general odierno, you are clear about it. i have personal concerns about the on the readiness with my family and we should all be concerned but sometimes we have issues that really aren't about money. by know that the discussion on the phone the other day, i am sorry i am going to go back to that issue. secretary mchugh you send we send our young men and women into a dangerous environment is some couple of weeks ago we had apparently a very dangerous environment in yemen. we sent extra marines in there and that it was a dangerous the we evacuated all the americans, close the embassy, took the ambassador out, evacuate all the americans and in that process even though we had a new on standby not far off shore, somebody made a decision i will work to that on the record somebody made a decision to destroy all of those weapons that have the marines who were either to provide protection in this very dangerous environment turn over their weapons, their individual weapons. .. they may try to force us out. the weapons we need, the ord

this is from your letter general odierno. can you expand on this letter because i believe it's important. and addressing the various threats that face us. and as indicated in your letter could you expand please. >> so the basis of the letter was that we cannot sustain the rate of deployment of the current missile defense capability that we have. we simply are overstressing the force. we don't have enough. we're not meeting all of the requirements. so in our mind we have to come one a new concept that allows us to use an integrated air and missile defense capability that is shared among the services that allows us to deal with this growing threat. because the threat is growing. so what we want is a study that enables us to come up with new technique, new procedures, new capabilities that are able for us to provide the proper defense for this nation using a variety of capabilities, to include current missile defense assets but other capabilities. cyber and other things that have to be integrated into this that enables us to dea

can you do missile defense out of oco money general odierno do you now? >> as far as i know we are not able to do that. depends for right now we don't have the flexibility periods about flexibility and the oco budget. we don't know how it's defined so it's difficult to answer. >> is it fair to conclude as i'm looking at the proposed house budget that's a whole lot better for the money to be in base as opposed to oco and to the extended send oco does have some adverse affect on our our national security capabilities. would you agree with that secretary mchugh? >> yes sir, i did early. it presents challenges. >> secretary mabus? >> s. i would. >> secretary james? >> s.. >> does anyone have any idea how much our national security would be if it's in oco supposed to base? >> the worst of all is that we don't get this fixed or some mechanism. c thank you maam, thank you mr. chairman. >> ms. duckworth. >> think you should chairman. secretary mabus i was happily surprised to see you devote so much time to power and energy issues in your written testimony. your c

and then to ask general odierno for the understudy and he replied there is a limit to what i can do. with the bureaucratic politics. >> so. >> with the nonmilitary non international question if you think back years ago people were about the proliferation of handguns now they have the ak-47s and automatic weapons and i worry that drones are used talk about delivering packages, farmers, photograp hers soon there will be used by say professional hitman or various drug groups to fight against each other is that the inevitable results? >> it is possible already their smuggling across the mexican border but it turns out they kiepura -- crashing [laughter] so they are not reliable with mexico and u.s. apparently is littered with them but of course, he had the case the other day of a joke intelligence agency decides to fly then drone over the warehouse crashing into a tree. it is called a possible buyout gps severally has made it possible that said technology is not that esoteric. but people worry about other countries mounting drone attacks but i don't think they have the global command-and

general odierno, i will ask for worse beyond readiness, risk capability. he testified her to% of our brigades are ready. when our sustained readiness rate should be closer to 70%. this number is disturbing because it is significant to our military but the effects of it when a brigade combat team were bct which is the building block of the power isn't ready in the army isn't ready to fight, could you describe to us? doesn't this mean more get killed here it is not readiness, but that more people will get injured or killed. is that correct? >> that is absolutely right. it means he'll take us longer to do our mission. it will cost us lives. it will cost us in injuries and potentialpotential ly cost us in achieving the goals we attempt to achieve as well. >> the translation we need is we can lose, people will die and be injured. >> that is correct, sir. >> general, if we go to the full sequestration for fiscal year 16 and that is beyond what the budget is you are taking the brigades to 70% of readiness. how do you accomplish that? >> we will not. as he mention

i have two questions for general odierno and howard. i have a letter from the gem and admiral greenert sent to secretary hagel november of last year indicating your concerns about how much we are investing in missile defense and the growing challenges that you both see in terms of our capacity to continue to invest in missile defense at the current rate considering the fiscal environment that we're in. the letter states our present acquisition-based strategy is unsustainable in the current fiscal environment and favors forward basis of assets to meet contingency demands. now is the opportunity to develop a long-term approach for homeland missile defense and regional missile defense priorities, a holistic approach that is sustainable and cost effective and incorporating launch and that is from your letter generalo deer know. i've argued that missile approach is only one of the threats that face us and as indicated in your letter could you expand on that, please? >> yes. so the basis of the letter that we cannot sustain the rate of deploy

in regard to a question, general odierno. i will be always very grateful visiting you in baghdad. i've had two sons serve in iraq. so i know, again, of your insight. and i'd like your insight into what mile stones we would be looking at in afghanistan before there is a further draw down. >> congressmen, i would say that the important thing in afghanistan is two fold. one, we have to make sure that the afghan security forces continue to improve. they continue to be able to do the institutional things that are necessary for long-term sustainment of their military. and i think that is critical. so in order for that to happen i believe we have to stay the course with them. and we have to continue to them as they continue to fight the challenges they face. and they are doing an incredible job doing that. but it is important we stay with them. and that we have a conditions-based capability with the commander over there that allows him to make judgments in order to make sure we continue supports that's necessary for them to have sustainable outcomes that will last a long time. >> and i s

general odierno went on to say "the choices we must make to meet the sequestration level funding are forcing us to reduce our army to a size and with limited capabilities that i am not comfortable with. if we follow this path to its end, we will find a hollow army. if we do not have the resources to train and equip the force our soldiers, our young men and women are the ones who will pay the price potentially with their lives." that's from the chief of staff of the united states army:"the young men and women are the ones that will pay the price potentially with their lives." mark welch the chief of staff of the air force "the vulnerability of sequestration will encourage our adversaries worry our allies, limit the number of current operations we conduct and increase the risk to the men and women who fight america's next war." secretary of state george schultz one of the most revered men in america "sequestration seems to me like legislative insanity." secretary of state madeleine albright, "i'm very concerned about sequestration and the deep cuts that have been taken. i think it jeop

i would associate myself the general odierno's comments about the service chiefs. today we are responsible for resources in the outcome and that is where i would zero in on the service chiefs responsibility for outcome as well. >> besides the simplification there is also a sense of agility to all of this though as time unfolds and programs change and requirements change in terms of cost and scheduling and what's appropriate to keep in what's appropriate to enhance i think the service chiefs would appreciate an opportunity to have a voice in that process. >> thank you mr. chairman. i yield back. >> admiral i think that agility point is a key one that we don't spend enough time talking about. in a volatile world we live in to be able to be agile in response is just essential. ms. graham. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. thanks to each of you for your service to our country. first i would like to offer my condolences to the families of the seven marines and the four soldiers who lost their lives in training exercise in the gulf of mexico last week. anything that i

odierno. mabus. the cno admiral greenert had a family issue at the last minute. so the standing is the michelle howard vice chief of naval operations. joseph dunford, and deborah lee james and mark welsh. again thank you all for being here. without objection, your full written statements will be made part of the record. and the only other comment i would make is when we get to questions with this many members and witnesses, i'm going to have to be careful about the clock. so if you want to spend three minutes asking you question you are going to get a very abbreviated answer. and ie appreciate our witnesses as well as our members respecting the gavel as we try to give as many as possible the chance to ask questions. again thank you for being here. secretary mchugh? >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. ms. sanchez, good to be withual ualual all of you. pass our best wishes to mr. smith and his speedky recovery. and to all of you the distinguished members of the committee i would say how much we appreciate the opportunity to be here today and to talk very frankly

the other thing i wanted to mention is that you have heard general odierno and others all testified and they talked about if sequester is coming in. you said something that i think is even more significant. you said even with the fiscal year 2016 budget, the army, navy, and marine corps will not reach their readiness goals until 2020 and the air force until 2023. is that accurate? so what you're saying, even if it is a budget without sequestration, you are saying that threat is there. mr. carter: what is going on there is digging ourselves out of a hole of sequester in the past, particularly the 2013 budget, the year in which the shutdown occurred, and so forth. the thing about readiness is it is easy to have it fall off that it takes time to build it back, and what the chiefs were saying, absolutely accurately, is we lost a lot of readiness through the turmoil of the last few years. even if we are given the opportunity, as we hope that this budget to start building act, it is just in the nature of training that it takes a while to get that readiness back. i do agree with him. senator:

the other thing i wanted to mention is you heard what general odierno, general green, admiral welch and general dunford all testified. they talked about if sequester is coming in. you said something i think is more significant. you said even with the fiscal year '16 budget, the army, the navy, marine corps will not reach readiness goals until 2020 and air force till 2023 is that accurate? what you're saying there, even not our budget without sequestration, you're saying that threat is there. >> what is going on there is dig ourselves out of a hole of sequester in the past. particularly the 2013 budget, the year in which the shutdown occurred and so forth. . . >> you apparently had some time pretty good quality time with the president when you were there. and it was observed, i think, by general dempsey that we don't operate in a vacuum here. is there anything you want to add with our relationship with the president that would be beneficial to have the whole world know or those who are participating this that theater? >> yes one thing which is that he is a partner in a way that we have b

the other thing i wanted to mention is that you've heard what general odierno general welch and generalunford all testified. you said something i think is even more significant. you said even with the fiscal year '56 had 16 budget, the army navy and marine corps won't reach their readiness cìtç goals until 2020 and the air force until 2023. is that accurate? what you're saying there is -- even if there is not -- our budget without sequestration, you're saying that threat is there? >> yeah. what's gone on there is digging ourselves out of a hole of sequester in the past particularly the 2013 budget the year in which the shutdown occurred and so forth. the thing about readiness is it's easy to have it fall off but then it takes time to build it back. and i think what the chiefs were saying, absolutely accurately is, we lost a lot of readiness through the turmoil of the last few years. even if we're gwynn the opportunity, as we hope with this budget to start building back. it's just in the nature. it's in the nature of training that it takes a while to get that readiness back. so, i do agr

the other thing i wanted to mention is that you have heard general odierno and others all testified and they talked about if sequester is coming in. you said something that i think is even more significant. you said even with the fiscal year 2016 budget, the army navy, and marine corps will not reach their readiness goals until 2020 and the air force until 2023. is that accurate? so what you're saying, even if it is a budget without sequestration, you are saying that threat is there. mr. carter: what is going on there is digging ourselves out of a hole of sequester in the past, particularly the 2013 budget, the year in which the shutdown occurred, and so forth. the thing about readiness is it is easy to have it fall off, that it takes time to build it back, and what the chiefs were saying, absolutely accurately, is we lost a lot of readiness through the turmoil of the last few years. even if we are given the opportunity, as we hope that this budget to start building act, it is just in the nature of training that it takes a while to get that readiness back. i do agree with him. senator: