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.

we act like it came from out olympus. it is self-imposed. it is the wily coyote budget. . the annville hit you on the head. we created this problem. it,an do something about you must go tear your hair out. he did have hair before sequestration. >> it is entirely self-imposed. everybody around this committee talks about how terrible it is and yet we don't move to do anything about it. to make you don't want these cuts as you have presented them. you have to because this is a zero-sum game. >> it is certainly in our best interest to be the best stewards

of america's resources. there are things we would do anyway. earlier, sequestration has made this a mindnumbing experience. >> the reality of the world we are in is a you are facing a zero-sum game. if we don't accept your recommendations, that is $2.1 billion a year that has to come from somewhere else. >> absolutely. $18e wait we will have to billion. >> i heard of the personnel committee, this is a sensible alternative particularly when paired with the cuts to readiness that would have to take place. it's an either or. >> that is correct.

we have a vote. done, could you if you could say during the recess, we would appreciate it. >> i think we can recess now. i am set. >> we will recess until someone this is the story of our life, mr. chairman.

>> senator graham. thank you for being here today. having a report back to the congress next year. i like to hear from the commission before we make any substantial changes. you have some things you need to do now because of the budget cuts. senator mccain asked a good question. i want to turn it around a bit. even if you had all the money you could ask for within reason, would you still want to make personnel changes? >> absolutely. we have testified to that in the past. we have a new demographic and different things. we want to take a look at all of that. >> you have to make it

sustainable. we have a dilemma. we are trying to make sure that the pay and benefits are consistent as much as possible. it is good for retention and it is fair. i want to give them more and not less. tri-care, ised that correct western mark >> we have bought into it. >> more will buy into it and i think it is a good readiness and retention tool. we find that health care problems are the biggest impediments to getting people in order. having continuity of coverage makes sense. that is an example of expanding benefits.

it comes to taking care of our troops, we are doing more on the sexual assault front. >> yes. >> i want to thank everybody for taking this issue seriously. providing a jagged for every victim. have ptsd and suicide prevention programs. it is money well spent. side you are increasing benefits based on reality of retention and problems with long-term service in a dangerous world. we are trying to create sustainable pay and benefits. that takes us from the marine corps point of view, what percent of your budget is personnel costs? it is 63%. >> navy? >> about a third.

>> 48%. >> 48% with military and civilian together. >> we are looking at prospectively redesigning retirement. correct.s >> i want to make retirement more sustainable and efficient but still generous. the real issue is tri-care. are think the big three pay, tri-care, as well as be a we are going to be looking at making the pay benefit system more sustainable yet appropriate for the sacrifice. you are asking the congress to be a partner in this.

we need to keep an open mind. we have got to get a handle on this because over time, tri-care becomes a larger part of the budget. >> that is correct. >> very much like medicare. we will have to deal with the cost of health care in a responsible way. if we make these changes and we package, how much money do you think it would save over time? submission that we have -- the goaloposed is to slow down the growth so have a different model. each service would probably be better able to answer that question. >> what is your goal in the marine corps? i look at it as $1.2 billion

over the next 10 years. you have to answer this question today. pick a number that you think is a sustainable cost. a percentage of your budget and let that be your goal. the goal is going to be each service is going to take a percentage of your budget and what we have to do to get there and we will all talk about whether or not this can be run like a business. let's take a fair amount of the budget. i will end with this. want to put all of these numbers please telln you

the congress that no amount of her smell reform is going to ave the military from being hollow force if you don't fix sequestration. today than it was the last time we had this conversation. >> does everybody agree? >> yes, senator. i got back just in the nick of time. thank you for your service of course. i join my colleagues in saying that we need to get rid of sequestration because it has done so much damage to our readiness. i am with my colleagues who are going to commit ourselves to getting rid of sequestration. i have a question for general amos.

commissaries are something that they understand. they go to the commissaries and they know what the price differentials are. the differential becomes so much that i am in agreement with you. of whereow of examples commissaries need to find efficiencies? what is an efficient that they should just address right away in your view? on what ourorrect families are saying. the issue is radioactive. we don't suggest closing the commissaries. that is not on the table.

we have talked about some of the efficiencies. >> are you talking about the generic drugs? i agree with you on that. let -- imagine why we don't let generics be sold in our commissaries. >> there are similar stories. >> that is a changes should occur. you can't do it on your own, and require change in the law? >> that is our understanding. to see it happen. i can give you an example. my knees hurt. town to a chain store and it was $8.99. the commissary sells it for $7.98. the chain store sells the

generic for less. there is savings we could put right back in our people's pockets that would offset a portion of any subsidies. >> that sounds like low hanging fruit that we should pick immediately. you have any other areas where you can see efficiencies question mark >> i will just say this across the board. ago, our exchanges received what were called appropriated funds. they were subsidized. they weren't forced into making good business decisions. senator graham was just talking about being a good steward of your money. this is a subsidized institution. and is time to change that.

it is time to force them to do things economically. mind, thaty, in my does not equal taking 30% savings away from our families. i am saying figured out. hearing andt a understand all of what that means. i am confident they can. to the exchange today and still get a good bargain. >> i agree with you. differential would go down only 10% and set of 30%. that sounded like it was going to be the result. now you are saying that there should be some avenues before they start raising those prices. i completely agree with you and i hope we are on the same page about her it commissariesto the

. we did it to help them with the first years 200 million. you have to run their enterprise. they have a distribution network and may stores that they have to man. this is on the efficiencies that you talk about. for you to come up with the kind of suggestions and savings, it was a one-year process. it included most senior officers and enlisted leaders and midgrade service members. that says to me the vast aware of yourot suggestions. maybe are doing somebody get the word out. i think it is important to educate our service members exploit them that the cut are being made are not coming on

their backs. it begins to feel like that if are losing a housing alliance. or if their pay is slowing down. forward, a smaller percentage of what personnel costs represent versus these cuts, it is important to get the word out to the service members. if that does not happen successfully, we will start to be hearing from our constituents. it is going to be hard for us to support these cuts. what are you doing to get the word out so that we know we are on the same boat? >> all of us and those behind the subject.ged in travel, i will always

hold a town hall meeting. this is always a topic of conversation. >> i've been visiting air force bases all over the world. we hold large audiences and forms. we talking with the subject every time we take questions. we answer concerns and make sure they understand with the proposals are and what they are not. our forces are aware of what is going on. you won't find individual who says he likes the idea of anybody cutting benefits to their family. they would really like to have the best tools in the world. they would like to be trained a better than anybody else. they take right in being the best in the world what they do. they will find other employment if they can't do that. >> that is reassuring. thank you. my time is up. some have suggested that

recommendations on changes in military compensation that we should cut the civilian workforce. some estimates are that you thed need to cut 100,000 in civilian workforce. cuts of thate that is a feasible alternative? >> i do not, senator. it has been our advice in these conversations with the department that the reductions of the size of the combat power of the nation should be matched by a commensurate reduction in the overhead of the department. that includes out into what we call the fourth estate. the defense agencies.

20%etary hagel has directed reduction across the board. that would devalue the contribution of the civilians wingmen in this enterprise. vladimir putin continues to be very aggressive. he has now moved on odessa. share publicly what are the plans, let me rephrase that.

what are the plans regarding this aggressive action by russia? is wet i can say publicly have three instruments of national power. they are all being applied to this challenge. the military instrument at this point with regard to the ukrainians is support in terms of nonlethal assistance. intelligence sharing at some level. the military instrument is involved in reassuring our nato allies.

we will live up to our article five responsibilities under nato. example of that would be the f-16s that you sent to poland. >> increase in ship residence and deployment of company sized elements into the baltics. >> thank you very much, senator nelson. senator sessions. >> thank you for your service. you have been given a thankless task. you have let us magnificently in combat. often they forget that there is no overtime.

they have weekends in full deployment for months at a time. often in dangerous areas. there is a bond with the american people that we must have with people we send to dangerous places. we asked them to leave their families for extended periods of time. i think that is fundamental. i am on the budget committee. i am seeing this from both sides. i know how much of a danger this nation faces from that. cbo told the committee a few spent ago that laster we $221 billion on interest. that is about half of the defense budget. that has to be paid first. that 10 years from

the date we will pay 800 $75 billion in interest in one year. this is going to threaten. this department is taking this seriously. i respect you for it. totally of the belief that you are being asked to do more than any other department. i think the numbers will show that. it is a huge department. relief was given earlier this year. i was hopeful that would be sufficient.

that we could get through this. maybe not. we will have to hear from you. this worries me and keeps me up at night. frustration. he is the commander-in-chief. you think he would be more forcefully advocating priorities and need to be set. you have heard members of the defense apartment question civilian personnel. one estimate that i heard is

after 9/11 we added 100,000 civilian personnel. support presumably to an increase in active-duty forces. if those forces returned to a of what it was in 2011, why can't we reduce civilian personnel by 100,000. >> there are three groups of individuals who make up the total force. that is the servicemen and women, the civilian department employees and the contractors. contractors will take a more theificant cut followed by

dod civilians and uniform military. want to be reducing military uniform personnel in a bigger percentage than civilian? very service by service. are talkingeople we about are not in washington dc. they are out in shipyards and training areas. they are doing important work. maybe one of the service troops would like to talk about that. >> i respect their contributions. they are assisting the military in their mission. it may be hard for personnel to civilian then

military employees. i don't think that should be. thatnk we should make sure civilian personnel face the same valuation that uniform people do. >> i agree with that. .> in the army, we are reducing it is easy to understand. we cut the budget on our contractors and are civilians. that is what controls the we have come down about 20,000 civilians so far in the army. that will continue come down.

we are also looking at reducing our contract support. we're trying to do more with uniform personnel. we are looking at the contracts we have the we think are more service related to be done by others. things -- if i cut contracts and installation, that i have to use military manpower. it is one of the other because it still has to get done. if i kept the contracts of having grass, then i have to have military cut the grass. they have to do these other things at the contracts do. these are all things of have to get done. we can cut contractors and we will. some of them we can't as they are too valuable. if we do, the military is going to have to take over those responsibilities. it is stuff that has to be done.

, weuld just throw out there are not reducing any installations. reducing 150,000 men and maintain these installations. it is costing us a lot of money and we have to hire civilians and contractors. we'll have to use military manpower to do it. that is the bottom line. my impression is that you're having a larger percentage reduction of uniform than civilian. i am troubled by that. service.s service by thank you for testifying today. these are obviously very tough times. about how toned manage our mission of operation to the best of our ability. the personnelf

subcommittee, i am worried about trade-offs we're making in terms of military families, especially the lowest paid. you mentioned in your opening statement that you are unable to retire weapon systems you no longer need. can you tell us more about these systems and what savings you can find if you do retire them? every time you pass a budget in congress, it is about. i want to hear about that is a source for funding. for thee to think that record. let me take one that is not at all controversial. the a-10. if we retire the a-10, that is 3.5 billion dollars in savings to the air force. find don't, we've got to

$3.5 billion. each service as an example of something like that. >> another issue that i care is the families and our soldiers of them sacrifices they make. one of the sacrifices they shouldn't have to make is not been able to have treatment for their kids who have autism or other disabilities. kid who needs these important therapies to learn and develop are denied because we don't want to make them a priority. i think that is a mistake and is morally wrong. i would like your thoughts on your thoughts on that process.

i haven't seen with that is going to look like yet. barriers going to be to care for children with its abilities, particularly autism? >> that is a great question. we actually fixed that problem. i believe we are on track. if we are not, i want to know about it. this is terribly important to us. >> you do want federal employees kids to have better access to care and military kids. that is not right. that is one of the most expensive things to make sure that your child gets what they need. a lot of the therapies are developmental. it affects how their brains form and whether they can reach the level of capacity that they can. >> health affairs tackle that.

i do want to get back to you and make certain. >> as i meet with the troops the stress one, mental health access is very high. services to treat post traumatic stress disordis as we've had a number of families coming home under the current care requirements, there are co-pays for these services. do you believe that those co-pays will cause barriers to care specifically for the mental health of our troops and their families? and i have begun to -- i have a hearing to develop the increase in suicide rates, 11 suicides a day in our military, but there's also an increase in suicide of family members because of multiple deployments, because of

ptsd, of service members coming home. that raises serious concern to me. i would like to see if he see barriers to care here. >> if i could, i think we're doing a good job of increasing behavior health for active forces and try to get more access to -- my concern i think is where you're headed with this, and i agree with you is for family members because, frankly, it is even under tri-care, it is difficult to always get care covered for behavioral health under tri-care for our family members. sometimes it's accepted. sometimes it's not. the behavior health care needs to deal with that because of the affect the war has had on our families and specifically our children. i know in specific cases where a lot of out of pocket expenses is