n id oortaibageanumedc vr icd lle rsthdearbanar d whditquy thn s pren at,hes enrsata ndaa. aubn sut a cs caig d neofatnegelshn orcrheigh o'sd rr. s uoucova wingfiwang whuleim s stee ioel llguthdradtsthffg ml essh t tol d ld lp sdd o jaanlphear wfee shontyshf'oe ndcli itjd es arisog >>thcou l soan o ie irntt e frs vioue.wetrg eat thro o esxps t mo. , rewares ineseng t ercol ouficewhweee knreintianin>vetart ne r,testataon s es. aunlamotoveadiasthyecoumaronngaoet witmetobuintoa ttloathogs in16llsfotoe iestere rareve r inesra p e.tte eacim nrsinvalayanncys'ssoin smmte>>ththvi r, dirdauoahoatc inasmi thdiiowearreen thagthntgio e toaedatoit tti , ret s e shiic tet esats pp e chngin01miup30uteonnionx w lo nrs t ld aneenencotovent llcothrnghey re pedirhe, in dlsoch ahy'l rhtk. >lcbary e reasoi avcon iof e fdemehebeerrmase ac efseemofhi. hs r onwhedptacpl f.> lngwatpngtseeimemedthcs thpant an aorrete et af eqendtils o ertditbe chrasrean rsf peenwihe penan woayhr tra rt fir.>e li pctasta a werlr thpe. rame lskbemoede neto kedos luanurnendyrd dcenstiegon erioersul laie s.ell aouneinch

year's ndaa, we talked about a lack of investment and sustainment of major test facilities. the committee noted the test facilities and missile ranges were misused, but others did not receive direct support in over a decade. the committee urges the department to complete a comprehended assessment of test ranges. i want to ask you if you know what the status of this assessment is that the time? correctly,erstand the direct assessment is done and i have not seen anything yet. i share your concerns on that. this is why i mentioned the readiness issue. scenarios, and it becomes ineffective training. ineffective testing doesn't tell us much. sen. heinrich: you have thoughts on what metrics you will use if confirmed to assess the quality and capability of the army's testing evaluation and infrastructure? mr. fanning: i think two fundamental metrics, i start with the end user to see what they have from the range and did not get from the facility. but if we are focused on investments in the facilities, a series of metrics will be how often facilities are available for what we need t

captioning sponsored by cbs captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org ndaa house o workp an se churhwindows t out. and it'nthe thi vandalism invest. aninformatio nthe death an inmate texas whatw chargetrooeisnow facing in the case.. p youony have a fehours le tobuy a tikfor a chanc to win hal "billiondollars... tnstarts rgh now... "weow we don the acti o perso boviolent. --- vans attack a simpvchurch overnhfiring pl guns.shattein doors an wind. ni we're leargsisnt they simpvchurch..t.. thisek and "stalenforcem divisnsbenld in..oinvestige. "7 nesreporteraddie hamp..at "rockcreek missiabaptist church" today.speakingt detev- 05eliminato

and i think the reform in the nba will help with -- ndaa. of this as well and that is injecting the chiefs into the requirement process, especially as it overlaps to help keep costs under control. that is different than dumping requirements when you have cost overruns because you cannot afford them. it is making wise decisions at the proper times when you have more information to make those trade-offs area i look for to implementing those reforms and think it will help us greatly deal with things faster. >> thank you very much. again, thank you for your service and your willingness to continue to serve. given your prospectus in the navy and air force, can you outline what you think the most significant priorities you would bring to the secretary of armies office? >> we need to make sure the soldiers we are sending into , fullyway are ready trained and fully equipped. that would be the first priority. the second, and part of the efficiencies is the end result has to be maximized in the combat power and structure we have. process toontinued ma

and i think the reform in the nba will help with -- ndaa.his as well and that is injecting the chiefs into the requirement process, especially as it overlaps to help keep costs under control. that is different than dumping requirements when you have cost overruns because you cannot afford them. it is making wise decisions at the proper times when you have more information to make those trade-offs area i look for to implementing those reforms and think it will help us greatly deal with things faster. >> thank you very much. again, thank you for your service and your willingness to continue to serve. given your prospectus in the navy and air force, can you outline what you think the most significant priorities you would bring to the secretary of armies office? >> we need to make sure the soldiers we are sending into , fullyway are ready trained and fully equipped. that would be the first priority. the second, and part of the efficiencies is the end result has to be maximized in the combat power and structure we have. process toontinued make su

ndaa, thisar's committee expressed its concern about the lack of investment and sustainment of major range and test basis. the committee noted that some test ranges and i know i mentioned white sands missile range, others have not received a project in direct response to evaluation in over a decade. the committee urged the department to complete its comprehensive assessment of test range only needs and investments. i want to ask you if you know what the status of this comprehensive assessment is at this time. mr. fanning: i think the assessment, the draft i is done. but i share your concern and i saw it acutely in the air force. not investing in the ranges and testing facilities means we cannot replicate real-world facilities -- scenarios and ineffective testing doesn't tell us much. sen. heinrich: you have thoughts on what metrics you will use if confirmed to assess the quality and capability of the army's testing evaluation and infrastructure? mr. fanning: i think two fundamental metrics, i start with the end user to see what they have from the range and did not get from the facili

so, we will have provisions in the ndaa as far as developing capabilities not necessarily to match them eye for eye, but to have the capability that is needed to deal with the threats that putin presents. and just one brief example, every year russia continues to crank out new nuclear weapons with different characteristics. meanwhile, we haven't cranked out a new nuclear weapon since 1989, roughly. so, that's just one example of the difference. mr. hughes: on isis, do you support sending u.s. ground combat troops to iraq and syria? and would you like to see an isis-specific authorization for the use of military force? and do you think congress should pass one in 2016? chairman thornberry: well, as i mentioned, i think we should vote and pass an authorization for the use of military force against isis. as you all know, what we are doing is relying on the aumf that passed a few days after 9/11 and that specifically is tied to those who committed the attacks of september 11, 2001, and those that harbored them. well, isis didn't exist then, and so what the administration has to do is try to

so we will have provisions in the ndaa as far as developing capabilities, not necessarily to match them eye for eye but to have the capability that is needed to deal with the threats that putin presents. and just one brief example, every year russia continues to crank out new nuclear weapons with different characteristics. meanwhile, we haven't cranked out a new nuclear weapon since 1989, roughly. so that's just one example of the difference. >> on isis, do you support sending u.s. ground combat troops to iraq and syria? and would you like to see an isis-specific authorization for the use of military thors and do you think congress should pass one in 2016? mr. thornberry: as i mentioned, i think we should vote and pass an authorization for the use of military force against isis. as y'all know, what we are doing is relying on the aumf that passed a few days after 9/11, and that specifically is tied to those who committed the attacks on september 11, 2001, and those that harbored them. well, isis didn't exist then. so what the administration has to do is try to draw a link that this is a

so we will have provisions in the ndaa as far as developing capabilities, not necessarily to match themye for eye but to have the capability that is needed to deal with the threats that putin presents. and just one brief example, every year russia continues to crank out new nuclear weapons with different characteristics. meanwhile, we haven't cranked out a new nuclear weapon since 1989, roughly. so that's just one example of the difference. mr. hughes: on isis, do you support sending u.s. ground combat troops to iraq and syria? and would you like to see an isis-specific authorization for the use of military force and do you think congress should pass one in 2016? rep. thornberry: as i mentioned, i think we should vote and pass an authorization for the use of military force against isis. as y'all know, what we are doing is relying on the aumf that passed a few days after 9/11, and that specifically is tied to those who committed the attacks on september 11, 2001, and those that harbored them. well, isis didn't exist then. so what the administration has to do is try to draw a link that th

authorization process as currently drafted section 106 would preclude annual authorization bills like the ndaa and diminish its oversight authority. besides relaxing oversight, appropriations in particular with transfer powers away from congress to both the president and the bureaucracy. the constitution vests the power of the purse in this chmber, closest and most account to believe the people. biennial budgeting limits that responsibility. additionally, there are practical considerations which make biennial appropriations unworkable at the federal level. under an annual appropriations systems makes precise projections is already difficult. formulation of the budget begins 15 to 18 months prior to the beginning of the fiscal year. even on an annual basest estimates will miss the mark. extending the budget lead time to 27 or 30 months would decrease the reliability and quality of the estimates, limit the executive branch's ability to foresee future needs and increase unanticipated funding requirements. supporters of biennial budgeting and appropriations often site that many states use a two-ye

in last year's ndaa, this committee expressed its concern about the lack of investment and sustainment of major range and test facility bases. and the committee noted that some test ranges, and i know i have mentioned white sand missile range to you, but there are others, have not received a milcon project in over a decade not. the committee therefore urged the department to complete its comprehensive assessment of the ranges. i wanted to ask if you know what the status of this comprehensive status is? >> i think the assessment is, the draft assessment is done, and it's now in coordination. i haven't seen anything yet, but i share your concern on that. i saw it acutely in the air force. that's why i mentioned the readiness issue. not investing in the ranges and the testing facilities means we can't replicate real world scenarios and it becomes ineffective training and testing. it doesn't tell us much. >> do you -- do you have thoughts on what metrics you'll use if confirmed to assess the quality and the capability of the army's tests and evaluation infrastructure in particular? >> i th

i think the reforms -- the acquisition reforms in the ndaa will help with this as well, and that's injectinghe military departments, the chiefs, in the requirements process especially as it is overlaps with the acquisition process, to help keep costs under control. and that's different than dumping requirements when you already have cost overruns because you can't afford them. it's making wise decisions at the proper times when you have more information to make those trade-offs. so, i look forward to implementing those reforms and think it will help us greatly field things faster and avoid the cost overruns that we saw in the future -- in the past. >> senator reed? >> well, thank you very much, mr. chairman. and, again, mr. fanning, thank you for your service to date and your willingness to continue to serve. and given your perspectives in both the navy and the air force, can you just outline what you think the most significant priorities you would bring to the secretary of the army's office? >> absolutely. well, first, i think for the army readiness has to be the priority. it's what general

as currently drafted, section 106 would actually preclude annual authorization bills like the ndaa and further diminish its oversight authority. besides relaxing oversight, biennial appropriations in particular would harmfully transfer powers away from congress to both the president and the bureaucracy. the constitution vests the power of the purse in this chamber, closest and most accountable to the people. biennial budgeting limits that responsibility. additionally, there are practical considerations which make biennial appropriations unworkable at the federal level. under an annual appropriations system making precise projections about agency needs is already difficult. formulation of the present budget begins 15 to 18 months prior to the beginning of the fiscal year. even on an annual basis, estimates of discretionary outlays and fee collections will miss the mark. extending the budget lead time to 27 or 30 months would decrease the reliability and quality of the estimates, limit the executive branch's ability to foresee future needs and increase unanticipated funding requirements.

and i think the reform in the ndaa.is as well and that is injecting the chiefs into the requirement process, especially as it overlaps to help keep costs under control. that is different than dumping requirements when you have cost overruns because you cannot afford them. so i look forward to implementing those reforms and think will help us grateful avoid the cost overruns that we saw in the past. >> thank you very much. again, thank you for your service and your willingness to continue to serve. given your prospectus in the navy and air force, can you outline what you think the most significant irony you would >> first i think for the army, readiness has to be the priority. 100%ld agree if confirmed that we need to make sure soldiers we are sending into harms way are ready and fully trained and equipped. it would be priority number one. efficiencies.e the end result has to be maximizing combat power of what we have. that is a continual coloring process to make sure you are -- culling process and make sure that the rat

in last year's ndaa, this committee expressed its concern about the lack of investment and sustainment of major range and test facility bases. and the committee noted that some test ranges, and i know i have mentioned white sands missile range to you, but there are others, have not received a milcon project in over a decade now. the committee therefore. urged the department to complete its comprehensive assessment of the ranges. i wanted to ask if you know what the status of this comprehensive status is at this time. >> if i understand correctly, i think the assessment is -- the draft assessment is done and it's now in coordination. i haven't seen anything yet, but i share your concern on that. i saw it acutely in the air force. that's why i mentioned the readiness issue. not investing in the ranges and the testing facilities means we can't replicate real world scenarios and it becomes ineffective training and ineffective training. it doesn't tell us much. >> do you -- do you have thoughts on what metrics you'll use if confirmed to assess the quality and the capability of the army's te