decade since world war ii. it is incumbent on all of us to ensure that our soldiers are highly trained, equipped, and organized. we must balance our resources effectively to do that. if we do not, our soldiers will bear the heavy burden of our miscalculation on the battlefield. i am proud to wear this uniform and represent all the soldiers of the united states army. their sacrifices have been unprecedented over the last 13 years. we must ensure we divide them with necessary resources for their success in the future. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. thanksks, and and many for you and barbara for your

services. distinguished members of the committee, i am proud to andesent 633,080 sailors, and especially the 50,000 sailors the void around the globe today along with their fellow marines. resilienceation and continue to inspire me and our citizens can take great pride in the daily contributions of their sons and daughters in places that really matter. when i appear before you in march, i testify that we were compelled to make some difficult choices in our submission. 90 % of the reductions in this submission august on procurement, for structure, and modernization as well as overhead reduction, contract efficiencies, and buying smarter. the area of last choice that we addressed in the budget was cost growth of our paying compensation. are over years, and the master chief petty officer of the navy

who is with me today traveled with me around the bases and we listened to the sailors and their families especially those most affected by these changes among both the increases and decreases. the vast majority of our sailors and families told us that they believed their total optimization package matches well and in some cases exceeds their civilian counterparts. but let me be clear, i do not think our sailors are overpaid and neither today. our sailors and families are not enthusiastic about a compensation reform but they were clear to us that their quality of service, their work environment needs to improve. they understand that in this disk will situation, we face hard choices. we cannot have it all. the reality within this given budget is one that we have been given. we cannot sustain our current arsenal cost trajectory and we need to adjust this sooner than later. today our total force personnel our given budget

and that is up from 32% in 2000. that continues to rise. in fact, since 2001, we reduced navy and strength 60,000 sailors but the growth in personnel costs consume 60 % of those savings. although the navy manpower has shrunk significantly am a and reduced 20 ships in our inventory, our personnel cost have spiked. that had been a burden on us to balance our budgets. the proposal would generate savings of $123 million in 2015 and more. we can invest any and all of the savings into these enhancements. that includes increasing critical pays to assure recreationmorale and

and fitness centers, constructing barracks, trainers, for 7500 travel sailors, purchasing tactical trainers and simulators, purchasing spare parts, tools, and providing more maintenance opportunities. all of these reinvestments would address the saddest fires that i mentioned. they are to help sailors get their jobs done safely while addressing critical challenges. the congress denies authority for all compensation savings, however. we would be forced to back out three dollars billion of life improvements and also face an additional four dollars billion resulting from pay increases, which would compel us to reduce readiness and aircraft to cure meant even further. we cannot afford the equivalent of another $7 billion bill. our navy would be less ready, less modern, and less able to

execute the missions outlined in our strategic review. decision but it is also an opportunity. not taking the initiative now means billions of dollars of additional cost on other programs that we can ill afford. and given our current situation, it is necessary to better balance our sailors needs to ensure our navy remains forward and more importantly ready where it matters, when it matters. i look forward to your questions. >> admiral, thank you so much. general welch. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ranking member, members of the committee, it is a honor to be here. my vast raw all the men and women of our air force, thank you for your distinguished service to our country. you have the respect and admiration of everyone on the panel. lex thank you. >> for the last 23 years, we've maintained a high operations tempo am a deploy routinely

along our joint partners to the middle east, nonstop since desert storm ended in 1981, and perform spectacularly well. i think they have earned every penny that they have made and you have been remarkably's supportive in increasing their pay and benefits over time. but today we are in a precarious position. per capita cost for the airmen have gone over 40% in 2000. last year it was in all your -- all-time low. we do not have enough units ready to respond immediately to a major contingency and we are not always able to provide readiness and unit to meet rotational requirements. our modernization forecasts are bleak. roughly 20% of our aircraft were built in the 1950's and 60's. over half of the other were built more than 20 five years ago. yet now due to sequestration, we've cut 50% of our current modernization programs. we cannot ignore the fact that the law as currently written returns us to sequester level funding in the school year 2016.

this forces some difficult decisions. paying compensation is one of those tough decisions. no one takes to slightly but we feel it is necessary to at least try and create some savings. if we are not willing to make some tough calls, our air force one being neither ready to fight today nor viable against the threats of more. is that when we send them to do difficult jobs in dangerous places, that they are prepared to succeed and to return home safely. although slowing the rate of pay increases and gradually reducing the market,ative to reforming tri-care, reducing commissary subsidies will certainly hurt, but what we owe more than anything else of the training and tools necessary to fight and win and survived. the proposed compensation reforms are rejected, the air $8.1 will be forced to cut

billion from readiness, modernization, and infrastructure over the next five years. significant cuts to lying hours, reduced precision munitions buys, and lower the funding for training rages, digging the readiness hold even deeper. those impacted will be that combat rescue helicopter and any other trainers. abandoning the program would mean that future ballots will continue to train and a 50-year-old trainer. we will be worse to cut infrastructure beyond the $5 billion we have already recommended to cut. these would be cuts on the difficult recommendations we have already made, some of which the chairman mentioned this warning. lowering our strength. investing the entire fleet, and its quaestor level returns, getting rid of others as well. we are simply out of good options. it is time for courageous

leadership. we cannot continue to do for every tough decision in the near term at the expense of military readiness and capability over time. >> thank youhelp. very much, general. general amos. committee, of the the current. of fiscal austerity has exacerbated across the marine corps's budget. i nor my fellow service chiefs and more importantly the men and women who wear our services cloth, those who have served our nation so faithfully, did not set the conditions for the fiscal calamity that we find ourselves in. as service chiefs, we are obliged to live within the budget and the laws passed by congress. senators, none of us like where we find ourselves today. we spent the greater part of the year restructuring each of our services onto the cold reality

of fully sequestered budget. on a bipartisan budget act provided and-needed relief and 2014 2015, i'm advised by many of your colleagues in congress who expect a return to full sequestration in 20 16 and beyond. we make difficult choices, all of us have. we have attempted to build a balanced and combat ready force. andave restructured downsize our services deliver within our means. knowingdone all of this full well that the world that we live in is a dangerous one and international landscape that is simply getting more challenging as each day goes by. i see no indication there will be a peace dividend once we have completed the mission and i cannot stand later this year. chairman, we will not do less with less in the decade to come. we will do the same with less. from a personal perspective, our men and women have been compensated appropriately for their many sacrifices over the past decade of war.

i make no apologies for that. they deserve every penny that congress has afforded them. they have faithfully fought our nations battles all while successfully keeping the in in these of america far from our shores. because of my loyalty to them, there is much about today's discussion on compensation reform proposals that frankly i do not like. but i'm stuck with them. i am stuck with them because i pot ofted every other money available to me to pay for ready marine for a corps. my first and forced most responsibilities for the defense of the nation. that task becomes -- comes before all others. it is the sole reason why america has the marine corps. to accomplish this, we must maintain a high state of readiness. that is accomplished by having combat units that are highly skilled and highly trained. it is done by having the right equipment in the hands of warriors who may be headed into harms way. the most important way that we can keep faith with our men and

women is to send them in the combat with the best hostel training and the freshest of equipment and to take care of them then when they come home. challenge lies in balancing readiness, manpower, and modernization. all under the umbrella of sequestration. our goal of consistently fielding a highly trained and combat ready crisis response force for america is pressurized personnel account that has grown to $.63 of every appropriate a dollar. balanced against readiness requirements and an anemic military construction account, the marine corps's modernization and investment account comprises , eighteight percent cents on the dollar, the lowest in well over a decade. day i amd of the ultimately responsible for taking care of the marines and sailors and their families per

this includes ensuring our people are well compensated for their service. while also afforded the best training and equipment available to fight and win our nations battles. the quality of service as important as their quality of life. to understand this, they must prepare for uncertainty and for their next mission. thank you for the opportunity to represent your marine corps and its men and women. i thank the committee for its continued support and i stand prepared to answer your questions. >> thank you so much, general amos. >> chairman levin, ranking member imhoff, distinguished committee,a big -- it is honor for me and my senior enlisted advisor to represent the men and women of the national guard. the men and women of the guard serve with this ancient as the primary combat reserve of the army and air force. we are also the first responders , first military responders on-site in the times of domestic crisis. the concernsecho

for a critical need to achieve fiscal balance across the joint force. future fiscal challenges will dramatically constrain size,on-making about the shape, and roles of our military. this certainly will be the case when budget control act funding return in 2016. therefore it is important that we act now. despite the guards accounting for only 8.4% of the defense compensation, and the benefit budget, we -- these proposals will significantly impact the operation role of the guard. we have been trained and tested over the past 12 years of con -- combat. this keeps your army and international guard ready. but if we do not act now to rebalance military compensation, we risk future training readiness, and modernization cuts across the joint force. do success is unquestionably

to our most important resource, our people. active,rvice member guard, and reserved, deserves the best that we can provide the benefits coolly sound solution. i believe the proposal before you provides the level of consistentn and is with the ready and modern force. senators, the national guard has been and will remain always ready, always there. thank you and i look forward to your questions. >> naked, general. i think we have a really good turnout here and we also have a boat at 11:00. one vote, i believe. let's start with a six minute first-round. some of you have mentioned the impacts of these budget caps and the impacts of sequestration.

required legislatively , but we need to do something about them. i can assure you and members that we will have an opportunity to do something about the looming sequestration for the next fiscal year. i hope we take that opportunity. in the meantime, as you all put well, veryit very clearly, we have to live with the current years budget caps -- that is what we are trying to do with your recommendations. by the way, i believe admiral, you mentioned something about generics in our commissaries russia mark we are going to check that one out. we do not think that the law requires it. that the commissaries have to be competitive. so we're going to try to find the origin of that

at additional cost to our men and women in uniform. we have a budget in front of us which must meet the caps in law. we have no choice. again, if we do not adopt these particular reforms or some of them we will have to make up for them with reduction somewhere else. some other places are taking a already,is -- it modernization and readiness. we have a responsibility for the security of this country and we will do the very best that we can do a comp us both goals. density, you had dempsey, -- chairman you had mentioned the impact if we delay these kinds of changes.

can you be more specific question mark you said there would be a two-year delay if we were waited for the final report for the retirement modernization commission. i would that be a two-year a littlessia mark be more detailed as to why you believe as you testified that you had sufficient information now to make these recommendations even though when it comes to the retirement issues, you believe that we can delay changes in that until that believeon report. >> we it will be a two-year delay because the commission will not ofort out until -- february 2015 and that is inside of our decision cycle for the submission of the budget. so we are waiting until february, which seems to us to make it clear that we would have to move along with two years at our current state and prevent us from making the changes that we know we need to make right now.

>> in terms of your preparation and recommendation, it would be from ther delay, but congressional perspective, we would have time and ask fiscal year if we get those recommendations and their -- february to take those into account. is that correct russia mark >> it seems to me that that is correct. i know less about your process than i do about our own. repairing the budget as a justification and a level of detail is a remarkable enterprise every year. and for the past few years we have had to prepare budgets against alternative futures. if you be surprised could act that quickly on a recommendation that came to you in february. but more importantly, to the second part of your question, we have spent the better part of a direct anding indirect compensation with the team that you see here represented today in our throat -- and our programmers, and we believe that the recommendations

we have made, we can articulate what the impact would be at , e-5, whatde levels it would do to them across the course of a career. we have all the information and we provided and we are ready to move on it because we need $18 million. >> you have taken steps to consult with others in making these recommendations, including your senior enlisted personnel. >> let me justr say this. they are all sitting there behind them and i believe you and a special thanks for their service as well, but i would just invite them, any of them, to personally fact they do in not agree with any or all of these cuts.

it makes it very difficult for us to ask them here today, i am going to put them on the spot generally, but is it is important that we hear from them and i would assure them that i would keep the privacy of their remarks and share them to the and of my ability guaranteeing that privacy and anonymity, share them with my colleagues to the best that i could. but i would welcome any personally delivered comments from those senior enlisted personnel to me. testified before the personnel committee. i will also attest to the fact that there is not a bash for one among them -- bashful one among them. you will not have to ask for their views. they will divide them and they are free to do so. >> i welcome that and i am sure the subcommittee would accept any private comments they would

deliver from their testimony or your testimony. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman. among them.l one let's see how bashful they are here. a lot of us have seen this coming and i know we do not talk about it very much, that when we see money that otherwise should into our military, into our defense, and we see the construction of the refineries, $160 million, maybe purchasing which coulda gallon be purchased on the market at iree dollars a gallon, commented the other day to general welts that with a hundred and $20 billion we could five or 1000 at her deprives. -- i would like to ask you in

this climate, and i'm going to submit for the record because there is not time to read them all, all the quotes from secretaryncluding hagel about the dilemma that we are in and the fiscal situation that we're in right now, and could each one of you richly described something in concrete that yearhis -- servicemen would not be able to do to adequately train men and women to deploy them and bring them safely home. i likecannot do that, specifics. and i would like to get that for the record. would any of you have any specific things that you would want to do that you will have to sacrifice in terms of training? >> senator, thank you. beginning in 2015, we have to the collective level of

training, which is the most important for our forces. is the ability to synchronize and integrate air, ground, and the many different types of endeavors that we have to do in case we have to respond, whether it be in korea, in the middle east, with a ruby in europe. and so we have had to cut back on this training. that means that we have less capability and readiness levels than we would like to have in case we are asked to deploy. this will continue do is asked her bait itself in 2016 and 2018 until we get our end strength down to a level the balance and that will not happen until fiscal year 2020. we then add another $12 billion bill that i have to find, and you might have to mull -- you might have to take more end strength out. i do not think we have enough now to go to. quest to ration and meter national security needs.

>> general welsh, can you think of anything specific in terms of -- >> last year was a pretty good example of what sequester level fundings will do to our air force. exercises, red flag which is the full-spectrum high-end part of training. it is what separates us from other air forces. it is where we integrate with the other services with ground forces and our allies. all the things that take us from doing low intensity work to being able to fight a full-spectrum fight were affected dramatically. >> we saw that after the grounding of the squadrons, that the cost of getting them ready exceeds the amount that would have been saved at that time, is that accurate? >> that is accurate. >> anybody else?

>> senator, when you and i discussed this hearing, you were in norfolk. the problem is, if somebody is deployed and we need another carrier to deploy due to a contingency, syria or the issues in europe, those that are out there now have to stand that watch, because we don't have the response for a contingency that we would normally have. the folks on trained enough to do that. it takes us longer to train them up to deploy. onre kind of deploying just time. we need a better forced to deal with the contingencies today. >> i appreciate that. does anything specific am sure mine that cannot do now in terms of preparing properly? >> senator, we have made decisions to move money. those units already fairly high

state of readiness and will be so for the next two years. to do that, we pulled money out of all her other accounts to approved procurement. million total to reset the marine corps and re-modernize the marine corps for this year. that is lesson four percent of our entire total budget. we're feeling it in the modernization, senator, because we pay the bill for readiness and training out of that account. >> i bring that up because i know there is a hearing on compensation, but if you change that, it doesn't happen in a vacuum. it can't be at the expense of our training and our modernization. the time is about expired, but in terms of combat readiness codes, because we have already in termsed some losses of our readiness capability, are

any of you -- how are we doing now on those rare deploying? see one when they are deployed, is that correct? >> were made progress in 2014 because of the bilateral agreement. about 4-5 more combat teams. >> and they're all see one or see to? >> they are. the problem is, and 15 and 16 that goes down again because of the key -- because of the sequestration. if we lose what do we have asked in compensation savings, that will bring readiness down further. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. you are for the first time in separatingoluntarily

-- this year. that will continue if the savings are not unrealized. >> and is correct, we are officers.y separating this of the first time the people who are eligible to win list will not be able to reenlist because of the reduction in size of the army. >> we are already seeing the effects of these constrained budgets in terms of the opportunities that -- in people that are competent and capable. so the savings, if they are realized, will help alleviate the pressure. it won't end it, but it will help alleviate it. >> if we don't get it, it will increase. granted, we talked about savings. let's say for a moment you get savings. how would you apply them this year.

? it would bear special pays and allowances. it would be increases to our base ops. our ports shut down. they run 95. when ships complete training, they can come home friday. the next year, that is 15. that is about a hundred $23 million right there. to put money in to get people to training, the money and trainers, that is about 7500 sailors. it is a quality of their service. this is what they're asking, spare parts. >> one of the points in all this

questioning, it is a more efficient use of resources, to, rather than keeping a ship. rather than bring a ship in, let the cruise see the families. >> obviously the family will be happy their home rather than hanging out all night waiting for the poor to open. >> this is a difficult issue. i don't have to tell anyone around this table. there is no way you can pay this -- these young soldiers and the families. one of the persons i have had is that the morale and the sense of from training and having the best equipment.

ironically, we could be increasing compensation, but with were training and poor ,quipment, the morale satisfaction, and sense of pride would deteriorate. is that unreasonable? >> that is correct, sir. before and i believe it today, that today's readiness problem is tomorrow's retention problem. if you came into the military to be a man or woman of action and go to see and fly and train, and you are sitting around watching or simplyment maintaining it with no possibility of training on it, you are not going to stick around very long. limited.erience is good training was one of the key factors in any unit. let me ask a question, general

dempsey, about compensation. her testimony is that you would like to get some efficiencies out of the system and that they can generate these efficiencies. the case, thenot they're going to have to curtail some of their operations. have you thought about it criteria for curtailment in terms of identifying? >> we have, sir. is rate difficult to understand the function of the commissary and the subsidy -- an effective subsidy will have. that is why is important that we're taking this step. let's see what happens. let's see how much efficiency we can wring out of it in order to

gain some savings. unaddressed, we will be providing a 1.4 billion dollars subsidy in perpetuity. that does not seem to be a reasonable course of action. in your first step, you essentially charges system is coming up with efficiencies through operating techniques, approaches,rsen different managerial approaches that would save them money. money and no thought of closing any commissaries, is that correct. ? >> we have not directed any commissaries to close. it is not been the plan. as you pointed out, look for inefficiencies -- efficiencies first. michael from 30% claim advantage right now, if all 200 million in the first year came out, and it

would look like that would go to 26%. if you look at the competitiveness of the commissary and the market in which it exists, moche of them will remain very competitive. situations maybe where you could grow something. >> thank you, mr. chairman. amos, without these proposals that we are examining today, it seems to me from previous testimony that the biggest problem, really, is sequestration, would you agree? >> yes sir, i would, by far. by far. >> unless congress and the president act together, all the savings will pale in comparison with the challenge you'll face

as a resumption of sequestration, would you agree? i think under sequestration, we have many concerns. it affects compensation and other things we want to accomplish within our budget. on commissaries, why not have people compete to provide the services. why not just open it up for competition? bew so -- that might considered. >> general welsh, should we be purchasing rockets? including the fact that the person in charge has been by the united states of america, and a federal judge has ruled that is a process that

should not be pursued? >> senator, as you know we have artie purchased some of those rockets. we have already purchased some of those rockets. do you think you should continue to purchase them? >> is clear that right now we may not be able to purchase anymore. grass, doou, general you believe that the movement of apaches out of the guard is a wise move? senator, a proposal was submitted about that. we agree with two thirds of the trainer and also of

the apaches. your view that the apaches should remain in the guard? >> without a doubt, sir. you thought the dh in was by far the most superior close air support weapon that we have. >> what i said is our soldiers have the most conference with the a-10. i also said that the air force has provided -- which has also been successful. >> does give you comfort to know 1 is one of the replacement ideas that the air force has put forward presently in afghanistan? that would mean a six-hour in at from its base

, as opposed tory and those one hour weapons are delivered from very high altitude. >> senator, first of, i have the systems they have in place will provide us that immediacy. again, as we use different platforms, we will work through with the air force our users and where their best effective in supporting our ground forces as we move forward. >> finally, i'm curious that you come over here with all the savings --or cross $17,000 per flying hour. flying, $54,000 per hour.

>> is a said before, i challenge you to find an army former in commander whose function the that would feel comfortable with a b-1 replacing the a-10 parity i look forward to you providing me with those the fact is the b-1 is more expensive. it flies at high-altitude and it targets. it does not fulfill the mission of close air support as i know it. i would be glad to hear your response. provides fiveo hours of time. >> $54,000 per flying hour. >> in some scenarios, where the ground forces are not in direct contact with the enemy, it is an exceptionally good close air platform.

airplane doing close air support will be the f-16. it is artie done more close air support in afghanistan than the a10 past. we are absolutely committed to it. we have been and we will remain so. >> you have tried to get rid of it before, general. finally, my time is expired, but i gave a speech yesterday on the floor of the senate, you have now gotten 57% of the $300 billion that were spent last noncompetitive, 80 programs , according to the government accountability office with $500 billion in cost overruns that sport system over

$1 billion, which is now -- which now has no results. vehicle, $3ighting billion, former marine thecopter, $3.2 billion, acquisition system in the department of defense is broken. go is still haven't been fixed. the american taxpayer will not sustain it. i thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you all for your service, your extraordinary dedication and contribution to our nature. i joined chairman leaven in saying to you in the men's and women's that we owe you a to

mend his debt of gratitude. general dempsey, i am encouraged to do -- to ask this question by one of senator mccain's questions. on the purchase of russian the afghan for military, what would it take to convince you that we should stop those purchases, literally, today. spending on them goes to russian foreign export. the troops that are on the border to crane. tot would it take you -- convince you that we should stop those purchases right away? >> an alternative, senator, right away. i just came back from afghanistan on saturday. afghan security forces did an absolutely remarkable job of managing their elections.

a peak for the big events, but they're not ready to sustain themselves over the long term. we have to get them a lift capability and an attack capability. currently, there's is no alternative. we are looking inside to see if we can find alternative supply chain and repair parts. believe me. another thing he would take is if a sanction were to be placed against them. that would be the law and we would have to react to that. at this point, we don't have an alternative. we continue to seek one. >> is their military reason why we should not impose sanctions on russian foreign exports? >> the military reason is what i just expressed. concerned that we would leave the afghan security forces without an air component for some time. >> can't we provide those components from another source?

>> we have talked about the american helicopter. it would take a long time. much longer than with emi 17. red looking at alternative sources of supply and repair parts. >> at a want to dwell too long i appreciate your attention to it. i would like to follow up further. i appreciate you responding. the question for you, general dempsey, and perhaps to general dierno. one of the biggest causes of suicide is financial stress. anticipate that any of these cuts or changes in compensation will impose greater

stress. obviously, that is an emotional term. cutay not be objectively a in a standard of living, but the idea comes with reductions in compensation and the threat of additional reductions in compensation. question, very cognizant of the fact that many of our best and brothers going to the military without the idea that compensation is going to be the key to their future. as a father of two who have served and are serving, i'm well aware that the training and a challenge in the mission of the primary motivations for any young man or woman who goes into the military. in terms of retention and continued service, aren't we creating additional financial stress, which in turn activates othere rates and

downsides physically and emotionally? >> i will at the service chiefs talk about the many programs in place to help servicemen and women deal both with stress and in particular with their financial well-being. my belief is that the uncertainty of all this is a than theause of stress slowing of growth that we have prepared. around town into home meetings, that resonates. they're more concerned because they don't know what the future will be in terms of our ability to raise and maintain a force overtime. let me ask if any of the service units want to -- >> senator, i really want pay you back in what the senator has said. their concern is, i am still meant to be part of the best army? i'm going to be ready when you asked me to deploy somewhere. certainly, they're concerned about the comp -- about the

compensation. where not reducing compensation, we're reducing growth. checks will continue to increase. in my opinion, that is the bigger issue. >> can you talk, general dempsey, about the stars program , the study to assess working -- risk and reliance? >> i can, senator. this allows us to gain new data. it enables us to see with the stresses are, what are causing ,oldiers to think about suicide two of suicide ideation, and in some cases to have attempted suicide. it is really given a psychology information that we are putting back in a program. we are continuing to fund the

program because information we're getting has allowed us to pass that information to the commanders. we will continue to invest in that program as we move forward. >> thank you. >> senator fisher. >> general dempsey, some have suggested that maybe there are other areas in the budget that we can cut. i guess i would like you to speak to that. i know that research and procurement plans have been cut. to believe there are any additional savings in those areas or other areas that can offset these compensation changes? >> not only are there other areas that could be cut, we have actually cut nearly every area. i would actually prefer it to allow some of the server sheets talk about how they -- how

the pay scale against -- there are five or six or seven places you can find money in a budget. under thething left mattress. we have to do this in a balanced way. anybody want to add to that? service, i in my testify to my opening statement. $.63 of every dollar goes to manpower. costamare,n marines where it should cost less. you want me to be at a high state of readiness so we can deploy today. we do that often, as you know. dollar applies to

that. really, all that is left over for the most part is about eight percent, which is equipment modernization. you mentioned are indeed. four percent as r&d and four percent is modernization. if you think about our service, we have been at war for 12-13 years. -- four cents of every dollar is going to modernize the marine corps after 12 or 13 years. the chairman's point is that we have looked at a lot of places. for me, i manpower counts as 63% on every dollar. if you four percent of the is , and be a age.e if i'm going to make a change, even if it is a modest change, for me, i get a pretty high return on the amount of money i'm saying for modernization. could add tof i

that. currently, we are only funding our installations at 50% of what they should be funded at? we can't find our installations. that is already the case. we're cutting the army by 34% in the active component. we are cutting the army by potentially 20% in the national guard, 10% in the u.s. army reserve. a researched about an acquisition account has been cut by 39%. we have slowed down every one of s. we have slowed down how long it is taking to procure aircraft. we have reduced the amount of aircraft we are buying. where --o the process we are becoming more inefficient because of how we try to deal with the problems that we are doing. we're -- we have taken as many

efficiencies as we possibly can to cover a hundred $70 billion bill that was taught to pay over the next seven years. >> your strategic requirements of you have to meet. how far are you going to fall short of those if the sequester continues? until we can get the end strength that which would take us about three or four more years, we will continue to be out of balance. what we're trying to do is that portion of thet force and making them as ready as possible. the problem is, the rest of the force is paying a significant price and readiness. get that means is, as we unknown contingencies, we're not going to be able to respond with the readiness and capabilities that we are used to responding. as my real concern. >> we talked a little bit about that omission is out there and the recommendations they may come up with. are any of you concerned, i guess i was star with you,

general dempsey, are you concerned about the changes that you are proposing here? what happens if the commission rejects those and goes in another direction? how are you going to address that. >> the commission's work is on strangest to -- on changes to structure. look at what are we are proposing right now. i think our suggestions are going to harmonize quite well frankly, with what they're doing. >> what would you see for savings if payment was going to be handled? not sure i understand the question, senator. ,> if you're looking at savings you're talking about a one percent this year?

there will be savings there. do you anticipate that that will continue into the future? would you cap that? >> i >> thank you for all of your service. i want to focus for just a minute on mental health. i appreciate all of your efforts in trying to get this right. the national guard is limited in its ability to divide but ill-treatment to its members.

does this impact the mental health support you can provide? we have 167 trade mental health clinicians across the states. thanks to the congress, we have a $10 million additional clinicians that we can put in the high-risk areas. that has been very helpful. my concern is the future and especially as we bring you men and women off active duty into the guard. theirre coming back to hometown and we will be able to expand and provide the care they need as well as our own men and women. a 50-50 split. that went down to 20% during the war. we have to tackle this issue. do a better job of

assessing the mental well-being of our service members. regardless of if they have been deployed or not. this goes for active guard and reserves. onas wondering your views conducting annual mental health examinations or screenings for the active and reserve members. placehave programs in where we screen them. routinextend those into . >> we have preemployment. we have a 30 day and 90 day and six-month checks post deployment. call itknow if i would a mental health, but it delves into issues of mental health. when you take that across a that is quite a few

checks. conduct a session prior and we do one during deployment. we do one after appointment. where make it part of the routine sustainment as we do physicals. behavior health is becoming a part of that. there are two things i would like to -- we have to continue to invest in that. that gives them a from external places to get behavior help. this is a low cost premium that allows them to get care. we subsidize that by 72%. that is an investment we have made to help them to get care outside of the military health ourcture which should help guard and reserve. >> in previous hearings of

mentioned the possibility or use of mental health assistance as well. be a very good fit. to build aying consortium of capability that allows our soldiers to get the care. we are making progress in that. with othering outside organizations on our major installations to have this cooperative effort. sometimes they would rather go to someone in the military structure because of their concern up -- concerned about stigma. >> general, i would like to ask you, you mentioned $.63 of every dollar going to personnel. how that four percent, modern will the marine corps be if it continues at that rate? decisions part of the

we made last summer when we are facing sequestration. in 10 years the marine corps will not be a very modern service in terms of ground tactical vehicles. it will be in regards to aviation. we will be living with legacy vehicles. limit?here an upper point if things don't change the navy's personnel costs will be two thirds of every dollar and it will be difficult to run the operations of the navy if that occurs. is there and ask crosses why crosses y point? >> for the navy, we are about 25 to 35% if you add reserves.

we are talking about the area we are at right now. is 42 to 45%my, it . today we are at 48% and growing. down, itdget comes will grow as a bigger percentage. we are working the numbers, but it will continue to grow if we don't watch this carefully. >> one of the concerns that i have is the percentage of the air force has stayed the same and today. it is in the mid 30's. the problem with that is we have 50,000 airmen. our top line has gone up. we have cut 50,000 people. that is the impact. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank all of you

for your later shape -- leadership in the military and your service to our country. i have a comment upfront and i want to echo the comments that senator mccain made. this is about sequestration. as we look at these issues in terms of compensation and the readiness issues and challenges that you are facing right now, it seems to me that when we look at the overall budget, taking it out of the dod realm, 60% of what we are spending our federal dollars are on mandatory spending, entitlement programs, if we don't get together as a congress and address the bigger picture, those programs go bankrupt and he continues to squeeze out the priorities in terms of defending the nation in

a challenging time. this was set up to be something that would never happen. yet, here we are. -- iotato show and i do of the courage that our men and women do and address the big picture problem with sequester. as i look at it, the one thing that worries me is when we went through the discussion, there was a disconnect that there were comparisons made between civilian personnel and the sacrifices that our men and women make every day. we are married to 70 in the military and you have to move around, you can have the same career as someone who is on the civilian side. we are missing weekends and holidays, it is not the same. you cannot make those comparisons and we cannot lose sight that one percent of this that the sacrifices they make are very different.

i would like to make sure that we don't lose sight of that as a nation. hopefully we can get this congress to the place where we big questions the so we don't diminish the best military in the world. i know that many on this committee share those sentiments and we need to address and make sure that our soldiers are supported in the defense of the nation. particular, don they have as much confidence as they do? >> if you ask people on the ground they will tell you that they believe in the a-10.

they are not aware of the f-16 as much. it is not visible to them. they are very clear. >> do you believe it is the equivalent on the ground? >> they both have very different capabilities. conduct missions. in the a-10 has characteristics that enable them to see the type of munitions but the f-16 is capable of developing. and the f-16 or not the equivalent of the air support on the ground there it. would you disagree with that? i can't comment on the f-16. andn comment on the f-18 the marines would rather have a

f-18s overhead. it was a nice blend. the a-10's were not precision. >> their position guided now. >> that makes them the better platform. i think it is a blended. but if you asked the marines on the ground they would rather have the f-18s and the harriers overhead. not does not mean they did appreciate the a-10's. is do you think the equivalent? >> i do this for a living. i think they are to completely different platforms with overlapping missions. one is very old and the other is

not quite sold. would like to have a blend if you could afford it. we want to make decisions on what we can afford and modernization. >> when i think about what the men and women in uniform have told me when i visit them, we should be able to afford what they believe is the best air support platform. what we have invested in in the a-10, i have a question for the whole panel that i think we need to get to the bottom of. the military officers association has given us an estimate that an d5 family of four would experience the loss of about $5,000 in purchasing power annually.

do you agree with that estimate? done the analysis in about ourhinking junior enlisted officers and what this will mean for them in terms of these proposals? i have not seen that. i think it is important for us to see thinking about the sergeants and petty officers, all of those who the junior enlisted level that are making a lot less money and some of them in some as this is have been on the stamps and other things. those numbers are important enough for us to see. you, you do have that data.

we do have a specific answer for that. if you look at the literal pay they make $64,300. at the end of this pay. we're talking about, they would make $76,000. that gives them inflation. if you look at buying power, they get about a four percent loss in buying power as a result. not is about $2500 and $5,000. that isould say that half that. i appreciate that. i think it is important to understand the buying power dollars. that is how families operate as you know.

they are going to have the toughest time. the proposals are 30% savings across the market out there right now. as we go down and put these it is going to, go down to 10% savings. a 66% drop in savings for my marines. i don't like that. i don't think that is the solution. adding the solution set is to force decca to become more efficient and figure out how to do it and don't put that burden on the backs of our young enlisted burnings or lance corporal's or sergeants or airman.

i think the commissary piece is important. we don't need to turn our back on it. i think we are going at it the wrong way. we need to force decca to do some of things that the service is asked to do over the last year to live within our means. >> i know i am be on my time. >> senator hagan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i wanted to open an express my for hiso general amos incredible leadership as well as your wife for all that she has been through over these some years. thank you for your steadfast dedication to armoring core. >> i will pass that on to bonnie. >> we face difficult decisions in fiscal year 15. this is something that this

committee will be closely examining in the coming weeks as we consider. look at thed, we return of sequestration in fiscal year 16 and beyond. north carolina has one of the largest military footprints in our nation. i am concerned about the effect that it would have on our service members. i want to find a balanced solution that will bring an end to sequestration. your lastlikely being appearance before this committee, i am interested in your most blunt view of the impact that the return of sequestration would have on the marine corps in the future. we have testified so many times on this in the past. there is no doubt in my service and your state, you are losing

50,000 marines down to just about 41,000 marines in your state alone. this is a result of the forced drawdown driven by sequestration. this is not dollar for dollar. it is significant. force going to take a whose raison d'être is to be ready. to go tonight. we will continue to do that for about two more years. if sequestration returns in 16, you will see the readiness of those units that are designed and decide to be ready tonight, you will see the readiness fall under sequestration. talked aboutven modernization equipment and all of that other stuff. and the training ammunition and the fuel and the ability to train those marines

will fall in about two years. is one of the reasons that i think it is very important that we take notice of this. we need to listen to what you have to say and work very hard together to be sure that we can stop sequestration. dempsey, i am concerned about how they continued sequestration could affect our ability to meet the challenges in the future. returns, whaton threat concerns the most in our ability to be prepared? >> two things. wills the uncertainty that persist with the force. that will have issues in the human dimension.

these are real people that we asked to do this work. we owe them some certainty in their lives. it will affect our ability to maintain force forward presence to the degree that we believe we should. we deter our adversaries and reassure our allies. forward,e fewer forces we will be less deterrent and more reasserting to our allies. arise, weontingency tol have less in readiness flow forward and respond to that crisis. those are the things i would suggest we take very seriously. this defines a level of risk that we believe to be acceptable. >> thank you. questionto ask the that is similar.

in the armed forces, we don't have an alternative but to build are made grave officers from within. they are making these critical decisions about whether or not to make the military a career. have a wealth of experience. they have multiple deployments to iraq and afghanistan. how do you think they will view these proposed compensation proposals? >> i can give you some numbers. , a 10% it in retention forincrease historically first-term retention increases about 10 to 15%. for second term in increases

about 10 to 13%. in increases career attention about five percent. ,f you were to take a decrease you would have a commensurate affect. what we are hearing from our people is there might be some , but basedetention on the economy we think we will be ok. we carefully considered that as we designed these proposals. the air force is retaining and i would defer to the chief over there, we are exceeding our goals in a career retention. we are at 96%. >> thank you. once again, thank you. >> thank you, senator hagan. senator kaine. to the panel.

thank you for your service and testimony. the first votes i cast was to eliminate sequester. it was poor budgetary strategy. least reduce the effective sequesters. ,hose of us who are on budget we are going to do the same thing with 16 and carrying forward. are the recommendations that are part of this budget, including compensation we are sketching today, are they driven by optimal defense strategy or by budgetary caps imposed by congress? >> there are some things in a recommendations, this is a bundling of reform, there are

some things that we would have wanted to do whether sequestration was a fact or not. there are things that are very clearly the result of sequestration. from 12rying to recover years of conflict. we want to restore skills that are lost and rebuild readiness. it is the aggregate of affects. sequestration has dramatically exacerbated our challenge. it would take three years or more to reset the force weather wreaked -- sequestration was upon us or not. this really exacerbates it. >> that is an important thing. the optimum for the nation should be driven by our strategic choices. we let strategy be dictated by budget realities.

we have been letting strategy be dated by ajit uncertainties and budgetary gimmicks. that is the distant third in the way we should be doing defense and other strategy. one of the issues before i came one of the issues i have found compelling is regardless of the justification for a particular compensation there is an, argument that is being made that the senate has embraced the notion that there ought to be this full-scale examination of these changes and recommendations for 2015. you should not make changes until then. what is your thought on the

commitment that we made it if the changes are made in good faith and they are justified if we embark on those prior to the full set of recommendations from the commission early next calendar year? i think it is important to reiterate what chairman dempsey said a minute ago. we expect the commission to take a look at retirement structure but also the pay structure. how do we structure compensation for our people? we are talking tweaks to the existing structure. we would not expect the military compensation commission to say we think base pay should be raised at this percent next year. they are taking a more fundamental look at the way we structure compensation overall. we believe we need to get going now. we can't wait for this commission to report and get the savings we need in order to get the john madden women the tools a need to fight.

that your understanding this would not be addressing items like what should the level of subsidy before the commissaries? is that outside the scope of the work that they're going to be doing? >> they can address the full range of things. our view is their principal role is what is the structure of compensation? let's take a fresh look at how we pay our people to see. i would not want to rule out that we would look at individual members. we thought we had the data we needed to get moving on this so we can get the savings we need sooner to get these young men and women the resources they need to succeed in combat. >> they really have a great of scientificd survey sense of what servicemen and women at all levels feel about the relative priorities of

compensation and retirement. erectsoduced a bill that part of that recommendation to make sure that they may be underway. let me ask about this idea that the work of this commission looks at structure. we had a hearing last week on the air force structure analysis. it was getting at some of the structural issues. there is more way to save money than just adjust salary increases. you talked about the continuing of services, are the other service branches doing things similar to the air force for structure analysis? is that being done by part of this

retirement and modernization commission? we look at our structure every single year. we do a copper hence of review of our structure and how it fits in with the cost is and how it fits our requirements. optimizing the structure. operationalright force versus the generating force? we are doing this assessment every year. we make sure that we keep it in balance and have it right. army is in a different place. we are reducing structure now. we are doing everything we can and that is why for us it is important to look at these other areas as well. a plan and submitted to the congress annually.

we roll into that the strategy of the department and the requirement. a balance is called of ships but we look at all capabilities. we roll all those factors in. that is a me change the strategy or tweak the strategy. we have done three of them in the last three years. the first of took over a year. last one was in the face of sequestration last year. to 175.k us down we looked at how we can afford that 175 force. we looked at pay

structure. where the youngest of the the lowest we have numbers of a we call top six ranks. they are the most expensive. we looked at can we make it even more less top-heavy. the answer is no. we are so lean right now at that level. we have 11 marines for every officer. we are about where we are. we have looked at it. >> senator kaine. >> we have just a few minutes before this vote. these hearings must drive you guys crazy. i have been coming to these with you. nobody does anything about sequester.