tv Military Leaders Say Budget Instability Harms Readiness CSPAN April 21, 2017 5:15pm-8:03pm EDT
the u.s. house is back tuesday and is expected to turn its attention to federal spending for the remainder of this budget year. current government funding runs out a week from today. the house also needs to raise the debt ceiling, an issue that was contungss while barack obama was in the house. the senate comes in to session monday at 3:00 p.m. eastern. that afternoon, senators will vote on the nomination of former georgia governor sunny purdue to be agriculture secretary and on advancing the deputy attorney general nomination. you can see it live on c-span2. >> up next, the chiefs of the army, air force, navy, and marine corps testify on their budgets and the impact of repeated continuing resolution in place of long-term resolutions for the military branches.
committee will come to order. after having explored the next steps of defense reform and yesterday's hearing, we now turn to what is needed to repair and rebuild our military. and i'm grateful to each of the distinguished service chiefs for being with us today. there's widespread agreement that funding cuts under the budget control act plus a series of continuing resolutions coupled with a pace of required deployments has damaged have the u.s. military. i believe that damage has gone
far deeper than most of us realize, requiring more time and money to repair than is generally expected. there's plenty of responsibility to go around for the current state of affairs, with both congress and the obama administration, with both republicans and democrats, with both military and civilian leadership. among other problems, defense funding has gotten caught up with partisan back and forth on other issues and has even been held hostage to other priorities. we need to get back to evaluating defense needs on their own without regard to any agreement or disagreement we may have on other issues. the men and women who serve deserve at least that. most important thing now is to repair the damage. we have the chance to begin doing so by passing a full appropriation bill for this year, acting favorably upon the supplemental quest and then enacting adequate authorization
and appropriations for fiscal year 2018. immediate issue before us is the expiration of the current continuing resolution on april 28th. we in the house passed a full appropriation bill for 2000 -- for fy '17 on march 8 by a vote of 371-48. the senate has not yet acted on it. as i have said before, i will not vote for a defense continuing resolution for the rest of fiscal year '17. it would simply do too much harm. fundamental to fixing a problem is to expose it and understand it. i understand that we have to be cautious about exposing our vulnerabilities. but in order to do better for the military and for the country, we must have the best professional military judgment
our witnesses today can offer on the current state of our military forces and on what a cr or inadequate funding would mean for them. to get on a better track, we all have to be clear and candid with the american people. and that's exactly the purpose of today's hearing. mr. smith. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i agree with much of what the chairman had to say. certainly, over the course of the last six-plus years, the uncertainty that has accompanied the defense budget has made it very difficult to operate. we have had one government shutdown, countless threatened government shutdowns, and numerous crs. i think most people don't appreciate what a cr means. well, you're just continuing the budget. the cr basically means you can't start new programs. you can't end programs that need to be ended. and as importantly, a lot of times you're not really sure what qualifies as which.
all of you have to go through a very difficult task when we don't have a regular appropriations bill of figuring out exactly what you can and cannot spend money on. that is a colossal waste of your time, and also very expensive. we should give you a clear budget every year, clear appropriations to give you the freedom to implement that as is necessary. we have not done that. i agree, there's plenty of blame to go around on that front, but the lack of budget clarity has caused no end of problems. i also agree the force is unquestionably been forced over the course of the last 15 years. certainly with two major wars in afghanistan and iraq, and then the ongoing struggle against extremism all across the world. our military has been given a large number of assignments, and couple that with the inadequate, well, with the unpredictable number of resources and you have a problem. i think there's a larger thing we need to get at and i agree with the chairman again that we
need a new appropriations bill and need to fund the military to meet the mission. i don't agree that we can somehow pull defense out of the entire rest of the federal government, look at it totally separately as if all the other money that we spend in the government doesn't matter, because unfortunately, we do have other priorities than just national security. some of which are really rather important. in fact, some of them have to do with security. the intelligence budget, department of homeland security, but also our infrastructure which is crumbling at an alarming rate. and regrettably is a tradeoff. i think the budget that president trump sent out this year makes it absolutely clear. he plussed up defense by $54 billion, and he took that $54 billion out of everything else. including a 31% cut in the state department. and as the secretary of defense, general mattis said, if you're going to cut the state department and if you're going to cut development aid, then you
better give me five more divisions because i'm going to have a lot of wars to fight. it is all of a piece, as much as i would love on this committee to be able to pull defense out and say, we can ignore everything else, we aren't just members of the defense committee. we're members of congress, and we're responsible for all of that. towards that end, i'll make one final point. as we look at how we put together a defense budget, i agree with the chairman. we should not give the men and women who serve in the military tasks and assignments that we do not equip and train them to do. that is where we are at right now. that is completely and totally unacceptable. i do not, however, agree that the answer is to simply continue to expand what those tasks and responsibilities should be and kind of hope that we somehow come up with more money to meet it. because the tasks and responsibilities that have been described by the president and what he says he wants the military to do, he sent up a
$603 billion budget. that doesn't even come close t meeting thoseasks and responsibilities that are outlined. even the $640 billion that the chairman here and the chairman in the senate armed services committee talked about doesn't come close to meeting that either. what we also need to do in addition to rightly pointing out the lack of resources and the unpredictability is come up with a set of tasks and missions for the department of defense, for the men and women who serve in the armed services that we can actually fund. we cannot continue to say, well, you have to do this, you have to do this. we don't have the money. we should have the money, we don't have the money. we know where our budget is at. we know we're $20 trillion in debt, running a deficit in excess of $600 billion and there are other needs in our budget. we have to be smart about how we spend the money in defense and what missions we decide our men and women should be ready, trained, and equipped to serve.
i hope that's part of the discussion as well this morning. i look forward to your testimony and i thank you all for your service. >> we're pleased to welcome this morning the general mark milley, chief of staff of the army, admiral john richardson, general david goldfein, and robert neller. without objection, your full written statements will be made part of the record, and let me say again how much i appreciate each of you being here. i know you have a lot of responsibilities on your shoulders. i know, for example, the commandant came back a day early from an overseas trip. but i believe the opportunity to get funding for the military on a better track deserves all of our careful attention and discussion. again, that's the purpose of today's hearing. thank you all for being here. general milley, we'll be pleased to turn to you for any oral statement you would like to
make. >> thanks, chairman and ranking member smith and all of the distinguished members of the committee for the opportunity before you today. i appreciate that. i know we all do. the world is becoming a more dangerous place. with simultaneous challenges to the united states interests from russia, china, iran, rapidly growing threat from north korea, and an ongoing series of war against terrorists. this is no time in my professional view to increase risk to our national security. a year-long cr or a return to the bca funding will do just that. it will increase risk to the nation and will ultimately result in dead americans on a future battlefield. to execute current operations, sustain readiness while making progress toward a more capable and lethal future, the united states army requires most importantly predictable and consistent funding.
the lack of fiscal year 2017 appropriations and no supplemental increase in funding will significantly and negatively impact readiness and increase risk to our force. additionally, a return to budget caps due to bca sequestration in fiscal year '18 forces the army to reverse our efforts to improve readiness and will lead to a hollow army. in the last two years, we have made steady progress in our core war fighting skills across multiple types of units, but we have much work to do to achieve full spectrum readiness necessary to meet the demands of our national military strategy and the defense planning guidance. advances by our adversaries are real. and the cumulative effect of consistent and destructive budget instability for eight straight years is increasing risk, not only to the army but to the nation. and will result in unnecessary u.s. casualties.
readiness to prevent or if necessary fight and win wars is a very, very expensive proposition. but the cost of preparation is always far less than the cost of pain, blood, and sacrifice of regret. readiness is the army's number one priority. our current readiness is funding requirement is submitted in the amendment to the fy '17 president's budget at $3 billion above 2016's operations and maintenance levels. our planning efforts for fy '17 request for additional appropriations centered on filling critical gaps in readiness, spifrkly in armor, air defense, field artility and aviation. if forced to operate under a year long cr, this will not happen. efforts to close critical gaps will be severely impacted. funding under a cr for a year will result in a dramatic decrease in training. starting next month in may, and
by 15 july, all army training will cease except those units deploying to afghanistan or iraq. our ctc collective training exercises, at ntc, jrtc, will be significantly degraded and all efforts to increase army end strength as mandated in the fy '17 defense authorization act by you for the regular army, the national guard, and army reserve will also cease. the cumulative effect of training shortfalls combined with personnel constraints will result in an army that is less ready to meet not only current requirements of combatant commanders but limit our ability to assure our allies, deterour adversaries now and in the future. also, procurement efforts, currently on hold will remain on hold. preventing the army from immediately addressing known shortfalls and gaps in combat systems and importantly in munitions.
electronic warfare, cyber programs, air and missile defense, long-range fires, protection, and mobility programs along with several other modernization initiatives. we will lose our current overmatch. the current battlefield is already very lethal. but our future battlefield will likely prove far more lethal than anything we have recently experienced. our adversaries have studied us and are rapidly leveraging available technology while the army has yet to fully recover from the effects of the shutdown in 2013. time is not our ally. a return to the bca caps will damage the army's ability to build and maintain readiness at approperate levels and result in multiple years of negative impacts on the future of our army. while we cannot forecast precisely when and where the next contingency will arise, it is very likely to require a significant commitment of u.s.
army ground forces, sustaining the high levels of performance that your army has demonstrated in the face of increasing challenges requires consistent, long-term, balanced and predictable funding. a year-long continuing resolution or a return to bca funding caps absolutely will result in a u.s. army that is outranged, outgunned, and outdated against potential adversaries. with your support, however, in passing the fy '17 budget and the supplementals, your army will fund readiness at sufficient levels to meet current demand, build readiness for contingencies and invest in the future force. thank you for the opportunity to testify. i look forward to your questions. >> admiral richardson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ranking member smith and distinguished members of the committee. for the opportunity to discuss the impacts that another continuing resolution, in fact, to leverage general milley's statement, continuing uncertain
and inadequate funding levels would do to the navy. and two points i just want to clarify and clearly convey right off the top. that mr. chairman, we need that fy '17 bill and the supplemental in order to keep navy programs and key investments moving forward. to recover readiness this year, prevent digging the readiness hole deeper, and to sustain it into the near future. there's a growing gap between the missions that we are asking our navy to do and the unreliability and shortage of the resources provided to do those missions as ranking member smith highlighted. we got to where we are today because of 15 years of operating at war time pace. eisenhower stiek group was deployed five times in the last seven years. contrast that level of effort with eight years of continuing resolutions and five years of budget restrictions imposed by the budget control act and the balance budget act.
this gap creates years of stress over and above the inherent stress of deployed operations. and the navy team, in fact, the joint service team, the joint force team, sailors, civilians, and their families have been absorbing that stress. and so in the simplest possible terms, as i speak to you today, if we don't get the funding just described, lots of our aviators will not fly, and they can't train. we won't have the spares to fix their planes. we won't have the gas to fly them. we may not have the pay to keep our pilots in the services. and we won't have ready aircraft for tomorrow's pilots. lots of sailors will not go to sea. can't afford the maintenance to fix their ships. can't afford the gas to steam them. the ships will remain tied up to the pier. in many ways, this is irreversible. you can't get lost training time back. we will be less proficient when we do go to sea, when we do fly.
our pilots will be less experienced. which is a daunting fact when you consider what we're asking them in war time. our sailors will have less time at sea to practice together, to train together, to achieve the intricate teamwork needed to win in modern warfare. and the stress doesn't stop when they return to home port. the current funding without the '17 bill and the supplemental will only allow for one month notice before they move their families, placing a huge burden on their families and especially those with children. we'll continue to ask our people to work in substandard conditions in over 6,000 buildings in dismal condition awaiting repair, replacement, or demolition. at the unit level, we'll have to shut down air wings. in the short-term. and in the long-term, a shortage of airplanes will get worse. we'll delay important upgrades that help us keep pace with the
threat. these delays or cancellations will put sailors at greater risk from cyberattacks with a growing threat of anti-ship missiles in the areas that they routinely operate. submarines will lose their certificate to dive. ships will be at the pier instead of under way. failing to maintain our equipment has the same net effect as cutting force structure. whether we leave a ship tied up to the pier because it's not repaired or we decide not to build a new ship, both mean one less ship at sea. not being able to fly an existing aircraft or not buying a new aircraft, both mean one less plane in the air. as the general said, this is not a theoretical debate. while we talk about whether or not to keep ships in port and aircraft on the ground, our competitors are making steady progress and gaining on us. america's risks are getting worse as other nations grow their fleet and operate them in
the pacific, atlantic, indian, and arctic oceans. as they extend their influence over trade routes and lifeblood of the international economy, including ours. i just got back from spain where i saw our sailors in action. i visited the uss ross who is now in the increasingly contested waters of the eastern mediterranean. those sailors know clearly that they are sailing into harm's way. but they took an oath to support and defend the constitution and they live up to the commitment every day, undaunted by the competition i just described. and their teammates do this every day, all around the world. they are tough, dedicated, proud of what they do. back here at home, there's less evidence that we get it. there is tangible lack of urgency. we're not doing what we should to help them win. in fact, we are here today to discuss plans, potential plans that would make their lives
harder, that will further shrink their advantage. mr. chairman, i urge congress to pass the fy '17 bill and give favorable consideration to the supplemental. it will make us more ready, more competitive, and relieve a lot of stress that is on our people. together, we can find ways to maintain our edge. there is so much at stake. thank you for the chance to testify. and i look forward to your questions. >> general goldfein. >> thank you. distinguished members of the committee, for hosting this critically important and timely hearing. it's a privilege to be here with my fellow joint chiefs. your air force is globally engaged, both here in the homeland and deployed. to capture and control the high ground, as we provide global individual lnls, global reach, and global power for america and our allies.
as the service with the most diverse portfolio of missions, operating from the outer reaches of space to 100 feet below the surface and everywhere in between, we are involved in some way in every mission the joint force performs. put simply, your air force is always there. our responsibility begins in the nuclear enterprise as we insure the bomber and missile legs of the triad remain safe, secure, and reliable. and on our worst day as a nation, we insure the commander in chief is where he needs to be, when he needs to be there, and that he remains connected to our air force and naval nuclear forces who stand watch for america and our allies. in space, your airmen fly and maintain 12 constellations that provide critical intelligence, protected communications, nuclear command and control, and
gps, for the joint team and for the globe. when china launched its anti-satellite missile in 2007, creating a debrief field over 300,000 particles, space became both a contested and a congested place. and it's the possibility of your air force to organize, train, equip, and present the preponderance of ready space forces to combatant commanders, to fight should a war either start or extend into space. in the cyber domain, airmen join their fellow soelgs, sailors, and marines to defend the nation and develop tactics, techniques, and procedures to produce strategic effects in this new and critical war fighting domain. just 16 years ago, we had a single remotely piloted aircraft in test. today, your air force delivers 60 lines of armed reconnaissance along with high altitude
capabilities to provide an unblinking eye on our adversaries. if you heard jet noise this morning driving to the capitol, it was likely the f-16s from the 113th international guard wing at andrews. who sent an alert to defend the city, just as we do across the nation, to defend our homeland from attack. and i learned just walking in this morning that we lost an f-16 from that wing this morning, and i'm proud to say at least the news reports are telling us the pilot got out and he's okay. these are just some of the missions we perform here. simultaneously, airmen are operating in 175 locations. to assure allies and partners, deter adversaries, shape the environment, and respond to crises. job one for our deployed forces is to maintain air superiority, which we define as freedom from attack and freedom to maneuver. when a soldier, sailor, airmen,
marine, or coast guardsmen hears jet noise, i don't ever want them to look up. i want them to know it's me. this is sacred duty for an airman. once we establish air superiority, your air force provides unmatched global reach with an aircraft taking off or landing every three minutes, delivering critical personnel or supplies where and when they're needed. and we sometimes operate out of locations that are in insecure areas and it's our special forces, air commandos who are trained to secure air fields when and where we need them in places in iraq, and when it comes to global precision strike, i call your attention to the january raid where a pair of b-2 bombers departed their home base in missouri for a 32-hour round trip trip to libya. these stealth bomber crews refueled by 13 different tankers
delivered 85 bombs over two terrorist camps. delivering precise lethal effects within ten seconds, and i repeat, 32-hour mission, within ten seconds of their designated time over target. and in the counter isis fight, the lieutenant general, the air component commander, leads a coalition of 16 nations in the fight to defeat violent extremism in the middle east. in the current fight against isis, coalition partners have dropped over 40,000 munitions on our enemy with the vast majority coming from the united states air force. for our enemy, always there has a different meaning. general arnold who led the effort in world war ii stated in the worst days of the daylight bombing campaign, the problem with air power is we make it look too easy. the truth is anything but. today's air force is the smallest, oldest, and least ready in its history.
we have and will continue to fly, fight, and win. but at a cost to our airmen and their families who remain globally engaged. chairman, it's fitting that we are having this hearing on gold star spouse day. as a reminder of how vital our families are to our mission, for 26 years of continuous conflict, started with operation desert storm through operations northern and southern watch, deliberate and allied force in the balkans, in libya, and the current fights in afghanistan, iraq, and syria, they have remained faithful to our cause. so it's unfortunate that we are now discussing the potential of yet another extended continuing resolution which as has already been said, is the equivalent of
a mini sequestration round which we have already been through before. you see in the air force, we still haven't recovered from round one. failing to pass an appropriations bill will cost the air force $2.8 billion in the remaining five months of 2017. here are just two of the direct impacts to our most important resource, our airmen and their families, of failing to pass a budget. we'll stop flying in late june. when the money runs out. so only squadrons in the fight or preparing to go to the fight will train. by the end of this year, we'll be short 1,000 fighter pilots. chairman, it takes approximately ten years and $10 million to train a fighter pilot. 1,000 short equates to $10 billion of capital investment that walks out the door. and it will take us ten years to replace that experience. of all the things that we can do
to retain pilots, the most important is to get them airborne. pilots who don't fly, maintainers who don't maintain, air traffic controllers who don't control, leave. and while we'll never buy our way out of the shortage, an extended cr will negate the pilot bonuses congress authorized which will break faith with the force. in addition, over 2,000 men and women have signed up to serve on the long blue line will not be allowed to enter the service until we get an appropriation. they represent the greatest trers in our nation's arsenal. they come from each of your districts. they have given up jobs, left home, made plans, all to be told they will have to wait now for months to pursue their dream. how many of these talented young men and women will wait? and will choose an alternative path when we desperately need to grow our force in fy '17.
as a service chief, i have many obligations, but one remains paramount. every airman we send into harm's way must be properal organized, equipped, and lead to succeed in their mission. and we must take care of their families while they're gone. this is our moral obligation. a year-long cr makes meeting this obligation extremely difficult. mr. chairman, ranking member, distinguished members of this committee, the demand for air and space superiority has never been higher. with it, we win. without it, we lose. we look forward to working with you in the weeks ahead to pass a budget. and thank you again for holding this critically important hearing and i look forward to your questions. >> general. >> i'll be brief so we can get to your questions. first, let me fully endorse the comments of my fellow chiefs,
and second, i think it's important to remember that the readiness of our respective services are inextricably linked. the fleet doesn't sail, marines don't get to sea. the army can't train, we can't train with them. the air force can't fly, we can't move around the world. so none of us can do anything by ourselves. so our readiness of our respective forces are part of that of the joint force. marines have a unique perspective on readiness based on the direction of the congress as the nation's force and readiness. being ready is central to our identity. so the bottom line is this. operating under a full year continuing resolution through the remainder of this fy will seriously degrade readiness across the force and have adverse effects on future readiness. specifically, we will cease flight operations in late july or early august with the exception of those squadrons getting ready to deploy. lack of funding will slow, halt,
or potentially reverse material readiness recovery efforts across the force. it will slow the acquisition of critical systems and delay the construction of much needed amphibious warships. the scope and scale of training will be significantly reduced, impacting service level predeployment training such as the training exercise at 29 palms which is our key event for certification before deployment. other events, large multilateral and multinational exercises such as bold alligator or cold weather training will also be degraded, and we'll be challenged to recover from these training gaps because once you lose a training you can't get it back. you can't get it back because there's another unit in the queue ready to go. if you miss it, you're not going to get another turn. as representative smith mentioned, the global security environment drives the requirements which determine our
operational commitments. you marines are as busy now as they were in the height of the operations in iraq and afghanistan. i returned from visiting marines and joint coalition partners. four are deployed in the republic of korea and japan. i assure you they're engaged around the globe and is ready to go. our current operational tempo combined against fiscal reductions, the instability of these crs and the lasting impacts of sequestration continue to make us -- make hard choices that prioritize support to the operational forces above many other resource requirements. the priority has and will continue to go to deployed and the next to deploy units. but that results in readiness shortfalls in aviation facilities, sustainment, modernization, retention of critical skills and the depth and readiness of our ready bench. working with our congress and our chiefs and the department of defense and the chairmen and the
secretary, the marine corps will make the most of those resources we are provided and that marines will meet the high standards of the congress and the american people regardless. i look forward to your questions. >> let me ask each of you to address a relatively simple question. why is it different now? as admiral richardson and mr. smith mentioned, we have had eight years of crs, five years of the budget control act. to most people, they look and say, well, we're still bombing isis. we're getting by. we're doing what needs to be done. and yet, each of you has painted a pretty dire picture of where we are and especially where we would be under a cr or without a supplemental. so again, i guess my basic
question is, why is it different now? general milley. >> it's -- in my view, it's the cumulative effect. we cumulative effect. we've been doing crs now for eight years, shut down in '13, it's the cumulative effect on personnel. we've reduced the army by 80,000 or 90,000 soldiers in the last eight years. we've taken out 17 brigade combat teams. we still have 180,000 soldiers today deployed in 140 countries around the world. we're still actively engaged in terms of off tempo and combat operations in afghanistan, iraq, syria, yemen, libya, central africa, west africa, and several other places. roughly speaking, i just got back from the middle east last week. 80% of those forces you see on the ground in those countries are army forces. it's the cumulative effect of all of these years and, oh, by the way, it's not just fighting
in iraq and afghanistan. there are other potential contingencies on the horizon. we saw that yesterday morning with the launching of a nuclear missile -- not a nuclear missile, but a missile from north korea that landed in the sea of japan. i have no idea, neither does anybody in this room, where all that leads. we must be ready. it's the cumulative effect. chairman, if i was to draw an analogy, it would be like smoking cigarettes. one cigarette's not going to kill you, but you do that for 8, 10, 20, 30 years, you're eventually going to die of lung cancer. it's the cumulative effect over time that is really devastating, and the seesaw effect of money in, money out. also, we can't invest in modernization. industry has to have predictable funding and we can't do that. not only is it negative on immediate readiness, it's devastating on future modernization because we can't get out in front of it and it's much more expensive when you can't do multiyear contracts. it's very expensive. it's inefficient, ineffective way of doing the budget.
>> admiral? >> mr. chairman, i would pile on top of everything that general milley said. it is the cumulative effect of this triple whammy of the operational pace against fighting violent extremism, contrast it against the uncertainty of the budget and the budgetary levels. we always, all of us, strive to send our forces forward fully ready into those fights so they are fully prepared for any contingency that comes their way, but that has come at the cost of readiness back home and those reinforcement forces, those surge forces, that would flow into the fight if we had a major contingency as the general highlighted. i would also say that one thing in my mind that is characterized the discussion is it is very internally focused and it's not just us that's been operating in the world in the last ten years, so if we had this conversation
eight years ago, in the intervening eight years, china has completely modernized their fleet. and they are operating not just around their shores, but around the world now. russia was actually considered an ally at that time. we were exercising with russia, and now it's a much different picture. the general mentioned north korea and iran. these competitors have also grown in these last intervening eight years, and so the relative balance has shifted. so it's a combination of our internal effects, the stress of 10 years of combat operations, 15 years, contrasted against the funding instability and levels, but it is also our competitors that have been making significant gains during those eight years. >> general goldfein? >> sir, that's really, you know -- let me build on admiral richardson's comments, because
the reality is the world changed in 2014. if you go back prior to 2014 and look at our posture and the collective assumptions we were making both within congress and the executive branch, we were out of iraq. we were coming down in afghanistan, and in a single year, the world changed for us. russia went into crimea and got active in ukraine. china started militarizing islands in the south china sea. we had isis and we went back into iraq, and you may remember we had this thing called ebola that happened during 2014. and while we may now look back on that as not that big a deal as we were going through, as you recall, we didn't know if we were facing the plague of the 21st century, so the world changed, and the assumptions that we made in terms of strategic trades that we make, because as service chiefs, you know, what we do is look at balancing capability, capacity, and readiness, and we make strategic trades based on assumptions of the global
security environment. so to your question of what's different now, the world's different now. >> thank you. commandant? >> chairman, on 9/11, there were 172,500 marines and we deployed at a rate of 3-1. we were home for 18 months and were gone for six. and the gear we had was the gear we had from the 1980s build up. it was only 16, 15, 12 years old. you go to camp lejeune, camp pendleton today, you drive around, that's the same stuff we're driving today. it's been modified and been reengineered. it's been through the depo. still flying the same f-18s. we have one squadron of f-35s. we replaced. we're flying the same 53s, starting to get at replacing the hueys and cobras. the force now deploys at a rate of 2-1.
i mean, we have to recapitalize this force. we fought a fight against an insurgent in a counter-insurgent stability op. and as my fellow chief said, the game has changed. we weren't talking about four plus one even five, six years ago. and all their stuff is new. and we need to have our stuff modernized, and we have to change our training, and we can do all that. we can do all that. and we're in the process of doing that. but we need to have the stability of a known funding stream so that we can get the best price for modern gear, that we can plan our training, that we know we're going to go, that we know we're going to get a ride either in an airplane or a ship and our allies know we're going to show up and be able to train their men and women.
and this potentially puts all that at risk. >> mr. smith? >> thank you, mr. chair. i actually have no questions, have had the opportunity to speak with these gentlemen on a number of occasions, so i'll let ms. davis take the first questions for our side. >> ms. davis? >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you all very much for your service and for being here today. you know, you make a very good case, and i think we're all with you in understanding the difficulties, the challenges, that you face, but i'm also wondering. here we are. it's april. we haven't passed last year's budget yet. in many ways, as you say, we're dealing with a continuing cr which in many ways is almost the norm. and so what is it that we should be looking at doing? are there different metrics when it comes to readiness and setting priorities that suggest that we actually have to adapt to this situation and still
accomplish the mission? what do you think needs to be done differently and at all if this is the new normal? >> i don't -- >> i'm not suggesting i like the new normal -- >> i don't accept it as a new normal, congresswoman. i think, candidly, failure to pass a budget in my view as both an american citizen and the chief of staff of the united states army constitutes professional malpractice. i don't think we should accept it as a new normal. i think we should pass it and pass the supplemental with it and get on with it. the world is a dangerous place and it's becoming more dangerous by the day. pass the budget. >> ma'am, here's what this new normal would mean. it would mean trying to run a mile race and giving the competition a lap head start. you got to run very fast if you're going to win that race, and we're just not fast, so -- i mean, that's what you buy into, if you accept this as a new normal. i couldn't agree with the chief more.
>> ma'am, i'll just use this as an opportunity just to remind us in terms of what i think you expect from us as joint chiefs, and that is i think you need from us our best military advice on what we think we need to be able to perform the missions that we're being given. and until those missions change, what we will continue to tell you is what the force requires. so the resistance you're getting from us, relative to setting some kind of a new normal, is that the missions haven't changed. and so what you won't hear from us is anything but here's what is required to do those missions which we have been given to defend this nation and to do those missions as required both here in the homeland and abroad. >> i think we have adapted. otherwise we wouldn't be able to do the things that we do every day. that doesn't mean we like it.
i mean, we're not perfect. we make mistakes, but i think we're adaptable because of the men and women that serve in our services are really smart and they are mission oriented and they figure out a way to get it done. and everybody's, you know, hedging or whatever they are doing, but the bill is in the back end, and the people we're contesting right now, they don't have armored forces. they don't have electronic warfare. they don't have an air force. they don't have long-range artillery. they don't have the ability to jam space and deny our networks. that's who's out there potentially in the wings. and that's what we're trying to get at. and, you know, the force, we're a volunteer force. maybe more accurately we're an all recruited force. and it's expensive. and that's -- in order to
continue to recruit, you have to have the capability that they think they have to have the opportunity to be successful against these other threats, and we can assume that it may or may not happen. that's 23409 my -- that's not my job. my job is to manage risk and provide best military advice. so, we need stability. we need to be able to plan. we need to know whatever the number is, whatever the number is, and then we'll go forward. but the force has to have confidence that they are going to have a continued resource stream for the capabilities they need to train and to be operational and for their families and for all those things that you have to have with an all volunteer force. >> thank you. right now we actually have a hiring freeze, a federal hiring freeze, and is that contributing to degraded readiness? >> i would say -- >> in what way?
>> we've had pretty good luck because of the parameters and the guidance that was given as far as we could get a waiver for those jobs on the civilian side that were directly affected, affecting readiness, maintainers, people that are involved in certain things. it's not perfect, and it has caused some problems, particularly on the non-appropriated side. and sadly the people that were mostly hurt by that were a lot of family members who worked in those organizations where we couldn't get a waiver. but we've worked through it and we've got good reaction from secretary stackley and general mattis and the department to fill those jobs. but it was just another thing, because as you know, you know, ma'am, it takes time to fill those jobs, particularly if they involve a security clearance. >> if others of you have comments, if you'd submit them in writing, too. we'll try to keep as close as we can to the five-minute rule because of the number of members. mr. wilson?
>> thank you, chairman thornberry, for your coordinating this important hearing today on urgent issues to american families. i appreciate each of you for your extraordinary dedicated service to our nation. i would prefer that we were under better circumstances, but unfortunately budget uncertainty is an issue. your clarity today is very much appreciated. in south carolina i represent over 48,000 enlisted soldiers who annually graduate and are stationed at fort jackst jackso with the nearby base at ft gordon and the nearby air force base, the marines at paris
island, buford naval hospital, buford marine corps air station, and the guard members at mcintyre joint air base. south carolina knows and loves our military. your leadership provides young young options for meaningful and fulfilling lives while protecting american families. additionally as a veteran, son of a veteran, i'm grateful to have four sons that served overseas in the military, along with a nephew in the air force that's served in iraq. it's for this reason i'm concerned about the negative impacts a continuing resolution would have on military families such as deferred reenlistment bonuses, delayed family moves to the school year, reprogrammed military equipment upgrades with limited training. how would each of you describe the real life consequences to military families that impact that continuing resolution poses on our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines? how would this affect service member morale, recruitment, and retention, and additionally
could each of you provide one specific impact that stands apart from the rest? general milley? >> thanks, congressman. appreciate the comment. and in south carolina, as you mentioned, we got ft jackson. at ft jackson alone on an annual basis we train, we recruit, and bring into basic combat training the equivalent of the british army every year. at ft. bragg, north carolina or ft. hood, texas, if you combine both those bases, it's equivalent of the australian and canadian armies put together. what will happen in your state, in south carolina, and many other states that have basic training, missouri and georgia and elsewhere, that basic training is going to stop in
july. we're going to run out of money next month, and then over the following 60 days we're not going to have the gasoline, the fuel, the ammunition, et cetera. and basic training is going to stop. and what that will mean is we can't take those basic training that are already there and then onward deploy them or pcs them to operational units. we'll have to keep them right there at the fort. they won't be doing anything. they won't be training. they won't be doing anything of substantiative value, and we won't be able to recruit and bring in more trainees. so if we don't get this budget passed, if we don't get the supplemental passed, ft jackson and many other forts for all intents and purposes will be coming to a screeching halt for all the activities that goes on there. the impact on families will be significant. we're already cut back on several services throughout the army, and we will continue to have to cut back on more services for families, family members. you're going to have to stop pcs moves. you're going to have to cancel
bonuses and bottom line, you're going to have to significantly and adequately increase stress on the force that admiral richardson talked about. that's going to be through all the services. that's going to be very dramatic, very significant, and something that should and must be avoided, in my view. >> admiral? >> sir, before i begin, i also have to thank you for hosting our nuclear power school down there in south carolina. >> that's a bit out of the region. i was just trying to include ones nearby. >> all right. it's not too far. >> he would have included charleston air force base, too. but i was trying to stay just within the immediate region. >> roger, sir. i only highlight that because of the areas that are some of our most skilled operators, our nuclear trainers, our combat aviators. those are the folks that will be -- you know, they will be the first to leave. we talk about competition. competition's everywhere i look. competition is, certainly, in the security environment around the world, but i'll tell yo iu m
competing every day for people. i'm competing with the public sector, and the pool of qualified people to do those skills is small to start with and gets smaller every time somebody gets hired by another place. and when we talk about one month notice to move your family and children from norfolk to guam in the middle of the school year, that is a huge detractor, and that talent will leave, and i will lose that fight for people. the highest skilled, smartest, those folks will leave first. >> thank you very much, and the rest, if you could respond in writing. thank you very much. >> mr. langevin. >> thank you, mr. chairman. gentlemen, i want to thank you all for your testimony, especially for your service to the nation. so, like all of you, i'm very concerned about the impact of a cr across the board, but especially when it comes to cyber. so, can you discuss the potential impacts upon cyber programs, particularly those that might be a new start this year, such as the persistent training environment? general milley, i'm going to start with you, as an army program, but then i'd ask the other services to add their thoughts. next, for all of our witnesses also, i remain also concerned about recruiting and retaining highly trained cyber warriors, especially as you as cyber commanders provided personnel from each of the services, rather than raising their own forces, so the critical role of
cyber come against cyber attacks in providing support to military administrations is imperative that we, obviously, cannot afford to lose. and how will a cr and other budget gimmickry hamper your ability to recruit and retain the best of the best? >> thanks, congressman. as you rightly point out, cyber is a relatively new domain of war, as we refer to it. and it's critically important and significant damage can be done to adversaries through the use of cyber. so, it's really important that we as a military and the army's role develop both offensive and defensive cyber capabilities. for the most part, for the army operational units, they focus on protection of the networks and protection of the defensive cyber capabilities. the impact of the continuing resolution means that we're not going to be able to finish the
facilities at ft gordon, which is the cyber school center of excellence. it means that the national guard will not be able to field their cyber protection teams, defense teams for the national guard, and we will not be able to continue the level of train iin we need to do for the teams that are already formed in the regular army. in addition to that, the cr will likely have a greatly or likely have a negative effect on the recruitment of the best talent that we can get out there to become cyber warriors. it's a new branch in the army. thus far we have had great success. we need to continue that momentum. a continuing resolution or return to bca funding will stop that momentum right in its tracks. >> thank you, general. admiral? >> senator, i'll just again pile on. we've been organizing for cyber for sometime now and that organization includes people, the talented people that general milley referred to. and so, we are -- we have a requirement for 40 cyber mission teams that constitute a cyber
mission force throughout the joint force and then there is the engineering. we need to do the work to engineer our systems to make them more resilient against a cyber attack. our latest development in that is to stand at the digital warfare office this year on my staff that will work with the fleets to enhance our agility in the information domain across the board. it's a very comprehensive program. i would love to come and talk to you about it in more detail. but that will stop without this funding. and also, many of those upgrades, those modernizations that i talked about are to enhance our resilience against cyber attack which, those -- as the chief said, critical vulnerabilities. the first shots in the next war, in fact the war that's going on right now, is in the cyber domain. the war is on there. we need to keep that funding in place. >> thank you, admiral. general?
>> sir, i'll just add to offer you some thought on what this is doing to admiral rogers as the combatant commander who is entrusted with the mission of defending the networks and ensuring that we have the talent to be able to do his mission. all of us contribute to the cyber mission teams and while we can't go into operational details, this extended cr will have an impact on all of our ability to be able to put those teams in place and allow him to accomplish the mission that he's been given at that very national level. >> sir, i was up at ft. meade talking to marines and sergeant stuck his hand up and he goes, commandant, how are you going to afford to keep me? i said, i don't know if i can afford to keep you. what's it going to cost me? i don't know if -- i don't know if there's enough money out there. we got people up there getting
ofred triple or six figures plus to leave and go work in the civilian side. so we've already made the -- we've closed down. we're going to have to treat cyber like special operations. once you're in, you're in. because the investment is too high to get them trained. they have to stay. but then i have to figure out how to get them to stay or get a contract out of them long enough for a return. obviously, if we're at a cr level, any money for bonuses or anything like that, there's a tradeoff for something else. you'll find the money, but what are you going to take it away from? there are no good choices. >> thank you all. >> mr. lobiondo? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you all for being here and thank you for your very candid and sobering explanation of what we're facing. been on this committee for a while and i can remember in
years past when witnesses came in and just danced around the edges about what the consequences would be if we didn't do our responsibility the right way, and unfortunately we are seeing the results of it now, but understanding and clin and uncertain terms of what it means to each of the branches and to the country overall, i think, is sobering information we need. with that in mind, i want to talk about the potential strains on the military and tie in with what you have been saying to highlight what i think are most important resource, our men and women, so we need the weapon systems, we need the modernization, but without the men and women, as you have been saying, we have a real problem. specifically, the 117th fighter wing in my district experienced
a drop of 7% in 2017 compared to 2016. it was cutting paychecks this year. while the fy17 supplements a pay raise for troops as authorized in the 17ndaa and by law, d.o.d. must provide this pay raise. unless the supplemental is passed, d.o.d. will likely have to realign funds from military personnel accounts. first for general goldfein, what is the affect on service members' pay in fy '17 if supplemental is not passed? exacerbating the strains they have already experienced with such a conus cola cuts, how could this affect service, morale, recruitment and retention? i know it's not good, but i want to hear it in your words. and what concerns you if we're stuck in a yearlong cr? >> thanks, sir. when it comes to meeting our obligations to our airmen coming to pay, we're going to meet those obligations. the issue is we're going to have to go somewhere in the military personnel account to find the money. it's the tradeoffs that will be the issue. for example, under a continuing resolution we have talked about pcs moves, right? moves, change of station.
for the air force, for five months of a cr, there'll be 13,000 families that now will have to be delayed in their moves. of those families, that now that have children in school, think of the issues to go on to delay all of those moves into the fall cycle after they've started school. that puts a stress on our families that actually can't be quantified. when it comes to the -- your last part of your question which is what are my biggest concerns relative to a long cr, quite frankly, it's breaking faith with our airmen and their families. they have been at this for 26 years now. they will stay with us if they believe they can count on us to ensure we take care of them and their families as they deploy. they will stay with us if they believe they're given the resources to be the very best they can be and so i go back to my point. pilots who don't fly, main tears
who don't maintain, air traffic controllers who don't control don't stay with us. that's why you're hearing us talk about readiness as a top priority and fund them to get them in the air is a key priority for the united states air force. >> we only have little more than a minute but, general milley, you want to comment on that, as well? >> thanks, congressman. just very briefly, i concur and endorse everything that finger said, general goldfein said. by law, we are supposed to do a 2.4% pay raise, ecis to keep pace with inflation. 2.1% is built into it. if the -- if we go to a cr or go to bca funding, that's going to kill any pay raise. right now our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, we're reasonably well paid according to global standards. we want you to consider in world war ii only 10% of the united states military was married.
today 60% of us are married and on average there's two children so talking about families of four here so an e-5 or e-4 sergeant or a specialist corporal with a family of four earns just slightly above the poverty level. there are thousands of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines today that still use food stamps. that should really get people's attention. and if we don't pass the budget with the supplemental, it's going to hurt their pay. it's going to hurt other forms of benefits. it's going to hurt services, and it's going to crush morale. it will be very devastating to morale so, again, i can't highlight enough yellow ink here to get the budget and the supplemental passed because to do otherwise will have negative significant impact. >> thank you. i yield back. >> mr. courtney? >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you to all the witnesses. for your testimony. we have five legislative days not counting today to get this done. so obviously, the urgency of your message is, you know, very important and again, we appreciate it.
admiral richardson, i wanted to just drill down a little bit on the maintenance bill, the impact on a cr, but i would just like to clarify a point that was raised yesterday when general heighten of strategic command testified over in the senate regarding the knife edge timeline the navy faces to sustain the fleet. as he correctly stated, ohio sspns coming offline starting in 2017 at a rate of one per year which you've testified about many times. and in order to avoid dipping below ten while the new columbia class comes into service, last december cr we included a yearlong $773 million anomaly to keep columbia moving forward with detailed design and production this year. just again, for clarification's sake, is that $773 million
plus that we again made as a yearlong anomaly adequate to keep colombia on track this year? >> sir, i appreciate you highlighting the force march we are on to get the submarine on patrol in 2031. this is a program with zero margin. and so we need every dollar of that for the year to keep that on track. there's good news there. the team up at electric boat has regained tracks so our designs are on pace. but i'll tell you there's no margin on that. and even the fact that you highlighted going down to 10, that requires you know pretty much error free operation to maintain requirements at that. so that will be adequate for this year but stable continuous funding to keep that on track. >> great. thank you. appreciate that. admiral when he was over here earlier this year stated that a yearlong cr would drive the navy to cancel 14 or more ship availabilities. you're dealing with a phenomenon over the last couple of years of carrier gaps. obviously, that would kind of spread into other areas of the fleet and in terms of performance gaps. i was wondering, again, if you
could just kind of highlight that, that little critical point. >> we don't fix the ships just to fix them. we maintain and upgrade those ships so they go forward and do the nation's business, but we need to send them forward fully ready, maintained, ready to go. just like your car would be. you wouldn't drive your car without doing the maintenance on it, without giving it the gas. and so this will translate down stream. the maintenance thing writ large. you know, when you can't fly an air wing because the aircraft aren't maintained, that just will result in -- we're not going to send them forward untrained. we're not going to send them forward unable to defend themselves because of poor maintenance. and so, this will result in a smaller navy around the world. longer tethers, less presence, gaps if you will. and so, it's -- you know, it's a domino effect. as well, when those maintenance availabilities get canceled,
well, all of our -- particularly the private shipyards have to adapt to that as well. the workforce has to be cut and those people necessarily do not come back. they'll find new jobs and so it just -- you can see this downward spiral that results. >> and just to follow up the chairman's question about what's different this time, again admiral malloy seemed to suggest this is going to happen pretty much immediately if the cr is -- the final outcome. >> sir, our fleet commanders and maintainers are hanging on with their fingernails right now. they wanted to take action before because they're at risk. right? there's laws in place here in terms of spending more money than you have, and if we don't pass this, it will be abrupt. they've extended this as long as they can. >> thank you. yield back, mr. chairman. >> mr. turner? >> thank you, mr. chairman. general milley, thank you for your incredible answer to susan davis concerning the prospects
of continuing crs. your statement that it's malpractice and unprofessional is incredibly important, and everyone in korcongress needs t hear it. we know certainly that members of this committee not only understand but advocates to the rest of congress to try to ensure that it doesn't happen. when the last cr came forward, many of you are aware that our members of this committee refused to vote for the cr unless receiving a promise from the speaker that dod appropriations would move from the house. it did. there's no reason as we look forward to the prospects of a cr that d.o.d. funding should be an exception. there's no reason it should not be an exception. we've already passed the approps. we have passed the ndaa. they should absolutely be stapled to whatever is moving forward for funding and we are certainly advocating it does. i want to drill down on what the
affects of sequestration and possible cr would be, general milley, specifically on the army. chris gibson and i introduced the prosper act. most importantly implemented a strategic pause in the obama administration's proposed reductions to land force end strength levels given future and current threats. it began the process of reversing the harmful effects of downsizing our land forces as a result of the budget control act. under chairman thornberry's leadership, we successfully incorporated these in strength increases as part of the ndaa fiscal year 2017 with full funding for manning, training, and equipping for the increases. these end strength authorizations associated with the fiscal year '17 ndaa will allow the army to begin the process of mitigating some of the strategic risks imposed by the budget control act. however, we recently heard testimony from the vice chief of staff of the army and he stated that at today's end strength the
army risks consuming readiness as fast as we build it. this leads me to believe that we need to continue to look at ways to reasonably continue to grow the army to minimize the risks associated with current and future operational demands. so a few questions in that regard. first, we now know that the president has proposed a spending level of 603 for fiscal year '18. as you know, our chairman has proposed 640. could you please tell me what the effects of a 603 funding level and the aggregate would be on rebuilding the military and what is the impact on army end strength under a yearlong cr? as we have continued to try to rebuild, what would the effect of the cr be? so those two questions. >> there will be lots of impacts. probably the most significant -- we have been authorized and moved out for the regular army to reverse the downward trend in
end strength and to move out to 476 by 1 october of this year. for the national guard, we want to stabilize that force and bring them to 343. 343,000 by 1 october. and for the u.s. army reserve, we'd like to bring them back to about 197 or 197,000 by 1 october. yearlong cr will stop all of that. it will stop the recruiting. as i mentioned earlier, it will stop the basic training, and we'll essentially resume a downward trend. what does that mean? operationally, it means that units are going to go to the field at less than optimal strength for training. we already have units in the field for training in the 60 to 70 percentile versus what is
required for 90% to 95% present for training. that's a significant degradation in capability over time. we're going to end up having to -- if it's a yearlong cr, we'll end up having to stop the national training center rotations in california and canceling jrtc rotations. we will also end up canceling significant collective training for home station training for all of the active units. and for the guard, they will have to cancel four of their what we call xcts or significant training events. training across the board beginning shortly after we run out of money in may looking at june or july, training will be reduced to individual squad training. individuals and squads an army does not make. you have to train at the company, the battalion, the brigade in higher levels in order to have an effective force against the full spectrum of the
type of enemies that are possibly out there. so it will be very significant across the board, congressman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. garamendi. >> gentlemen, thank you for your impassioned plea for money. you know where it's coming from. it's coming from all of the other things that the american public would like us to do and, frankly, we need to do. our ranking member spoke to the 30% decrease in the state department and what that means. the $5 billion decrease in the national institute of health, research programs for everything from cancer to alzheimer's and the like. so, we're going to make some choices here. you've been told to develop a war plan for isis. where is that plan? general milley, where is the plan -- where is the war plan for isis? you were supposed to have it done in 30 days. >> yeah, congressman. appreciate that. i'm not going to discuss
classified operational matters in -- >> just tell me generally. where is the plan? not what it is. where is it? >> it's been submitted and it's been looked at and reviewed -- >> by this committee? >> i don't know that we submit it to this committee. we submit it to the chain of command through the chairman, through the secretary of defense. >> you have $5 billion in your supplemental for a war plan that's never been submitted to us. you expect us to approve something you have not submitted to us? >> congressman, i'm not going to get into a discussion of -- >> no, just, the question was very direct, sir. >> i'm sorry? >> do you expect us to give you $5 billion in a war plan that you have not submitted to us? >> i would ask that you refer that to the secretary of the defense or president. we work through the chain of command on war plans. >> that's not an answer to my question, but i guess the answer is you would expect us to approve a plan that's not been committed, where the money would be spent, how it would be spent,
where it would be spent. okay. fair enough. that's $5 billion of the $30 billion supplemental. you've said in this testimony that pay will be reduced unless you have the supplemental. but yet in the base bill, there's a 2.1% pay increase. how does that work? general goldfein, apparently you would like to answer. >> yes, sir. what we said was that we will find the money within our budget to pay that 2% pay raise. the issue is we'll have to make choices and trades within the military personnel account to do that. >> no, i think the budget -- if i might, sir, the budget we put out, the 2017 appropriation had 2.1% built into it for the forces that presumably you have. all of you have. are you suggesting that is not the way we -- >> no, sir. we are not suggesting that at all. the appropriations that came from this body had a growth, for
example, of 3,000 marines in a 2.17% pay. what we were brought here today to talk about would be the impact if we had a continuing -- the continuing resolution went through the whole year. >> and you spent a good deal of your time talking about the supplemental. all four of you did. >> no, i believe we spent most of our time talking about the effect of the cr, but i take your point, sir. >> we are debating the word good time. good deal of your time. let's not get into too much detail about how much time you spent on the supplemental but each one of you advocated for the supplemental, and we -- at least i've never seen how you would suspect -- how you would want that supplemental to be spent in certain key areas. that's not to say it may not be necessary. but we are going to have to make some tough choices and we are going to need some detail in order to make those choices. general goldfein, you and i have spent a lot of time talking
about do we really need to replace all of our ground base strategic missiles in the near term. you know, that is about $50 billion. do we need to do it right now or can that be delayed and we can do some of these other things that you would like to have us do? >> sir, i would submit to you that all three legs of the triad, the missile leg, the bomber leg, and the submarine leg, the three legs of the leg, the three legs of the triad were all built to build in to a specific attribute we were looking for. the missile leg gives us the most responsive leg of the triad. the bomber leg gives us the most flexible leg and submarine is most survivable leg of the triad and we need all three of those legs to be able to do the mission that we have been asked to do.
>> i've got ten seconds. i'm not debating whether or not we need it. my question is, when do we need it? >> sir -- >> when -- we have to make some tough choices. >> absolutely. >> in making those tough choices some things may get delayed. we've got to figure out what needs to be delayed. with that, i'm out of time. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> mr. lamborn. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me just try to clarify one thing here. i don't think there's anything in any legislation where a plan has to be devised and given to this committee. i think your responsibility is to the secretary of defense. his responsibility is to the president, and at some point we are interested in what that plan is, but i don't think that's written in stone that we have to be given that plan at point "x." [ inaudible ] >> okay. well, thank you for that clarification.
general milley, i do want to ask you about a readiness and modernization issue. currently fort carson, which is in my district, has a brigade combat team deployed to europe in support of our allies to deter russian aggression. to get ready to deploy, they require reliable, modern equipment and training. my two-part question is, if we had a cr, will the next brigade combat team out of fort carson be able to deploy with reliable equipment and necessary training? and secondly, would the next striker brigade out of fort carson be able to go to the national training center to get critical training before deploying? >> congressman, the striker brigade you're referring to, that's one of the rotations that would be canceled. so if there's a yearlong cr, that unit rotation would likely be canceled.
for the deployment to europe, we plan on fully funding and resourcing units that are deploying into iraq, afghanistan, and other areas of combat. however, the unit that goes to europe, for example, on a rotational basis you're referring to, they would not get their full suite of home station training prior to deploying because of the personnel strength issue that was previously discussed. the end strength issue. they would likely not deploy at full operational readiness standards that we would like them to deploy at, so there would be a negative effect on that particular brigade deploying. >> thank you. that's very sobering and to me has national implications and certainly community implications back in colorado springs. general goldfein, i would like to ask you a question about space. in your written statement, you say that the jixboc recently renamed the national space
defense center will face critical acquisition delays. you also mentioned delays in the new gps ground structure and the new gps-3. so my question is this. with so many military and civilian systems reliant on assured access to space, and even just gps is critical for navigation, for financial transactions -- 2 billion out of our 7 billion people use gps every day one way or another on the surface of the earth. what does this mean for security in space and access to our space-based resources? >> yes, sir. you know, we have been stewards of space since 1954 and we continue to take that priority seriously. as we look at the gps constellation, moving forward with gps-3 with the ground based stations and with all of the integration that needs to occur is a priority. and so we're managing that very -- there very closely. the part that we actually haven't discussed here, i think
general milley may have referred to it earlier, that's the impact on the industrial base if we don't have a resolution. this is an incredibly sophisticated workforce that you keep on the books in your industry to be able to do the business of space. and so, as we jockey the throttle between a cr, a budget, no budget, an annual appropriation or not, these industries that we rely on to be able to bring that kind of sophisticated workforce have got to figure out what they do with them when we tell them we're not going to be able to use the workforce this year or next year, but we're hoping we can do the year after that. so it has incredible impact on the industrial base for ceos out there who are trying to manage their businesses. and i'll tell you as the service that's working the preponderance of space, that's a significant impact. >> okay. i want to thank you all for your service, and mr. chairman, i yield back. >> ms. hanabusa. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, gentlemen, for being here.
thank you for your service. a special shout-out to adds mirl richardson for the time you spent in pearl and on the u.s.s. honolul honolulu.mi richardson for the time you spent in pearl and on the u.s.s. honolulu.r richardson for the time you spent in pearl and on the u.s.s. honolulu.al richardson for the time you spent in pearl and on the u.s.s. honolulu. thank you very much. we know paycom is the largest aor among all of you. you all know that. and of course, the concerns like this morning with north korea and protests maybe of what's going on in mar-a-lago. they shot off missiles and we also saw this morning's news as to what's going on in syria. having said all of that, we understand, and i in particular am very empathetic to the fact that you are on a cr, but the fact remains, admiral richardson, you in particular pointed out in your written statement that we are six months into the cr, and irrespective of what happens between now and five days from now, chances are
we are -- it may not be anything that you want to see. the house i think has done as chairman says its job. it sent over the basically the defense budget. but having our defense approps but having done that, we are in a situation where you will be faced historically and you have been faced with it. and, general, i agree with you. it may border on malpractice if we were in a civilian situation but the fact remains that is what happens. yesterday where admiral richardson sits we had undersecretary flournoy and former undersecretary made a statement one of the things she
thought was necessary was a flexibility in your individual abilities, defense's abilities, to move funds. so my question to each and every one of you is -- we can all agree. we don't like it. we don't like the situation you're in but the fact is you are in that situation. i'd like to understand what you all do to make things work. i mean, i'm envisioning someone in the back room with a little pencil saying, it's another month, admiral. another month, general. so we're going to have to move money here and there if we're going to do x. i assume you have the ability to do that. and if you don't have the ability to do that, i'd like to know what will make it better so that you can compensate for that. and like i said, we all can see. cr is not good. but we're six months into it. and even if you were to get what you want, you still have six months that you had to have done something and made it work. so with that, whoever wants to take a stab. >> ma'am, i'll lead off.
the first part of the deal was that everything that we have requested particularly in the supplemental would be executable in the remaining time so it's -- you know, the six-month period of time is that. and as i mentioned earlier, we have been doing all of that adjustments that revisit and re-revisit to a tremendous waste of time and energy by our leadership as we navigate through the shoal waters of just continuing budget unpredictability, instability and insufficient levels. but for this year, we are out of creative space. our fleet commanders, admiral swift out there in pearl harbor as well, who runs the fleet for admiral harris at pacom, he and his colleague, admiral davidson, at norfolk, they're out of options. they have stretched it to the breaking point on the faith that we will be able to do something
to be able to fund the rest of the year. and so, i share that faith that they have. this is not a fait accompli. we can do the right thing. get your military out so we can defend the nation, can provide the flexibility and protection for all of the other things to happen. i just am not ready to concede that this is the new normal. >> ma'am, if i could add that -- so here's the sand box for service chief. capability, capacity, readiness. we make strategic trades and i mentioned earlier part of 2014 the world was different. and so as we were making trades i can tell you in the air force we actually traded capacity and readiness to get capability to modernize for the future. then the world changed and we have to relook at that balance and make different kinds of trades. when we're then limited or restricted congressionally or legislatively to be able to work within that box to be able to make those trades, it makes our job even harder because what we
owe is you the best air force, navy, army, marine corps for the money that we can give you. and so, that's what happens. i'll give you one quick example. so we got additional acquisition authorities. we have used those acquisition authorities to be able to look at weapon system that we can procure a faster rate. we get in a cr. anything that falls in the new start category we're going to be stopped, so modernization is future readiness, and so that's one example of getting legislative restrictions on the ability to move within that sandbox. it's hurtful. >> mr. chair, i'm out of time. could we ask it to be submitted for the record? thank you. >> if the other witnesses have comments, absolutely. mr. whitman? >> thank you for your leadership. it's unfortunate we're in the situation of a familiar refrain. the uncertainty of resources
coming forward and what you all have done to accommodate that leaves you at a place where you have no flexibility to do the job we ask you to do. whether it's the o-plant, whether it's the national defense strategy, we're now stretched to the limit. we are there at this point i think that begs the question, what is the collective impact of this line of crs or the sequester? i have talked earlier about time is now one of our adversaries because we lose time with these things. when we have a cr and things we can't do and we redirect dollars as you should to training, to developing readiness, but that takes money away from programs we're trying to modernize, we're trying to keep up with add ver s -- adversaries, but then there are additional costs. so when you try to catch up later,ou never catch up time-wise. it's morexpensive to do that later.
admiral richardson, give me your perspective on the impacts of this roller coaster ride of uncertainty and where it leaves you in whether it's postpone ship availabilities or lack of training for pilots. where does that leave you? and what's the overall long-term impact both of time that we lose and of additional costs to regenerate that in the future? >> sir, if i could, how about if i phrase my answer in the positive? and talk about what could be done. >> yeah. >> if we pass this budget with its supplemental, i'll draw down quickly as i can a fairly extensive list. first, keep the "uss ponci" in the middle east. retain five cruisers. we'll buy repair parts, ship spares, fill those coffers. we'll fund the 14 availabilities for submarines and surface ships we talked about earlier. we'll fund 14,000 flying hours for tactical squadrons and fund 27,000 flying hours for student pilots. our aviation spares which have been a big contributor to the
reduced readiness of aviation will be funded. we'll upgrade the float and ashore networks to improve their cyber security. we'll add 15,000 moves and increase the lead time for those moves to two months or more, from two months to four months. we'll do material improvements to six air fields, five piers. three hangars, communication center and other facilities. we'll do security improvements, physical security improvements to our bases. we'll buy more tomahawk missiles, more rolling air frame missiles. more ship-to-shore connecters. we'll complete the fy-'16 ddg. we'll keep on track the aircraft carri carrier cv and cv-80. lha8. we'll complete a destroyer and four lscs, lpd, and other expeditionary ships. the list goes on and on. this is what we can do if we
pass that budget with its supplemental. what a list that is. and this is just the navy. the joint force, each of my comrades here, my colleagues, has a list just like that. and so, you flip that coin on its other side and all of those things will not get done and that divot will be felt for decades in the united states. >> very good. >> let me make -- >> general milley, yes. >> -- brief comment. for 2 1/2 centuries, our country has got a long cyclic history of unreadiness for the next conflict. when they fired the first shot at lexington, they had no idea they were entering into an eight or nine-year war with the greatest power of the day. we weren't ready for the civil war. lincoln thought it was a 90-day conflict to put down a local rebellion. we sent guys off with wool uniforms to cuba and the tropics. world war i, the 100th anniversary right now, that army was fighting poncho villa on the
mexican border two years after it started in 1917 to take the soldiers over there. they're in a state of unreadiness to get there and train them in france before committing them to ground combat. world war ii is well-known. 1942, go look at the history of 1942. look at guadalcanal. look at the naval battles in the south pacific. my father fought in the central pacific. 1942 was a disaster for the united states military in the pacific, and it was a disaster in north africa. look at june 1950. korea, yet again. where we were completely in a state of unreadiness. tank force smith deploys with two squads, two platoons out of a company, maintenance and equipp equipment that didn't work. soldiers not trained. the ultimate impact of all of this stuff is cumulative and results in failed battles, lost battles, and dead soldiers,
sailors, airmen, and marines on the battlefield. that's what ultimately results in. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> mr. brown. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank general goldfein. for bringing attention joint base andrews, in my district. glad to hear that no life threatening injuries to the pilot. no reported injuries on the ground. obviously, it is early. investigation will reveal the cause. but i'm confident that with greater resources we do reduce the number of aircraft incidents that are related to either human error training or maintenance, so this is yet just another example of the need to continue to investment in readiness, modernization, and in the men and women who do the difficult work that we do -- we ask them to do. look. i was on the "uss nimitz" last weekend and i looked at those sailors. average age is 23. we ask them to do things that few americans want to do today. it's dangerous. it's important. they're excited about it. big majority of those sailors, first deployment.
and the first time that they were working with one another, but they're confident they're going to be able to do the job that we ask them congress recognizes that we are a great nation because of the work that they do. we are the most prosperous nation in the world, not just economically, culturally, our democracy, our religious tolerance because of the work that men and women in uniform do. we owe it to them to invest in the work they do. but we also owe it to the country to ensure that we are continuing to be prosperous in investing in good schools and clean environment and health care. admiral byrne doing a great job, he gets that as well. so you're doing a great job. i appreciate what you're doing. here's my question. it has to do with brak. as we look for all different
ways to resource what we need to do to find resources, assets and equity and funding, here's my question. the acting assistant secretary of defense, testified about a few years ago that a future based realignment and closure round will cost about $6 billion to implement and result in 6 billion in initial savings and $2 billion per year. the army and air force in particular had been arguing that maintaining excess base and capacity diverts squars resou e resources and unneeded infrastructure. if a new round were to be authorize, how do you balance the force and the up front cost to implement, what other ways if any exist that permit you to dispose of excess capacity at the potentially lower cost? >> the army we've got -- we do have excess capacity to the tune of half a billion to a billion dollars that we would gladly try
to shed if we could. at the same time, we have failing infrastructure, 33,000 facilities across the entire army throughout the world that are in really bad shape that need work. continued resolution or return of vca funding will stop the progress we're trying to make against the 22% of facilities in bad shape and obviously going to prevent any brac we would encourage to get bid of the half billion dollars of unneeded infrastructure that we have. >> i'll add when we talk brac, we tend to focus on the c and don't spend enough on the "r." the" r" being realignment, to have the flexibility to realign as it is to talk about closure. and quite frankly, when i look to this lens, i look more at the
infrastructure i have right now and ensuring that we have a budget that allow us the dollars to be able to improve what we need, not only to bring the new mission but fix dorms that are world war ii era to get facilities we need, to be able to demolish those things we don't need and bring our footprint in to not spend these precious dollars on keeping large installations not only open but keeping all of the buildings continually be run, don't actually need them given the size of the force. for us, to talk about first and foremost getting a budget to get into the military construction projects and modernization that we need and restoration that we need, that to me is far more important than a discussion about a future brac. >> mr. cotton. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good to see you again.
most americans would be surprised to lefrn the average age of an aircraft is 27 years old and some fleets like the j stars are nearly 50 years old. how would a year long continuing resolution affect the air force's ability to recap talize these 50-year-old aircraft? >> sir, thank you, you're right, almost 50 years -- 48 years average these j stars craft are being used. as the air component commander deployed ford, we talk about what we do with the aircraft relative to the ground fight. but i'll tell you there is equally as important to the maritime domain. these are critical aircraft. right now five month continuing resolution would delay the contract vehicle that we're working on under the risk reduction in the rid ar to be able to move that forward. it's not a linear, back to industry.
if we go back to industry, they'll have to manage the workforce and that workforce may walk. there's no telling what the long term to be able to recap talize that critical weapons system. >> general, i'm also concerned about the loss of the weapons system when they go in for -- they are going to be overdo for overhauls and not be in the air flying and certainly seems better to put the money in new aircraft with new technology than to rebuild 50-year-old planes. >> sir, that's what we're trying to do. you made a point about the maintenance civilian workforce who are the ones that at our depots who keep the older aircraft flying are the ones impacted the most personnel wise from a cr. you lose literally hundreds of man hours of being able to get the depositive maintenance to
keep the aircraft going. >> i hope they maintain that position, you do not want a cr. general millie, congratulations on the pistol, long overdue. first time i've seen you laugh. you state over 80% of the military forces in iraq and syria and afghanistan are u.s. army soldiers. building on what was stated about the impact of the continuing resolution on the air force, how would the constraint and heavy left and combat support aircraft impact your piece of the fight against isis? >> well, frankly, the army is dependent and all dependent on each other as general neller said earlier. the army can't get to the fight without the navy or air force. can't get there. our people and equipment doesn't arrive at the point of decision without the transport capabilities of the navy and air force. it will be significant if the
air force doesn't have that kind of capability. so we're a big advocate -- we in the army are a huge advocate for the navy, air force and marines who are on the ground with us. it's a joint fight. and i as a soldier, i want the most unbelievable air force the world has ever known because the soldier's best friend is when a fixed wing air force pilot is showing up in his aircraft when we're in contact that's the first call we all make. to come to us and make sure it's an even fight on the ground. i want the best navy and best air force and marine corps as chief of staff of the army. it's a single joint fight. >> can you reiterate the impact if we don't get the 5 billion for the urgent operation to
counter isis and additional reconnaissance, could you reiterate your point so the consequences in the areas in the operational mission if the supplemental is not passed? >> i'd like to do that but i'd like to do that in a classified session to talk about specific operational impacts. what i would say just here, it would be negative. >> sure. >> it would be unhelpf fuful to ongoing efforts. >> gentlemen, i want to thank you all for your service. i hope you'll continue to maintain the position of no cr. this has gone on way too long. thank you and god bless you. i yield back. >> ms. rosen. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ranking member smith and i thank all of you for your testimony today and being here and we know how detrimental the continuing resolution is to efrp's ability to plan and prepare and long range strategic planning not just in the military but in
every area of our nation that affects all of us in the country worldwide. i want to ask general goldfine a request. i represent nevada's third district, the air base is a few miles outside my district. of course it is one of our main combat training exercises, red flag right there. very important to us. very important to you. and so we're designed to provide our pilots with their first ten combat missions prior to actually flying in combat there. is red flag going to be included in the stand down under a continuing resolution this time? >> yes,ma'am, i think what you've already heard from us, one of the first things that will go as we look at where we have to go for the money, for the air force, where do i find $2.8 billion? one of the first places i have to go is to cancel exercises. i've got airmen scheduled to deploy and come to nell us to do
the first ten combat missions in that unmatched training environment that will not go do that training. they are still going to deploy. we don't stop the deployment. we just go less ready. we'll all end up canceling rotations at national training center and fallon at camp lejeune and clearly at nellis. >> you would say it impacts human lives, obviously the lives of our soldiers and impact the lives of their families because we're not able to pass a budget. >> ma'am, i'll share a personal story. captain goldfine, desert one, never in combat, one guy in formation had been in combat in vietnam and went across the line. first time i heard anti-aircraft at 2:00 we all looked. then i remember hearing left 10:00 and first surface to air missile and hearing splash, mig
29 hit the ground. i remember that moment in my cockpit. and i remember the confidence that came over my cockpit because i realized, i've seen this before i've heard these radio calls and seen smokey sam simulators simulating triple a and surface to air missiles. never seen an airplane hit the ground before but i've been in this environment before. you can't imagine the confidence that came over my cockpit. all of those that are flying that day that said we've been here, we can do this mission. and we went in and we crushed it. what nellis provides is confidence in the air and confidence under fire. so it concerns me we're not going to give that training to our young men and women. >> we know that from everything we do. the more training ufrp, the more muscle memory you have and better able you are to execute your job no matter what it is. >> ma'am, if i can pile on, there's a great responsibility we have to do things different
and better as well. we can't just keep doing the same things for the same cost and expect to be effective. and nellis and fallon and training ranges, that's where the development is done and where we experiment and learn the new ways to fight. more efficient ways to fight. it's not just doing sets and reps but learning how to fight in the future. it's extremely important. >> i thank you for your service and i for one don't want to send one more service member into battle unprepared. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman, thank you gentlemen, budgeting decisions, we don't get to decide ourselves in this committee. it's beyond us. i don't know how many of the members sometimes really dwell on or understand the details and the difficulty that goes into
running an efficiency and effective military. when we're in this discussion today it's probably the most grave i've had since i've been here. and rightfully so. i know that each of you look at the troops as part of the family. and that's what makes this even tougher, to think the environment that you're being asked to be put in and your family members being asked to be put in. we've touched a little bit about what happens to those next to deploy. they may deploy but they are not going to be as ready as they should be. i'm also like to hear from you if we could on the consequences of those that are currently deployed in iraq, syria and afghanistan and what's going through your mind if we find ourselves in the situation that may happen, which we do not want. i'll start with you.
we'll make trades, we're pretty flexible. all in learning organizations and as much as we don't like that the fiscal situation we've been in, we're mission oriented and figured it out. but i think at this point what you're seeing is those that are foredeployed, have the best training we can give them. the next ones out the door and goes down from there, because of the security environment that we see, the folks that just came back, if you would, the people on deck in the dugout, getting ready to run on the field, those are the ones that are going to end up with the shorter end of the stick. there's a normal level and rhythm of a force and how you train it. but if we have to make cuts, for example, if we have a cr as opposed to the budget that you've passed, that's a $800 million delta for the marine
corps. 500 on ground side and 300 on the air side. in the dugout, in the hall if you will. those are the ones that will take the hit. when you get on deck, you'll chase yourself to try to catch up to get the sets you need and the time is not there. we just don't have the time that we used to have. so that's the risk. that's just in today's fight. if you go to one of the other adversaries we've talked about, and we continue to maintain the current opens, those are the ones that have to go there or shift the force. that's the risk we've all talked about. >> we've all had a lot of time deployed forward and together. when we would do battlefield we -- most of us get the same
question, exactly what are we doing here? we could all give that speech, the hardest question to answer, why isn't anybody talking about it back home? why are we all completely focused about it here forward but nobody is focused on it back home. those deployed for families, they will ask the question, are they serious about this or not, is the risk going forward worth it or not? i'm not sure if we don't even pass a budget we can look them in the eye and tell them that we should -- that what they are doing forward is on the minds of this congress. >> i appreciate that general. >> one word is munitions, every one of my strike group commanders is coming back, come back on fumes when it comes to munitions. this is the good stuff if you will, precision munitions, ones
that we are using for very good reason. i know that general millie, feels that same shortage and that's an absolutely critical part of this recovery, to restock magazines with the mu in additions we need to prevail. >> for those deploying, we try to ensure they get the maximum equipment and training. it's really the bench as general neller said and admiral rich said about munitions, we're critically short. i'm 234not going to go into it public. but the discussion on munitions is important. and for the army, i didn't realize this, we make the bombs for the aircraft, navy, air force and marines fly. they had all of the precision stuff. we make the bombs for which
we're responsible for. next month, we won't be able to ship those bombs to our sister services for training. operational things will be taken care of. but at nellus at the different red flags, they are not going to have bombs to drop and practice that general goldfine just talked about. munitions is critical and shipping of those training munitions will cease here in next month or two. the other thing we talk about is lead leader development, missed training and missed opportunities, that's an entire generation of lieutenants and captains that will miss training and never get made up. the other piece is like this summer, we won't be able to run rotc summer camp, west point. we'll have 74% of second lieutenants in the united states army won't get commissioned in
fy-18 because they won't be qualified because summer camp will be missed this summer. so this enormous amount of consequence in all kinds of areas, if we return to bca and don't get the budget and supplemental passed and quickly. >> thank you, general. >> thank you. thank you all for coming and addressing us and thank you for your service. even with a budget control act repe repeal ke ki repeal we will not have a blank check. some estimates put costs an at additional 1.2 million for uniformed personnel, how do you reconcile the need to train and equipment the current force with a desire to increase in strength?
nor the army, they are interlinked, the size and capacity of the force. obviously what we want for this budget, we want to fill holes. there are already holes existing in the forces, not increasing the force structure. end strength is not to make the army bigger, it's to make the units that do exist whole, to make them capable of doing adequate levels of training, training at 75% is inadequate. you take 10% casualties in combat, you'll be a combat ineffective unit. we're training units at 65, 75% strength training centers. so the increase in end strength, we want to be careful it's not mischaracterized as an increase in the army. it's not, it's a filling in the holes in the existing
forestructure. it will not increasing brigades or divisions, but filling holes in existing units. can i add we're filling formations to the positions we're given and you need those forces to actually achieve the training to be able to build the time you need and forces you need. sometimes this gets masked. when i was a younger pilot, i would show up at the aircraft, crew chief and assistant, i taxied to the runway and different crew would be there to meet me and pull the pins and arm the aircraft and take off to another destination, here's what often happens when you get to the short falls we're seeing right now. you taxi slow because the same crew chief has to get to the end of the runway because it's the
same individual who's pulling pins and arming you. that guy has to get on a c-17 and fly to next location to meet you. that's a vig net of some of the ways we're managing the smaller force. to general millie's point, this is not about growing air force or army, it's about filling holes. >> i would say for us it's a little bit different. this body authorized an increase in 3,000 marines and those marines do different munitions that the 184,000 are doing today. we have a requirement to develop different capabilities that we think we need for the future fight. if that money is not there and we can't grow the force, we'll do all of the capabilities but it will come out of that 182,000 base. 300,000 marines doing something today are going to do something different. and that's going to reduce our overall -- our capability. in those particular areas. so we've got to grow these new
capabilities. there's going to be some filling of short falls and maintenance and other places but ours is different. we have to build a force ready to fight what we think we're going to face in 2025. thank you very much, mr. dha chairman, i yield back. >> thank you to our witnesses for your leadership and service. in my district, new york's 21st district i represent two of the nation's premiere military installations, fort drum, and kessel ring, naval training facility. my first question is for general millie and regarding the army aviation readiness. the aviation brigade is supporting operation atlantic resolve and i have serious concerns that the cr could limit future aviation capabilities and training opportunities like the ongoing deployment of the tenth mountain. could you describe how a cr would impact the army's aviation
readiness specifically and its training and top of that the pilot shortage that the army is already experiencing? >> i appreciate that. shout out to the north country. a return would have significant negative effect on -- we're already short 741 pilots which were trying if we can get the budget passed with the supplemental, we'll try to make that up. but if we don't get the budget passed with the supplemental, we're not going to make that up and that's going to increase several hundred more and that's across the entire total army national guard and u.s. reserve. for the national guard specifically, there's about 1300 pilot seats available in a given year for or that won't be available in the following year
as a result of a continuing resolution, those would be national guard and reserve seats. there's another 1,000 seats that might not be available for the regular army. we're going to try to preserve and fence the flying hour program, those qualified pilots in units. although, i must mention that the standard is about 14 hours, 15 hours a month. we've reduced that over the last eight years. so the new normal if you will is something around the 12 or 13 hours but we'll preserve the 12 or 13 hours. we don't like the new normal but the flying hour program, we'll try to fence that. for units deploy gs, we'll make sure they will get the appropriate levels of training and the last piece is upgrading fleet continuing resolution will prevent us for systems for missile defense on the aircraft. not able to upgrade the
modernization efforts in the cockpits and short on munitions for the apaches and most importantly won't be able to buy additional apaches we need to fill the holes for the regular army and national guard. it will be a significant negative impact. >> thank you. my second question is for admiral richardson. i understand the second training ship requires a full start and funding to provide training for nuclear operators. i'm asking this in regard to kessel ring. how would a cr create challenges for the navy? >> great question. thanks for your support of kessel ring, there's a fair amount of talk about a balanced approach and everything has to do with national health and particularly national security doesn't allry side in defense. kessel ring is a great example of that. a lot of that site is supported
by the department of energy. it's critical that we energy those relationships if we're not developing nuclear technologies up there, we're training them in the training ships and second training ship is the next generation. right now we're using ships that were built in the 60s to do that. they are the oldest operating nuclear power plants in the country. and it's time to recap talize those. this is a new start. there's been a lot of talk about funding flexibility and continuing resolution is the opposite of funding flexibility. it is absolute funding rigidity. you have to continue to do the things you like to stop. can't do things you like to start. one of the things i like to start the second training ship and can't do it with a cr.
>> thank you, mr. chairman, i'm sobered and humbled by the responsibility we have listening to your testimony. it's incredible the vocation you made with your lives and how dedicated you are to this mission that you have. i'm new to this job. i'm formally a mayor and county executive of a large county, $2.8 billion budget. i'm a freshman in the minority and don't have as much influence as i'd like to have obviously. but i know there's an important mission that the congress has. i want you to know i'm going to do the best i can to communicate that we're dealing with people's lives here, the bem that work for you. and what we do has a tremendous impact on their lives. as you pointed out, so eloquently on the morale and on the effectiveness. i want to just look at big picture things. the overall budget in 2016 was about $580 billion. and personnel made up 24% of that overall budget.
and o and m made up 42% of that budget. that's a big number, 42% of the budget and 20% went to procurement and 13% for other. so i just want -- it's going to be different for each year of services, in the army they might be procuring as much in equipment but all spending about this 40% o and m. i want to ask from a big picture perspective, does that make sebs we're spending as much as we have on operation and maintenance or should that be something over time we're trying to change? go ahead. >> well, we're a little bit different. our people accounts 65% of our budget. at least the green marine core budget, 65%. our o and m probably about 15%. acquisition and facilities make up the rest.
>> our aviation is naval aviation but all of the ground equipment, we own our ground equipment. we're a small percentage of the overall force but most of our cost is people. i take your point but if we have people cost or we have to increase the size of the force or force gets more senior or pay raise that is voted upon, those bills we have to make those trades and the trades are in the other areas, in procurement and modernization or facilities. so then you start to build up a deficit in those areas. you've got a force that that's what a hall low force is, it's a large force there's trades, we can reduce acquisitions, those are the puts and takes as we manage the budget. we're probably not a good example of what you're looking at as far as large amount of o and m. >> no mystery for an air force,
older aircraft are more expensive to fly, period. so what happens with us, you get an average aircraft age of 27 years. >> when i go out and talk to airmen, not many. find is someone like that, they know that that company building parts for that car maybe you saw one maintainers that were cruising museums to keep the b 1s flying. that's what it takes. when you look at the o and m costs going up, that's a direct result of aircraft age. as we try to procure and try to get that aircraft age going down, what comes along with that, quite frankly is a bigger bill than the procurement cost is the sustainment cost of the life cycle of the weapon system. we drive that down as much as we
possibly can. >> admiral. >> i'll just say, i think general goldfein and i share we're a capital intense force. we operate a lot of stuff and have to fuel it and maintain it. we've got a between 25 and 30 of our budget in the navy's operations. and i think the general captured it very well. newer things don't require so much maintenance and so this renewal of the force in the end of the day, it helps us do our business for less operating and maintenance cost. >> for the two of you as a general rule, is a long term -- if you can -- if you can have the congress work with you effectively and get your way over time. would you like to see your o and m to be lowered percentage of your budget and where would you rather see an increase, procurement or personnel? >> i think both for operations and procurement, stable adequate funding, that's the way i'd like
to partner with congress the most. >> general? >> for the army, we come in at about just a little less than 50% for personnel costs, which is no surprise. cost of labor and economics 101 going to be your factor production. for us o and m accounts as you said just under in our case under 40%. so what is operation maintenance for the army? it's ammunition, it's fuel for all products for the vehicles, flight hours for aviation and importantly parts. so our o and m costs have gone up because we're trying to intensify our levels of readiness and training for combined arms operations against a near peer threat. we've been fighting for 16 consecutive years against guerillas and terrorists in tennis shoes with iedz in desert
terrain in the middle east. we don't know, no one knows where the next conflict will occur. we don't want to be preparing for the last war for next one. we don't know. we have to keep all of the cards on the table for the u.s. military to be able to fight a wide range of threats. so we have reemphasized combining arms and hiring combat unless you're specifically deploying. that training is having positive effect over the last couple of years about 24 to 36 months or so and we're seeing improvements slightly in our readiness in that regard. if we don't pass the budget and continue with a consider and bca funding, that level of training will come to a halt. that readiness improvement is going to stop. so we need to continue funding o and m in order to do that for current day readiness.
for procurement in the army's case, what we've done, we biased current readiness. today's fight in the next couple of years readiness. we are really mortgaging the future in terms of procurement, only put 20% of the money in research and development and science and technology and need to improve that. >> thank you very much, gentlemen. again i know our mission is to do our job to try to help you do your job. thank you. >> mr. russell? >> thank you mr. chairman and to all of you for being here today. this body historically has wrestled with these issues since we've been wearing track horn hats. i'm mindful of the joint committee on the conduct for the war after bull run. the congressional investigation of the sinking of the uss maine and how did we let that happen?
the joint committee on the investigation of the aerial attack on pearl harbor and what went wrong or communist attack on south korea and how did we get so surprised? these are but a few of the examples but the story is familiar. service chiefs given shifting declining budgets that make the dollars that did arrive less flexible and less valuable. endless questions by people like me in previous lives, wondering why so many treasure must be spent when there are domestic priorities that demand the immediate action and we can eek out saving that will realize all of our dreams. whatever saving that has been realized by this american bad habit of unpreparedness, it has been more than horrifically compensated for by scores more in spending and thousands more of american dead. i don't know mr. chairman what
the next committee will be named but i already know what its recommendations will be. mr. chairman, i don't want to waste any more of these warriors time, we need to give what they ask for and i yield back. >> i thank you all for being here. i've had six years on this committee and i think this is about the grimmest it's gotten in so clearly we're not addressing these really crucial issues. i'm going to put a little bit of a change in the direction of the questioning and i understand that we're falling behind in equipment and et cetera. but i'm looking out at the world now as i look in on us, i think i agree when you talk about people wondering, are they talking about it at home, i don't think we're talking about it enough right here. i think what happens is these committees are like sigh lows and everybody is busy.
i ran from another committee hearing but we have to somehow or another address this. i recognize the urgency and thank you. what i'm looking at right now is what about the rest of the world? is the conversation going around in your profession, are friends worried we're not going to be able to keep our commitments and lack the will to keep our commitments and are enemies hopeful that we'll just get so bogged down in this in our budget issues that we're not going to properly fund? and i would appreciate hearing from each one of you on that. >> i'll go first. i think simple answer is yes. our allies and strategy is based on our ability to build partner capacity and they are going to be there with us if we have to face any of the future challenges. in order toe do that we have to be able to show off exercises and work inner operably and have them procure equipment that's
inn inneroperable with us and by the same manufacturers and make it a little easier to be our partner across all areas, intel sharing, acquisition, foreign military sales. but i think they look to us and they've looked to us since the end of world war ii where the united states was the guarantor of peace and stability in the world. whether it be nato or asean, they look to the united states. so it's important that we as military members, go out there in the profession of arms, not as department of state or ministry of foreign affairs maintain these relationships and we can -- we have to be able to go to our partners and say we're going to be there for and they can pass that back onto the political leeaders because we
occupy an interesting space in the world. >> ma'am, technology changes over time but fundamentals of deterrence, i would argue have not changed. its capability times will and the times is important. if you have it at zero, it equals zero. i'll tell i we have the luxury not only as chief joints but throughout our career of having developed relationships of trust and confidence with our counterparts around the world. and i can't tell you how important those relationships are. we call them mill to mill or military to military. we can all give example of where sometimes diplomatically we may not have had agreements with the country or country but the relationship with those marines are vital. so we keep those long and very often to what jn miller is talking about, our commitment that brings that capability and brings that will is for the relationships that we build.
you know, this is one of those questions where it would be inappropriate to do a big broad brush over general concerns because the reality is it's a bit mixed bag as you go around the world. i can tell you we are committed to making sure we keep those relationships alive and well. >> thank you. >> thanks for a great question. i would say that i appreciate you looking around the world, the very short term, we're in a very unstable environment. there's a lot of governments coming into place, elections and world is shifting in many ways, including our administration as they settle in. we settle in. and then times of great uncertainty there are also is the opportunity i think for a great miscalculation. and it's even more important in my mind that during these times of uncertainty, we minimize that possibility of miscalculation by making sure we operate from a
position of strength. and this strength will assure our allies that we will be there and not contribute to that uncertainty, not contribute to that instability. it will also deter our enemies so even through the period of transition, they will make up every morning and say not today. this is not today to start something. and so in the very near term and then i would say on a long term and we can have a different conversation through the 2020s, we've gotten sure we operate from a position ever strength. >> i'll add this committee knows our responsibility and we are active in seeking answers and recognizing that we have got to properly fund if we want you to do what we need you to do. so thank you. >> i would echo my teammates here. shoring allies is critical and we do that through presence,
exercises, exchanges, int interoperability, and united states has a great set of allies around the world. i believe that is still strong but we have to continue to make it strong. and virtual presence is actual absence so we need to be there with them in the air, on the sea, and on the ground that will help reinsure and stabilize various conditions around the world. with regard to enemies or adversaries, it's capability plus will. capability has to be real and it has to be seen and demonstrated and has to be sensed. and your opponent needs to know you have the will to use it. if you do that, you'll have peace through strength because you will definitely deter any rational actor on the other side. thank you, chairman for the extra time. i yield back.
>> dr. abraham. >> thank you gentlemen for being here. as vitally critical as our schools and infrastructure and certainly cures for cancer are, i'm a physician and it lost my share of good people to that horrific disease, as important as all of those are, i think we're all smart enough to understand that it makes no difference if we don't have a country and national security. so certainly we want to -- i want to give you what you asked to protect our country. general milley when you reminded us that our men and women in uniform unfortunately have to still rely on food stamps to feed their family, this a moral and ethical tragedy that i hope makes everyone angry and we need to fix that problem. general goldfien, thank you, i'm a mission pilot for the civil air patrol and fly for the green flag program which you had the
fo foresooi foresight to start, giving train to the men and women on the ground. we heard from the vice chiefs and talking about the pilot shortage you have referenced already and the intellectual property and inconstitution knowledge that these pilots you said it takes at least ten years to train that great pilot and that's certainly true. that with this cr, retaining that pilot with what the airlines are now offering on the civilian side is almost an impossible task. my question is, what other areas of the dod do any of you see where we're losing this intellectual property and institutional knowledge because of the cr? i'll start with you. >> yes, sir, you know the reality of the pilot shortage is it's actually not a military problem. it's a national challenge that
we have all got to face and chairman this is something that i think we need to work together, here's the basics. we in the air force produce 1200 pilots a year. the airlines based on their projections need 4500 every year for next decade. we're not going to buy our way out of that challenge. this is a supply/demand mismatch nationally to be able to produce the pilots we need to service the commercial, business and private and the military aviation needs of the nation. so first and foremost we need a national approach to increase the supply going up for pilots that we need to service all of these bins and then what we need to do across the military, i would offer to approach it from a combination of quality of life and quality of service. quality of life we tend to focus on which is the financial piece and taking that financial burden
off of the family and that's important. but i would argue that quality of service is equally if not more important that we got to ensure that our pilots are maintainers getting resources they need to train and they feel they can be competitive and the best they can be and they are part of a unit and part of something that's better than themselves and know they are in an organization where they are valued and we take care of their families, all of the cultural things that go along with wearing these uniforms, that is as important as anything we do financially and i would just offer this is something we have to work together because it's a national crisis. >> just to add on, other areas under stress just from this competition for people that i described earlier, pilots as we've mentioned, cyber forces are very much under stress, our nuclear trained sailors are under stress. and special forces have been extremely busy in this war and
they are also under stress. i'll tell you, just as we've said question can't compete in money and they didn't join for money. i mean we need to give them adequate resources to live and i think with this bill and supplemental, we'll be meeting that responsibility. but these folks, they joined to sail and fly and operate at the high end to become the most lethal force on the earth to protect and defend the constitution of the united states. and that's all we have to do is keep that with them and they'll keep coming. if they start to doubt that, they'll go to where the money is. >> thank you, i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, gentlemen for being here and for your service. i'm rather unique on the committee, i don't serve a district as an active duty military base.
but in my district in northeast indiana we are the proud home of indiana's air national guard 122nd fighter wing. men and women serve our country with distinction and go into harm's way in service to our nation just as our active duty troops do as well. i'm concerned that the prospect of a cr will have an even greater impact on our national guard and reserve forces than the active component. generalgoldfein, can we have a commitment from you or what kind of commitmentan youake on behalf of your branch that a continuing resolution will not have a disproportionate impact on the national guard or reserve forces? >> sir, i can tell you this, i can't do the mission without the air national guard, period. you go into a cockpit of a c-17 today and ask the crew in front of the cockpit, whose active, guard reserve.
i can't tell you the number of times all three hands go up, you can't tell us apart. we can't do the mission without the air national guard. my commitment to you, this is one air force and i'm their chief. so i'm going to make sure the air national guard has everything it needs commence rat with the force, we're one air force to accomplish the mission we're given. >> i appreciate that strong statement and commitment. another frequent concern i hear related to the supply chain required to keep our a-10s flying is related to the suppliers that are no longer in the a-10 business. can you speak how the continuing resolution would affect or impact the supply chain of the a-10 specifically? >> sir it's not search to have that much impact on the supply chain, but more of an impact in terms of our ability to take the
a-10s and put them in depot maintenance, because that line will stop and it will stop because the civilian hiring freeze and combination of other things, i'm going to have to figure out how to get -- we're each going to have to figure out how to pay the bill. for the air force, $2.8 billion. to find $2.8 billion, i have to stop depot maintenance lines and it's not linear, at the end of the time frame, it's not like you start the line back up midly. all of those workers that have not -- have left and we haven't been able to hire their back fill and lost their qualifications, there will be a spin up time to get them back up and running. by the way, the aircraft that have been flying in the flight are coming due for their maintenance. it continues that backlog over time and what you end up doing is grounding aircraft. and so while i could buy all of the parts in the world, if i chose to be able to do that
within my flexibility, those parts will sit on the shelf because i don't have the workforce i need to put the parts in the airplane. >> i appreciate the insight and yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman and gentleman for your testimony and leadership and candor about the impact on the men and women in uniform putting their lives on the line to protect our freedoms and i really appreciate it. there's a lot of people listening and a lot of stories about what you said today. admiral richardson, i want to start off with the story that troubled me about 100 pilots that are essentially refuse gs to fly. having been a pilot myself, to get to the point where you don't trust your equipment and think your life and students' life is in danger is pretty very veer. some of that is because of aging fleet and resource implications discussed today but it sounds like some is also a leadership issue. can you please comment what the navy is doing to address the issue? that will address our pipeline, morale and the lives of the men
and women? >> thank you for the question. as has been said before, this is the top safety priority for naval aviation. it is a vexing problem and this is not a resource con strained thing. this is a -- an area where we're applying every bit of resources we need. cost is not an issue as we approach this problem. as you said it's directly related to crew safety and it has got the full attention of all leadership in the naval aviation. >> you're aware that's some of the quotes -- not how they felt. >> let me continue my answer. we've established a dedicated team. it's complicated. and that team will stay on this from a technical standpoint until it's fixed. as i said it's a complex problem and it requires a multidimensional solution. first and foremost the human dimension. and communication is a big part of that. so when we heard about the
concerns of our instructor pilots in our training wings, we sent a team down there to make sure that we fully understood their concerns and they fully understood what we were doing. i think what we had there more than anything else was a breakdown in communication. and things -- those teams are on site now and they are working through each of the training wings and they are -- they are resolving their differences in perspective and differences in communication. and so in addition, from the human perspective, the crew and awareness is going to be the most important thing towards minimizing risk here. we've improved training to make sure they recognize the symptoms of high pox ya and related effects. we've improved training on emergency procedures, that includes training in simulators where they feel the echffects a go through the procedures.
we're making sure we're listening and they all feel like they can be talking to leadership so we understand where their anxiety and concerns are. it's a constant effort. >> i'd like to follow up with you more after the hearing. i appreciate and would like to stay in touch on the impacts on this. >> i'll make sure we do that. >> i appreciate it. general goldfein you've eloquently discussed the challenges of the cr saying quadrons will be grounded in june. i don't know if everybody listening understands what this means. even to localize, the bull dogs i commanded are over with bad guys and when they come home in the summer, they are going to be grounded, no flying, no upgrades, no training, they are done, right? >> ma'am, what i will tell you, if you don't have a unit on your base preparing to go, preparing to go into conflict, you'll have the equivalent of a no fly zone
over your base. >> this is unprecedented. it happened a little while a short while ago and it's unprecedented. they need to go anywhere in the world on 24-hour notice and the only capability in the world and cross decking and training, same thing, right, they are done? >> yes, ma'am. so congress gave us acquisition authorities and told us to use those authorities to speed up acquisition. there's no better example than compass call. electronic war fare asset and high demand in this fight and it's going to be a central asset in any fight. we took those authorities and we look at how could we rapidly take the exact same equipment on the current d.c.-130 and cross deck it. >> but with a cr -- >> it stops. >> it stops. >> that contract going forward stops. >> red flags, we talked about air warriors, angel thunder, same thing, those that will deploy to rescue americans in harm's way, their training is done as well? >> no, ma'am, there will be no
degradation to folks we're preparing to go in the fight -- >> i hear you but that's just in time training but the cumulative effect of missing out training throughout the year does have a degradation, is that fair? >> absolutely. >> you have 1,000 fighter pilots short and grounding pilots and we're expecting them to stay. that's insane. you agree? >> yes, ma'am. >> thank you, i yield back. thanks. >> mr. hunter. >> thank you, mr. chairman. great to see you. i guess let me ask my first question is how do you mitigate the risk of not fighting? let me give an example. haven't had a naval battle in a long time. i mean ships shooting at ships with canones right, haven't had air to air combat in quite a long time. places we're at we have air superiority and know how to do life support we're the best expedition nar military since the romans, it's amazing what
you do and what our services can do. how do you mitigate the risk of atrophy when it comes to facing peer competitor countries? and i'm looking for one word. >> training. >> training. that's it. >> that's my question. >> to follow on miss mcsally, not just airplanes shutting down training, the entire army's training is shutting down except guys deploying. same in the navy and marines as well, training is the answer. >> how does that get slammed by the cr? >> it stops. >> it stops, right? >> but the unit -- >> what happens is the up tempo money, the gas and parts and the ammunition, that ceases. and so people system get paid but there's no training going on. so what ends up happening is is if called upon, this is for the bench now, if called upon for some unknown contingency that no
one can predict right this moment, but if it happens, people are going to be going out the door with equipment that is less than optimally maintained. units that are not properly trained and we're going to be putting young men and women into harm's way that are not ready for that level of combat. that's what's going to happen with the lack of training. >> i would add that this is also -- there's a lot of that contained in the supplemental. >> that's right. >> it is the combination of both that we need favorable attention to, not only fy 17 budget but there's a lot of training operating money in the supplemental. >> and you probably both have the same answer. >> thank you for your leadership on this. you came out pub pickly and said you won't vote for a defense -- a cr that is for defense, i wanted to say thanks for your leadership on this. we're behind you. i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you. >> ms. cheney. >> thank you, mr. chairman.
i'd like to start by thanking you all very much for your service and being here today. associate myself also with the comments of mr. hunter and the chairman, i will support a cr either in terms of the damage that will do to the defense department. we are engaged, as you all know, in a whole range of crucial issues here on the hill, issues that affect the nation domestically, healthcare, tax reform. i would argue that none of those is as important as this issue that we face today, and if we get this wrong, none of those matter either. we're in a situation today as you've all laid out during this hearing that we've got to make sure that not donl we fill the gaps, but that we begin to rebuild our super or the. and in that regard, general keene testified last year about the extent to which we're running the risk now of not prevailing in a fight in some circumstances, and i'd like to ask each of you to talk about the short falls that we face,
which you've detailed very effectively today, but talk about it in the on text of the overall threat and as we've seen our own capabilities decline. we've seen the capabilities of our adversaries increasing and advancing. and whether we're talking about isis, north korea, china, russia, iran, if you could talk for a little bit about the extent to which our declining capabilities have just created a gap which may be a gap of historic proportions in terms of where our adversaries are. >> general neller i'll start with you. >> eye think we've all watched this over the last five to six years as we've been involved in the daily grind of the counterterrorism fight. we've seen the growth of the capabilities of the chinese, the russians, the iranians, the north koreans. on the countering of that, our op tempo has stayed high because
of what's gone on fiscally our ability to modernize and develop the capabilities through equipment and training and leverage technology, we've made a move. we've started to do that. but to get to that point, while at the same time do what we do on a day-to-day basis, it's the equivalent of rebuilding the airplane or the vehicle as you're driving down the road moving toward the day-to-day efforts you're trying to rebuild the ning motion, which is difficult enough, but if down the have the resources to do that, and fifth generation stuff is expensive. it is. and we all want to drive down the costs, we all want to get it faster, but do that we need to have adequate resourcing and it's got to be stable. we're not going to get a good price point if we can't tell the vendor here in for three or
four, five, six years because we know we can buy five for the price of three and a half or whatever if is if we can get the money to get the long-term contract. so that's the dilemma we face. it would be great if we could stop and get a time-out, people have talked about, you know, the interwar period. we have had no interwar period. we've been since 9/11 period at war and i don't see there being an interwar period, which makes it difficult but it makes it necessary that the resources there are to maintain the current fight but to build up the capability for the fight that we hope doesn't come. and if we are ready and we have the capability, the probability that it will come goes down. but we can't assume that it won't. >> thank you. general goldfein, could you also talk i know we're focused on the cr but the budget control act and equest administration as a whole and whether we can do what we need to do before we repeal
those? >> yes, ma'am. i would just tell you that one of the things you've heard from us here is that when called to go, we go. we've heard all the impacts of a cr. we're going to cancel exercise, we're going to cancel training, but let no one question for a second that when the united states militaries are called upon, we go. and when you take the combined military might, although none of us as joint chiefs are happy with our current level of readiness, for those that may be listening, ought to have no question in their find that min he f they take us on they lose. i'll give one example. if mr. putin makes a bad choice rewill face the combined economic and military might of 28 nations in the most powerful alliance we've ever been part of. and that spells his loss.
so we are going to work with you on ensthurg we can -- to manage this to the best our ability. we've been through sequestration before and i think we would alltel you we still haven't recovered from that. and one of the things, the worst things we did during that entire period when we shut down the government was we broke faith with our civilian workforce, and especially our young civilian workforce that don't have the luxury of four to five months of pay, you know, in the bank that can cover them while they're out of work. and we had so many civilian workers, young civil yarchian workers that left the government service because they couldn't pay the bills. or those that didn't pay the bills then had security challenge issues because one of the things we look at are their financial reports. and they left government service, tal lentd men and women and never gacame back. we can't go threw again.
>> my time's expired appreciate it very much. i yield back. >> thank you all for your time, your testimony, and your service. you know, the earlier conversation general milley had, mr. russell referenced to some historical parallels reminds me that tomorrow, april 6th, is the 100th anniversary of our entry into world war i. we tend to think about world war ii and patton's dash across europe, those incredible battles, but the thing about world war i is nobody ever thought it would happen. they all traded with each other, the rulers, related to one another. and they thought they could outbluff each other, that there might be a scur mish, and yet a whole generation of european men were wiped out in world war i. it just, i think, should be a sober reminder to all of us
about the stakes of what we're talk about here. it -- it is -- they are incredibly high, and i appreciate you're testimony, as you've heard many times, it's been sobering, but bottom line is we have to did better than that, than crs, than not passing a supplemental, than sequestration. we have to do better than that. hearing stands adjourned.
organizers as well as musical performances. live from the national mall in washington, d.c. at 10:00 a.m. earn on our companion network c-span. this weekend on american history tv on c-span 3, saturday at 7:00 p.m. eastern georgia tech history professor gregory nobles about the influence of early 19th century orn thol gift, natural gift, parent john james aud doe bon. >> they really admire his work, the artistic work of course but also his field work. he was very, very good at what did he and he did it with no binoculars, no field guides, no iphone apps, and the broof here i think is in the painting. >> and at eight:00 on lectures and history gettysburg college professor on abraham lincoln, his views on slavery and the dread scott u.s. supreme court
decision. >> what is tony saying here? there is now no restraint, not even the restraint of popular sovereignty on taking slaves into the territories. >> sunday at 10:00 a.m. eastern. opening ceremony of the museum of revolution in philadelphia with speakers former vice president joe biden, horn and author david mccullough, museum's president and ceo michael quinn and journalist and aujtor cokie roberts. >> it's my hope that this beautiful museum helps inspire you to become those active, involved citizens in this very great country because history has his eyes on you. >> and then at 8:00 on the presidency, author catherine sibly talks about first lady florence hard. >> she had been in the hospital, she had her kidneys operated on and she'd been in dire straits so she could relate to the kinds of things they were going through. it was interesting because out
of this veteran's cause came the veteran's bureau. this was the first time the united states had a bureau, what we would call the va today. >> for our complete american history tv schedule go to c-span.org. now former white house staffers on richard nixon's life after he was president. we'll hear about the nixon-frost interviews, president nixon's meetings in china and his memoir, this was hoeftd dollars by the richard nixon presidential library and museum in california. >> many of you will have at your place setting an envelope, and if you open the envelope you'll find a record or two that we were able to find about you when you served the president. and the staff that we have, a great staff inside the foundation, they had more fun and you would just imagine as