we don't really consider this occo. if omb doesn't agree that something is occ orr or over seas contingency operation, for those who get all thrown around by all the acronyms, that may be a bargaining tactic. obviously, the administration doesn want oco to plus up the defense budget with democrats for discretionary spending. so while they can't get in the way of budget tear passing resolutions, we will come to points in the road procedurally where the democrats will have their say, just as minorities have had their say in other situations. >> i believe the president, he's going to do that. so that's why i know we're going to start this fiscal year with a continuing resolution. that's no big deal in the senate because you -- all that you have is you exceed the allocations is a 16 vote point of order against the bill. and minimal amounts that you can always exceed the reck sill yagsz constructions. they've just littered it with the capableties to get mandatory on simple majorities. reconciliation is always useful if the p

tell us why there's a bags of 5234 with an occo of 90 plugs billion doesn't work. or you're going to be facing that. >> i'll start first, chairman. >>> it doesn't work because the strategy that we've laid out. we need the budget not just in one year x one year, but in the years to come. so budgeting one year at a time and this proposal is a one-year-at-a-time thing. it's not going to permit us to carry out the strategy as we've planned. >> you said the president would veto a bill if we pass sequestration. if we send you the national defense authorization act which is a base of 51223 of 90 plus billion, is that within that veto threat? i think what the president meant was that a budget that did not not relieve sequestration, not just for defense, but as i mentioned earlier for others, as well. >> now mr. chairman rngs there are restrictions. won't you have almost a quarter of a year where you can't use the money? >> yes. if this is done without an appropriation, yes, you're right. and i think your earlier point, to, the approach being opposed to the house committee

now, the question is so what will they do with occo. it seems as if both chambers are going to go over new fund required, which is troubling for other reasons because this is pretty much all debt finance anyway, when you're talking emergency spending money. half of it they were trying to make offset allowable is going to be taken away. so they are up to $90 billion for supplemental for the emergency department. 51 billion the president requested for okinawa was too low anyway. just last time around, it was summertime saying hey, things have changed. ebola, isis, et cetera. what is the new number? the first question is how much is actually needed. it is probably in the 60's range. i think that money will easily flow to the department. the other question is, so then you have an extra 25-30,000,000,000 that you can play with that is allowable for the contingency operations account. the question is what does pentagon leadership do? that is something being discussed by civilian leadership right now. it is possible that the pentagon leadershi

we don't need $36 or $38 billion extra to occo. we need that money in the base budget. they're both useful to us and have restrictions in law and in regulation. >> so if you had your brothers you would rather have those dollars be in the regular budget as opposed o edd to ocoo funding? >> absolutely. that's where we asked for it. that's where we need it. that's where we've identified the needs. and that also, and this is very important, and this gets back to the earlier discussion of sequester, if it's in the base budget, it ees's -- it is the base. in years to come, otherwise, we can't spend it sufficiently or strategically. we need that kind of horizon. and sell kweszer is what robs us of that. and this's why it's bad in a managerial sense for anybody who has their budget sequestered. >> general dempsey, do you want to speak to that and perhaps its effect on readiness? >> readiness seems to suffer