some common ground to governor. the only way things will happen in the congress if the democrats and republicans work together. >> lynn jenkins of kansas. thank you. [inaudible conversations] you're watching c-span2, live coverage. reaction to the president's state of the union speech in just off the house chamber where the president spoke. some of of the issues he talked about, raising the minimum wage, new medicare reform, tax reform, he talked about the cybersecurity order that he issued today. he spent about half the speech talking about the economy, he also brought up voting reform and, of course, gun control measures and one other issue he brought up was the issue of a new war on poverty. and now joining us, one of the 84 new members of congress is tony car dane use of california. who's seat did you take? >> they changed the lines around in california, and i put my name for a seat there that was no incumbent. so i was able to win outright. here i am. >> what is your background? >> i -- well, i started off as an engineer and i went to owning my own business and joined the state legislature in california for six years. been on the city council for ten of los angeles and now i'm a member of congress as of january of this year. >> what did the president say that resonated with you tonight? >> what i like the most about what he said when it came to immigration reform, he basically said let's get this done now. i think we have a window of opportunity of bipartisan cooperation for republicans and democrats by large agree we need to do something. let's hope we can work on the -- working on out of the senate and in our house and get something comprehensive to the president right away. >> what was the experience like for you tonight? what time can -- did you go to the chamber to get our seat? >> about an hour and a half early. i got seat close enough to aisle i was able to shake his hand and say thank you, mr. mr. president before he went to the podium to make the speech. >> do the republicans have a chance of working the immigration issue positively? >> i think they do. i looked toward the republican side of the room, we sit on one side and the other. i noticed when it was about immigration reform, a handful more of republicans stood up than the normal amount that stood up. .. >> no, i have not. i have heard senator rubio talk about immigration reform perhaps more than any republican these days. and i think he has it wrong. he keeps insisting that, okay, let's allow them to become legal here. but he is not really talking about a true path to citizenship. a i don't think that is the spirit of our constitution or country of having second-class citizens on a permanent basis in this country. we should have a path to citizenship and people need to learn english. we need to make sure that they have background checks and they get to the back of the line and et cetera. i think we can do it where it is fair and tough coming at the same time they have the hope of arriving there. >> what have you heard about the situation in the l.a. area with the ex-sheriff's deputy vmax yes, well it appears, thank god come, that they actually found the person that was terrorizing the southern california community. i don't know the exact result, i was in the chambers. it looks like they had him surrounded. they make sure that the least number of people suffered at the hands of this killer. it is such an unnatural occurrence, someone who is in excellent horseman, someone who actually killed people who were not directly in his line. so there was quite a bit of buzz that they actually catch this guy and hopefully they did that tonight. >> we have been talking with a new member of congress, tony cardenas of california, a democrat. as we continue talking with members of congress. coming up next, a congressman from louisville, kentucky. john yarmuth is our guest. we will put you back on your spot here, sir. you have been to this rodeo before. how did this speech rang? >> i think in terms of a very cohesive narrative, this was the best i have seen. it was in the framework of what the government can properly and effectively do to build a middle ground. i was particularly excited to hear him talk about things like refinancing mortgages. things that taxpayers can actually make money on, as he said, put $3000 on average to the average household budget, which will help the economy, raising minimum wage is very important. the emphasis on pre-k education. these are things that not only the government can do effectively and directly affect the economy and to help the middle class, but i was very impressed that he focused on the thing that the government could do best. which implies that the government can't do everything. he met john yarmouth, a democrat of kentucky. giving his quick reaction to the president's state of the union speech. we appreciate your time, sir. on the other side of the capitol, on the senate side, senator bob casey has just had reelection. this past year. a democrat of pennsylvania. sir, i would like to start with your green ribbon. pennsylvania is pretty much a pro-second amendment state, is not? >> it is. the ribbons are to commemorate the victims of the sandy hook and newtown elementary schools. we commemorated some of the first on the scene of the tragedy. i do think despite some of the divisions, positions on gun policy, people can come together on common sense things. even as folks strongly support the second amendment, i think we can come together. >> senator casey, what is the economic situation in pennsylvania right now? the president talked about the economy for about half of his speech. >> i am glad that he did. as much as it has improved over the last several years, we still have over a half-million people out of work. as long as i persists, we have to focus on a full recovery. we are creating jobs at a fast pace now. but not quite fast enough. we have a way to go vmax was the energy doing in pennsylvania? >> it has created tens of thousands of jobs in our state in the number of years. it will create tens of thousands more so we can have the job benefit, the energy benefit, as well as keeping our commitment, which is to protect clean air and protect the water. >> how would you describe the sense of this in the senate as opposed to the last congress? >> i think it's better. i think we are through this election helps. but there are divisions and we have to come together to focus on the number one challenge and the number one obligation. which is to come together on our fiscal challenges. i think that we can. but i do not underestimate the difficulty of it. >> senator bob casey, democrat of pennsylvania. a very familiar pennsylvania political name. we appreciate your time this evening. we are live following alive following the president's state of the union speech in the house chamber. this is statuary hall, for 50 years, this room we were in served as the house of representatives meeting place. 180-72-1857. during that time, five presidents were sworn in in this room. they were all sworn in. from the state of connecticut, first-term senator richard blumenthal. senator, we must start with the presidents bringing up new town. i have to ask you about your pin. >> this is really a reminder of the grief and tragedy. the horrific pain that all of us in connecticut have suffered. i was very privileged to have as my guest, the first woman from newtown, the mayor of new town who has been inspirational to all of that community and even a. she has such strength and courage. the family and first responders and the first elected woman. she is the face and voice of this tragedy. the victims, whether at tucson, virginia tech, and as was said, it is so compelling. this time it is different. and i think that struck a chord with everyone. >> former attorney general of the state of connecticut, senator now. what measures have you seen the changes gun violence, reducing the number of guns on the street? >> there is no single factor that is attributed to gun violence or no simple solution. there is no prospect of getting it perfect and preventing all gun violence. as the president said so well, we were not sent here to be perfect, but to make a difference. there are measures that can and should avoid. such as banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. the shooter in newtown -- 11 beautiful children. [inaudible] if there are fewer bullets in a magazine, it would help stop these kind of accidents. the assault weapons ban, stock purchases them, and of course, background checks for all firearms sales, not just for firearms. but also for ammunition sales. >> senator blumenthal, one of your assignments puts you in the first real of the cybersecurity executive order that the president issued today. what are your initial thoughts about that? >> the president rightly emphasizes cybersecurity. because the national security of this nation is in trickle and so deeply involved in protecting major infrastructure. our financial institutions, our stock markets. as well as our national citizens from the kind of attack that are happening everyday. there is cyberwarfare. this is a bill that i helped draft. last session but unfortunately failed to pass. i hope there will be a new law that provides for better defense and even offense against the kinds of cyberattacks. >> we have been talking with connecticut's senior senator, richard blumenthal. still in his first term, this is live coverage of reaction to the president's state of the union address in statuary hall. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> as we continue our live coverage, getting reaction from members of congress to the president's state of the union address. you members of congress in the house, one of them defeated a well-known member, allen west. patrick purdy is a democrat from florida. congressman, your first state of the union. what's your impression, what is the issue that resonated with you? >> i'm very happy with the speech tonight. you know, i like working together, what we need is common sense solutions. we need to get away from the partisanship in our country. i'm glad the president talked about that quite a bit tonight. the overarching argument, the overarching theme that i like so much, they talk about solutions. he said here's a solution when it comes to things like education. we all know we need to improve education, so he talked about stem education, things like infrastructure, let's get public and private partnerships, the same thing with housing. he said let's look at a buildup on the floor that allows people to refinance their homes are historically low rates. overall, that's what i like about the speech. >> what is the no labels remapped. >> it is a group of problems solvers that are willing to put problems aside and focus. we talk about job creation, reducing the national debt. things like that. these are issues that we talk about on a daily basis. as putting aside the partisanship and getting over that. really focusing on what needs to be done and looking at the long-term sustainability of our country. >> you have been in congress going on a month and a half. what issue do you think you could work with the republicans on? >> well, i am here to solve big problems, that is why the voters elected me. i think what we need is a grand bargain. the president mention that mentioned that night. i was very happy to hear that. you know, right now we see sequesters, fiscal cliff, it's almost laughable, it's an embarrassment. i believe we need a real deal right now. now is the time to do it. >> anything the president said he found disagreeable? >> no, i want to look into some of the numbers. it was very clear when he said that all the proposals will not add a dime to the federal deficit. that is good, but he said that. i just want to see, i am a numbers guy. a cpa by training. i want to see at. >> neither the emotion is a over, >> congressman, thank you so much for your time. 232 republicans, 230 democrats, and 84 new members of congress in the house of representatives in the 113th congress. someone now in his fifth term is from texas, congressman green. how did this speech range with the other states of the union of the president had talked about. >> first, let me thank c-span for setting the chasm that seems to divide us, but it doesn't keep you from telling the truth and getting the truth out. c-span does a great job. i felt compelled to say it. this is a great speech that the president gave. it had great value. he values education and he talked about how education will help us to train people for the jobs that are available now, so that they can take advantage of opportunities that are available. he values our friendship with our allies. he talked about how we will defend and stand with our ally, israel. he values the whole notion that children should receive a good start and we want to make sure that head start is there for our children. he values people which are our children and our seniors. these are the great programs and we have to protect them. finally, i would like to say that our troops can do their job and we can bring them home. we don't have to have eternal wars. he wants to bring our troops home. the way he values jobs as indicated by the way he talked about infrastructure and the notion we can have road repairs and if we do it, we do it right here in the united states of america. you cannot outsource those jobs. this was a great speech when it comes to the things that americans value. >> energy is a big issue in her hometown of houston. >> it is. he talked about our energy independence. how we have moved away dependence on foreign oil that we can generate right here in our country. in fact, we will start to export in the near future, natural gas. texas is going to bounce and bloom again. energy is going to be one of those things that the rest of the country will come back to the forefront what. >> congressman, a little off topic question. your governor is touring california right now are you trying to promote texas is a place to do business. what do you think about that? >> i think texas is a place to do business, but we have to get our wages. we tout the jobs that we have, but we want people to have good and decent jobs that can give them a living. the president talked about how you should not work full-time in the richest country in the world and live below the poverty line. in texas, we have too many people who work full-time and still stand in the welfare line. we have to change that. also in texas, we have the most uninsured in the country. we want to make sure that people have good health care. in a country where if you are a bank robber and we should capture you, in the process if you are hurt, if you are a person on death row, if you are about to meet your maker next week and you get sick this week, we will give you aid and comfort and send you to meet your maker next week. we will give aid and comfort to the bank robber. if you're an enemy combatant, we will give you comfort. in the richest country in the world, we can give aid and comfort to a person on death row, the enemy combatant, we can give aid and comfort to good hard-working american people. we have to make sure that health care is available to all that. not because you are wealthy. health care cannot become wealth care. you are a child of god and you deserve health care. >> al green, democrat of texas, currently in his fifth turn here in congress. representing the houston area. we appreciate your time. as you can see, statuary hall is starting to empty out a little bit. of course, if you like to see the president's speech, if you'd like to see it again, or marco rubio's response, or any of our coverage from the state of the union, you can go to c-span.org and watch this all on mine. by the way, this conversation -- reacting to the present state of the union address union address in some of the issues that he raises, it will be continued tomorrow on the "washington journal." it is on every morning, 7:00 a.m. until 10:00 a.m., 365 days per week on c-span. thank you for being with us on capitol hill. >> sequestration and across-the-board budget cuts is set to go into effect on march 1. the pentagon budget is expected to be cut to $47 billion over the past month. it is argued that these budget cuts would hurt military readiness. secretary ashton carter, and representatives of each branch of the military have testified. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> good morning, everybody. the committee meets this morning to consider the impact of sequestration and a full year of continuing resolution on the department of defense. we welcome the deputy secretary of defense, ashton carter, and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general martin dempsey, who is accompanied by with the following friends. robert hale, chief of staff of the army, general ray odierno, vice chief of operations, mark ferguson, and general james amos, chief of staff of the air force general mark welch and chief of the national guard bureau, general frank grabs. i would like to stop by thanking all of you. please convey our thanks to the soldiers, airmen and marines at home and in harms way around the globe. they and their families deserve our utmost support. some members of congress and commentators in the press have said that we should live sequestration or let it go into effect. it would be better to severely cut the budget them to work out a deficit reduction agreement that would require compromise. i could not disagree more. sequestration is arbitrary and irrational. it would not only weaken our security, but as the secretary has said, it is not just defense, its childcare, food safety, law enforcement, airport safety. now, sequestration in the year-long continuing resolution going into effect, the impact on the department of defense will be devastating. for example, the army requested $36.6 billion in its 2013 budget. under a continuing resolution rules, if it's only the fiscal year 2012 amount of $30.6 billion. sequestration would cut an additional $6 billion. it would only have 8 billion left to get through the rest of the fiscal year. and moreover, unexpectedly high operational demands that require as much as 6 billion of the remaining funds be spent on leaving the army with only $2 billion for domestic operation maintenance during the next seven months. it has budgeted for $20 billion. so it has 10% of what it needs for owen am during the next seven months. that is just one of hundreds of examples. we are going to hear today that the military services are already taking actions to mitigate a continuing resolution and an impending sequester. for example come the department of defense has are instituted civilian hiring freezes, reduced or eliminated term employees and deferred facilities maintenance and begun canceling or postponing aircraft and ground vehicles. sequestration is implemented, they will begin to implement additional actions, including furloughs for most civilian employees, and other military training and cancellation of contracts. in addition, hundreds of department of defense investment programs, acquisition programs, and research and development projects may become literally on executable. even if many of the short-term actions are still reversible if we act promptly, they will have long-term costs. the longer congress postpones actions, the higher those costs will be. for example, the army informs us that if sequestration continues through the end of the fiscal year, two thirds of the brigade combat will fall below acceptable readiness levels. the air force says it will not be able to support requirements outside of afghanistan. you'll experience significant degradation in its refueling capabilities. the navy says the strike groups will not be ready for scheduled appointments later this year. resulting in an indefinite extension of the truman and eisenhower deployments, with the resulting negative impact on morale. by the end of the summer, the department of defense says he will be unable to pay its tri-care bills. they will be in a position of having to deny service to military members and families and retirees. there are bipartisan solutions for the continuing resolution problem and the sequester threat. we cannot afford to look the other way and pretend there isn't a huge and looming problem. the year-long sequestration will undermine the national defense. the danger of the international situation is highlighted again as of yesterday when north korea had a very provocative nuclear test. we cannot allow these actions, these sequestration is to occur in the middle of this kind of a world. it will create a huge and unconscionable problem for our men and women in uniform and their families, and it is incumbent upon congress and the president find a solution together. senator inhofe? >> yes, thank you. the senator and i have talked about how to work through this morning's schedule. at 11:00 o'clock, the senate is currently scheduled to have four or five votes. we are going to have very short question and answer time after the opening statements. it is possible, at least, that we could finish by a few minutes after 11. if that doesn't happen, we would then adjourn for perhaps an hour. then we would come back, perhaps for another hour. i hope that doesn't happen, but a very well could. we have a large committee and everyone is very interested in the solution to the sequestration in the year-long continuing resolution threat that looms before us. so that is the best were going to be able to do this morning. it is the senate in its full glory and i now call senator inhofe. >> thank you, mr. chairman. there are 16 days remaining between today and march the first. sixteen days that would refine our military strength for the next coming decade. this just last week the secretary of defense abruptly announced that he has indefinitely delayed the deployment of the truman carrier strike group in the middle east and has been urgently requested over the last while of time. he said i know of no other time in history when we have come this far in this fast in the defense budget. .. and you can't take place. mr. chairman, mr. is critical to allow the joint chiefs to write their franken offices have meant that impact to the services. lots of capabilities and readiness in the mismatch between resources and strategies, we're going to have to work together to ensure the american people understand how serious this is. last week led by senator ayotte, senators mccain, graham and i introduced a bill to mitigate the impact of sequestration to the end of the year and provides a department with flexibility it desperately needs to operate under a continuing resolution. it's not a preferred solution, but it's better than doing nothing. there's a growing concern the president will not negotiate with congress on a compromise to sequestration until after it takes is march 1st. each member of congress hears from the pain effect did to their constituents. but the real pain will be felt by the men and women serving our country who will see the resources they need to defend the nation arbitrarily. so anyway, that's what this hearing is all about. i will have questions. and one of them will be and i hope you folks are covering nice -- this is the request -- not to show how tragic this is, what increased risk, increased loss of life is going to result from this and that's what we expect from this hearing. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator inhofe. senator carter. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm going to be very brief because i think what you'd like to get to and would like to get to is the specifics of the impacts of these two budget circumstances that we face. first of all sequestration and second, possibility of a continuing resolution going on the entire year. i thank you for this hearing and i mean not from the bottom of my heart. we welcome an opportunity to describe the syntax. secretary panetta and i had of the situation. and as we do, will provide to this committee as complete information as we have, organized anyway you want. and today is a start in that regard. the problem comments into tears. the first is that sequestration, which is scheduled to kick in in just two weeks time requires us to subtract from our budget for the remainder of fiscal year 13, $46 billion. and as the chairman indicated, to do it in a way -- the worst way managerial econ and namely to take equal shares or proportionate share summation every part of the budget, which is obviously not what you so in the near term, what you have this here, in the next few months, it's a true crisis in military readiness. if the caps imposed that accompany sequester our continued for the next 10 years, as is the plan in the budget control act, we were going to have to change our national defense strategy. those cuts are too large, too sustained for us to implement the strategy that we crafted under the president's guidance just one year ago. >> i understand, mr. chairman, and i've long understood the department of defense must contribute to the resolution of the nation's fiscal situation. and that is why we have accommodated $487 billion in cuts last year. and before that, under secretary gates, made several hundred billion dollars of additional cuts in defense spending, largely by removing unneeded or underperforming programs. for also making, as you reference admiral when installed as having said, and historic adjustment associated with the winding down of the decade dominated by the wars in iraq and afghanistan. we are making that adjustment as well. i also understand the taxpayer deserves careful use of every dollar we do care. and that's why we've striven and will continue to strive to get better buying power for the acquisition system. both the strategic approach to deficit reduction and user defense dollars will be undermined by sequestration. what's particularly tragic is that sequestration is not a result of an economic recession for an emergency. it's not because discretionary spending cuts are the answer to our nation's fiscal challenge. you can do the math. it's not in reaction to a more peaceful world. you reference the north korean nuclear test this morning. it's not due to a breakthrough in military technology for a new strategic insight. it's not because the paths of revenue growth in entitlement spending have been explored and exhausted. it's not because sequestration was severed land not is intended to be implemented. all of this is purely the damage of political gridlock. for our troops for the force, the consequences are very real and very personal. i chose sheets out and 10 -- the president intends to spare military personnel spending from sequestration, but the troops will feel the effects of this very directly in other ways. for example, you reference the cancellation of a carrier deployment. we had to do that because we recognized we were going to run out of operations and maintenance funds later in the year and we made the decision to not deploy the carrier, but instead keep it here in the united states so we would have the capacity to deploy it later if we needed it. if we deploy it now, we would not have capacity to have a carrier deployed there in the future. we had to make that decision. all the sailors on the aircraft carrier were ready to go. they made plans for where they were going to live, for family care, schools, all those things that go with sending a loved one on a deployment. all that needed to change within a few days. army units coming down, i visit them around the country, back from afghanistan are used to be at the high state of readiness and what should motivate them his mission. by the end of the year and i think general odierno will detail this, they won't be training in the way that their profession requires them to. so it will have a big effect on our uniformed people. for our much-maligned civilians, a lot of people think dod civilians or people who live in the washington suburbs and get up in the morning and come in and go to work at an office building. they are not. mostly people at that those in shape errors that are fixing our equipment. 44% are veterans. 86% don't even live in the washington area. later in the year in just two weeks time, we're going to have to institute a process of for allowing non, which we will do consistent with a lot of requirements to you. but not of it is that many will be furloughed for 22 days before april 1st in the end of the year. another is, a fifth of their paycheck on. so that's a real human impact. i'd said i can't be furloughed under the law because and a presidential appointee, but i'm going to give back a fifth of my salary and the last seven months of the year if other people in the department at getting sequester. so there's a real human impact here. in the last impact i would like to call to your attention is that on our defense industry. we depend on our defense industry because it second only to the magnificent people we have in uniform is a make start military grade. and the effects of sequestration are going to be very significant on the defense industry and we see it already. we depend upon them to be able to attract and retain science and balaji tallent. we need them to be financially successful, but many industry partners are beginning now to curb internal investment, maintain a liquid position. the effects of this insurgency are beginning to show up in terms of investor confidence in our industry. their ability to attract and retain workers and to require me to stretch programs reduced by rates and all that introduces the inefficiency into our procurement system. so for the force, military civilian and industry of consequences are very direct and very devastating. i just added with an ipo that i ask you to convey to your colleagues in congress. we need to deal very quickly and broadly with our deficit problems and a balanced way that the president can support in congress can support. we need to dietrich or sequestration. we need to pass appropriations bills for all our federal agencies for that matter. i understand it's probably not enough time to accomplish all of these far-reaching actions before sequestration is triggered on march 1st. but i urge at least the congress do a sequestration. but isaiah emphasized, the cloud of uncertainty hanging over our nation's defense affairs is already having lasting and irreversible effects. and ultimately, the cloud of sequestration needs to be dispelled and not just move to the horizon. however this is done, the magnificent men and women of the department of defense and their families deserve no less. they need to know with certainty that we'll meet our commitments to them. our partners and defense industry and their employees need to know we have resources to procure the world-class capabilities they provide and do so efficiently and perhaps most important, allies, partners, friends and potential foes the world over need to know we have the political will to implement the defense strategy was put forward. thank you. >> thank you undersecretary carter. >> thank you so much for holding this. a touch of port readiness fatter. they sequestration occurs, it will severely limit our ability to implement our defense strategy. go put the nation at greater risk of coercion and breaks the with men and women in uniform. we have and will continue to be part of the nation's economic recovery. we are committed to remaining responsible steward says they were to build an affordable and unrivaled joint force for 2020. to do this, we need better certainty. that is the antithesis of sequestration, a steady, predictable funding stream. we'll see the time to implement reductions in a responsible manner over a manageable timeline and finally, we need flexibility to transfer and reprogram my two highest priorities. grittiness loses a major portions of the budget are untouchable. everything needs to be on the table. i believe we should resist taking this problem further down the road. failing to act as a choice of itself, one that will eventually required a progressive contraction of security commitments around the world a less proactive approach to protecting our interests. when i testified before this committee last year, i said if we fail to step up properly on this budget, we will reduce our options and in so doing, increase risk. our military feral unshed power will be less sustainable. rome a few days of making that reality. we can do better. our nation, service members and families expect us to do better. more importantly, turbulent world they rely some leadership demands we do better. thank you. >> thank you very much, general dempsey. secretary hale, do you have anything at this point? okay, thank you. general odierno. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ranking member, distinguished members come to 18 months ago you charge me with leading our army in providing you with my best military advice. over the course of my 36 year career, i've commanded every level, including division, core and theater command in combat. i know what it takes to prepare this nation sons and daughters for war. i know it takes to procedures in the army. i notice required to send soldiers into combat and i've seen firsthand the consequences undersigned unprepared. i began my career in a hollow army. i do not want to end my career in a hollow army. today the global environment is the most insert nicene in my 36 years of service. it's unpredictable and dynamic. we simply don't know when we'll have to deploy soldiers to fight egad. but history tells us that we will. we owe it to them to ensure they have the proper resources to be ready when needed. the fiscal outlook, which the u.s. army faces in fiscal year 13 is dire and to my knowledge unprecedented. in addition to the 170 billion in cuts to the army that it could budget control act of 2011, the combination of the continuing resolution, a shortfall -- excuse me, a shortfall in overseas contingency operation funds for afghanistan in the sequester in fiscal year 2013 has resulted in a 17, $18 billion shortfall to the operation and maintenance accounts. as well as an additional $6 cut to other programs. all of this will come in the remaining seven months of this year. the fiscal year at her teen fiscal situation was grave and immediate readiness impacts on all fours is not serving in an order for and korea. the impacts which will have a significant impact willing to fiscal year 14 and beyond. just a few actions will be forced to take will curtail training from 80% of ground forces. this loan type the basic war fighting skills and shortfalls across critical specialties, including aviation, intelligence, engineering and even our ability to recruit soldiers into our army. we have direct is an immediate army wide hiring freeze and will terminate and estimated 3100 temporary and turned employees. we will furlough up to 251,000 civilians for up to 22 days. we will cancel third and fourth quarter data maintenance, which will result in determination of an estimated 5000 employees and a significant delay in equipment readiness for six divisions and an estimated 3.36 billion impact to the communities surrounding her death does. for fiscal year 14 and beyond, sequestration will result in the loss of at least an initial 100,000 in all soldiers from the act of army, the army national guard and u.s. army reserve. combined with previous cuts come in this will result in a total reduction of at least 189,000 personnel from the force, but probably even more than that. these reductions will impact at the army base enabling solution in the army. sequestration will result in delays to everyone of her modernization programs. the inability to reset equipment after 12 years of lawyer and individual training. these cuts will be felt across the entire country. since 2008, total army budget will have been reduced by 37%. a of sequestration is enacted, it'll be greater than 45%. in my opinion, sequestration is not the best interest of our national security. will place an unreasonable burden on the soldiers of our soldiers and civilians. we will not go to execute department of defense strategic guidance as we developed last year. i understand seriousness of our country's fiscal situation. we have and will continue to do our part, the significance of budget reductions will directly impact our ability to sustain readiness today and into the future. we simply cannot take the readiness of our forests for granted. if we do not have the resources to train and equip the force, our soldiers, young men and women are the ones who pay the price, potentially with their lives. it is our responsibility, the department of defense and congress to ensure we never send soldiers into harms way that are not trained, equipped and ready for any contingency to include more. they must come up with a better solution. thank you so much for allowing me to testify in front of you today. >> thank you, general odierno. admiral ferguson. >> chairman levin, senator inhofe distinguished senators of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on this issue. simply stated, the combined effect of the resolution and sequestration will reduce our navies overseas presence and adversely impact material readiness and proficiency of our forests, both him and in the president's options in time of crisis. of equal concern, we will irreversibly damaged the industrial base who depend upon to build and maintain our ships and aircraft. under these circumstances, we assess your navy will be limited in its ability to provide capability and capacity called for in the current defense strategy. the navy will be unable to execute all the naval force requirements of the combatant commanders. the impact of the content resolution authority being fought across the fours as we reduce defense spending by $4.6 billion over the remainder of the fiscal year. because we are operating, we do not have congressional authority or funding for ongoing programs. for example, we will be compelled to delay the start of construction of john f. kennedy cbn 79, completion of america as well as cancel procurement of hundreds of weapons. without congressional authority, the kerry link and must remain at or folk rather than start overhaul that we will not appeal to complete the current overhaul of the uss theodore roosevelt. these debilitating effects will be compounded by the devastation of sequestration should execute on its form on march 1st appeared on that day, and maybe will face an additional reduction in the fiscal year for billion to operation and maintenance account and reduction of over 7 million to our investment accounts. the immediate impact will be to see operations and death of maintenance. we anticipate reducing flight operations were deployed forces, canceling deployments, deferring barmaid on ships and aircraft, suspending those non-deployed operations such as training and certifications along with other cost-cutting measures. we will immediately erode the readiness of the force. over the long-term, discretionary budget cuts under sequestration will fundamentally change your navy. we'll be compelled to reduce our force structure, in string and investments as the lower funding models and the altered landscape of our industrial base. but when the americans can the sailors in some families have increased anxiety to physical uncertainties such as the truman strike group you alluded to, senator. we must be mindful of this insurgency on the morale of people and vigilant regarding the potential effects of sequestration on the propensity of our force to stay with us in a new recruits to join. accordingly, we will make every effort to sustain family and sailor support programs. we asked the congress us quickly to reduce the magnitude of these reductions and replace the mechanism of sequestration with a coherent approach that addresses our national security interest. additionally, we request the congress and that's why 13 appropriations bill for other legislation that provides authorities for new starts and transfer authority between accounts to address shortfalls. look forward to read with the congress to resolve this insurgency we must ensure that our navy remains ready and capable to protect your nation security and prosperity. i appreciate the opportunity to testify today look forward to your questions. thank you. >> thank you, admiral. general amos. >> chairman levin, ranking member inhofe, committee members, thank you for the opportunity to testify on the end on trade impacts of sequestration. this topic is of high importance of implications not only to our fiscal health, but also nations necessary leadership in the global community. speaking as a member of the joint chiefs of staff, a critical measure of effectiveness of armed forces is its readiness. sequestration might magnitude, timing and methodology will have a devastating impact on readiness, both short-term and long, combined with the effects of the existing continuing resolution, sequestration creates an acceptable risk. risk to strategy cover risks to force has come risk sure people and lastly, risk to our nation. re: strategy, maintaining a free international economic system and a just international order are linchpins towards the defense strategic guideline. the effects of disruption to global order are readily observed in lower coaster energy prices fluctuating global markets, sovereign behavior and economic uncertainty. failing to provide leadership in the click the security of this global order would have significant economic consequences for the american people. worse, the lapse in american leadership would create a void in which old recipe and addressed a new security challenges would find room to grow. there should be no misunderstanding the combined effect of continuing resolution and sequestration will have deleterious effect on stability of the global order, perceptions of our enemies and confidence of our allies. sequestration should not be this solely as a budget issue. our collective actions in the next month will be scrutinized on a global stage and even perception of disruption our nation's ability to protect its global interests could well have strategic consequences. regarding risk to force his, the linkage between immediate and visible. the scale and abrupt implementation of sequestration will have devastating impacts on readiness. sequestration believe aircraft grounded for want of necessary maintenance and flying hours. units only partially trained in reset after 12 years of continuous combat and modernization programs canceled. because of our special role as america's crisis response force commemorates place a high premium on readiness. i've done everything today to preserve the tenants of a ready marine corps. i will continue to do so. i will under continuing resolution have kept applying units ready, but only stripping away foundations of the long-term readiness of the total fours while the short-term adaptations are possible, the enduring effects of some of these decisions put aside an unsustainable tipping point. by the end of this year, more than 50% in that combat units will be below minimal acceptable levels of readiness for deployment to combat. in a sense, we are eating our seed corn to feed current demands, maybe less to plant for the long-term capabilities of the force. this leads to a hollow force and its impacts are already being felt under the continuing resolution. the most troubling and immediate risk are those that sequestration imposes on our people. sequestration does not hurt things it hurts people. the qualitative edge the american service undertakes to the battlefields is the fundamental advantage that differentiates forces from our enemies. this combat edge will be eroded by the impacts of sequestration, leaving marines and other service members with inadequate training, degraded equipment and reduce survival ability. on military pay and allowances have been exempted in this room sequester, the quality of life for the all volunteer force and families will inevitably suffer as he reducing the programs and installation maintenance. civilian marines will likewise the impact a period of 95% of civilian workforce employed while site can't answer the capital region are the cards at our gates, budget experts to pay her bills. our acquisition professionals, therapies to treat or wounded and the experts to repair equipment in and finally, teachers who instruct your children. the economic impact of families and local communities protecting our ability to keep faith with wounded warriors is a top priority in my marine corps. but even this, this most sacred of responsibilities will increasingly be placed at risk. in closing, allow me to articulate one more set of risks. the risk to our nation. the final analysis, sequestration from those who bring the greatest sacrifice. it invalidates the services to manage a predictable racers steve kline, replacing instead with the cliff that guarantees with waste and its accommodation. the effects of sequestration over the long-term will threaten foundations of the all volunteer force, putting the nation security and a vector that is potentially mellowness. it's robotically shapes perceptions of our government is both an employer and customer, reducing confidence throughout institutions. there are -- these are all risks that demand immediate attention and action. by scale, timing and a flexibility in implementation, sequestration greatly aggravates her profile. i urge the committee created by this legislation and ask your assistant to mitigating them to the extent possible. thank you and i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you, general and most. general welsh. >> thank you, mr. chairman. members of the committee, it's an honor to appear before you. the crucial capability for america's air force is alarming and effects on readiness and of structure and eventually modernization. the potential $12.4 billion topline reductions or the air force in 2013. if it occurs it will undermine air force readiness unresponsiveness today. it will significantly impact air for a civilian workforce in the coming and its impact on modernization clearly affect the air force's future capability. i'm a stats for specific examples to services, but just to highlight a few, sequestration will result in involuntary furloughs the secretary mentioned that will affect 180,000 civilian airmen are that deprives the air force at dirty 1.5 then hours of productivity and specialist expertise this year. the resultant loss of 200,000 flying hours. well they protect afghanistan and other contingency areas come in nuclear deterrence and initial flight training, roughly two thirds will curtail training beginning in march will drop below acceptable readiness levels by mid-may. most of the completely non-mission capable by july. sequestration will cut 30% of the remaining system funds which means we need to postcode approximately 150 aircraft and 85 inches from death when action, creating a backlog to take years to recover. the air force's global village and empower maketh an asymmetric advantage through strategic ability and responsiveness require a high state of readiness. sacrificing madness jeopardizes airpower and from a parochial air force perspective, sequestration will have an immediate effect to respond to multiple concurrent operations around the globe, something we've been asked to do many times along with sister services. longer-term sequestration to modernization will impact every investment program. program disruptions will cost the taxpayer dollars to rectify unit cause and capabilities for war fighters in the field. the air force is long overdue for reconstitution following two decades of war. inventory includes aircraft as well as solidify and enforces as small as it's ever been is becoming a separate service. we find ourselves stuck in the trade space between readiness and modernization in the nature hope to get out. i urge the congress for the arbitrary cuts and pass an appropriations measure for the current fiscal year and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, general welsh, chairman grass. >> chairman levin, it's an honor for this should be here today. the greatest threat to the national guard today as they continued uncertainty over the budget. i provide adjutants gender with a summary of near-term measures to assist them in mitigating budget risk of or readiness. however, without near-term relief, ability to respond to domestic and contingencies will decline. in personnel, we are implementing a civilian hiring freeze for not renewing temporary civilian leave. we are planning to do for sustainment and maintenance requirements for aircraft, vehicles and facilities. the national guard is reviewing every bit of overhead across our force. we were curtail the conference attended an all travel and training that is not mission essential to produce readiness. full sequestration and a year-long continuing resolution will directly impact readiness of unit can have an impact on the full range of national guard activities. in the area personnel, government civilian and military technician compounded by a 22 day furlough will limit ability to train and maintain our national guard forces. in the area of maintenance, current ipo backlogs coupled with loss of reset dollars will reduce national guard equipment, availability of readiness and modernization engaging arm infrastructure. continuing resolution prohibits any new stars on our military construction. further threat name armory and facility modernist issued master-planned. in the area of training, near-term lack of operations and maintenance funds will cut our fine program or reduce vehicle miles in operations and maintenance, causing readiness. if not addressed will part vehicles and aircraft. in a matter of months, readiness is an operational force for nation's defense and media, and response capabilities available to the governors fully road. thank you for opportunity to appear before you today and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, general grass. we are going to start with a three minute first-round and see whether that make it as to where we need to go. i'm going to yield to senator kaine. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to the leadership assembled. i appreciate your courtesy. yesterday, unrelated to the hearings i visited a premier medical facility to visit with wounded warriors, families and also medical professionals who treat them. i said i'm in the senator, what would you like to tell me or ask me? i would do a lot of talking about medical care for a good duty and veterans. they wanted to talk to me about budget uncertainty. they asked a budget uncertainty would affect medical care they receive right now and, finance received. they wanted to talk about budget uncertainty and tri-care benefits. your testimony goes in to try care deficits by year-end. a guardsman whose full-time civilian job is a dod civilian job wanted to talk about what furloughs mind another safety medical retirement want to talk a little bit about workforce they might be going back into an potential effect on the economy of drastic cuts that would make it harder for them to get traction to civilian life. this is a series are expected to be talking about many things, but what i heard and ended up talking about was budgetary insurgency. this follows the testimony secretary secretary panetta and dempsey last week. i wanted to ask questions focusing on sunday the issues. the announcements last week with the truman and lincoln. i know one of the priorities are focusing on is trying to make decisions that are in fact reversible should congress to her business and get this right. some of the decisions even now, how long can we persist down that path before decisions are to have the reversible effect of readiness in shape of incapacity? >> senator, beginning february 15, will begin notification to private shipyards about the first of maintenance availabilities up to the point and under the constraint resolution. this maintenance actions will be deferred. if we do not get the authorities in the bill to start work on the carrier and complete the overhaul or start the overhaul, three carriers are tied and been delayed because we don't have authority. and so, those are reversible with congressional action. on the sequestration issue and with truman, we had to look at what happens to the navy under sequestration. we effectively stopped training and certifications of their wings. we shut down for airwaves on march 1st. after 90 days, pilots or of certification and now takes six to nine months to return to the higher cost. in our rss that condit was more prudent to delay chairman later this summer and for george bush to deploy later this year, early next year to provide continuous coverage of the middle east rather than to carriers don't fall off completely in fiscal year 14. the impacts under sequestration a lot great though, the greater impact of readiness for our forces in a longer recovery time and greater expense. the next thank you very much. >> i enjoyed visiting with yesterday. apostates are headed are had about as anyone. there's a.and here i know has circulated to everyone. the air force alone shows which it is is suggested in 92 as an avian air. i would like to ask all the other services that did not provide as with this information and format shows every state by each one of us, could you try to get that for me? i assume that he say yes. you heard what i said about pat when the field. you agree the statement he made. anyone disagree? >> secretary carter, planning towards an end of march release of the fiscal 14 budget, i understand takes place today with custom sequestration. yes or no assigned. >> no. >> okay. you heard senator mccain in a complaint about stuff in the defense budget such as the nine times as much per gallon for the navy to buy 450 gallons and all that. we do not now, before the record, send me some into intentions and putting things in the budget they do not really provide for defense? we do have a department of energy. would you do that for the record? >> absolutely. >> what we're over there about the problems with the howling of the readiness in terms of pilot training, number of hours. is this dramatically increase your problem? what i'm trying to get to hear we may have to go to the record. aeschylus rose. be put into a quantitative amount of what this could cause in terms of lives were at risk? yes or no assigned. >> yes, sir. >> which you make sure we get that for the record? >> general odierno come you in general and those talked about readiness and i appreciate that. again, readiness, risk mis. would you do the same senior service or have you done this already quick >> yes, sir. >> lastly on the -- general dempsey avril ferguson in combat has been in my opening statement and secretary panetta announced the truman carrier strike group. we be as specific as you can as to what the consequences would be in a lack of a two carrier prices, what it means for ongoing centcom operations? we do that for us? in my case, senator, i will. >> thank you very much. >> thank you very much, senator inhofe. senator reid. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary carter, i want to clarify part of your testimony that if we are able to avoid sequestration, this nicotine issues going forward, is that correct? >> ready. sequestration per se, the item by item cut only applies to fiscal year 13, but the budget control act is more than cut the fy 13 budget. it cuts the defense budget by large amount, roughly $50 billion every year for the next 10 years. that's the part that turns readiness crises into a change of strategy with cut on top of what we've done. >> so the media challenge is sequestration and obviously the amadeus for continuing resolution this year. but longer-term and strategic concepts that we also have to reevaluate and perhaps redo the whole budget control act strategy. >> we would have to go back and redo our national defense strategy if we had those kinds. >> let me ask another question. you have contractual obligations to procurement acquisition, et cetera. are you in a position where you have to avoid those contracts and pay penalties or is that something ironically perhaps you're going to continue to build equipment, aircraft, ships, et cetera but the same time promoting the readiness of the force? >> sequestration and cuts only apply to an obligated funds. if we've entered into a contract, the contract is so good of us who choose to break it because everything else is going on. what will very much be affected his contracts we intend to venture. for example, multiyear contracts, which we have intentions to enter because they're more efficient and cost the manufacturer to produce things in a more economically efficient way to escape for the taxpayer and those kinds of things will not be able to do. as avril ferguson pointed out, a lot of our ship actions are constrained account by account in the continuing resolution. he can't do anything to start the new ship. he's only allowed to go the same shape he built last year, which doesn't make any sense. >> let me ask a related question, to assuming the resolution somewhere down the road, you are going to have to probably spent more money restarting it dvds, recalling personnel, making up for training by doubling up not on the air sea forces. is that another consequence. the irony could be the savings are quite rapid when we go back to business. >> this costs money because it wastes money, starting, stopping, going up, going down, inherently inefficient. so all of our managers who try so hard to use the taxpayer saw at the best way get things so they work with industry partners to get a good deal for the government. all that stuff is in the wastebasket in the circumstances and it's really a shame. >> thank you for your testimony. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator mccain. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think witnesses for being here in their service to the country. it's kind of what you say an orwellian experience here we are looking not feaster conan cuts already some of the manifestations of the requirements have taken place. meanwhile it's a day after north korea tests another nuclear weapon. iraq is unraveling, iranians just rejected the vice president's proposal for one-on-one talks concerning nuclear weapons. libya is obvious, mali, egypt in a state of unrest, now tunisia. we're probably the more unsettled. since the end of the cold war they certainly have ever seen. would you agree with that assessment? >> i absolutely agree. >> meanwhile, signal we send to the radiant is don't worry this aircraft carrier is not coming. this is really a disconnect, the likes of which i have never seen before. now i want to talk about the sequestration because senator graham, senator ayotte and i traveled around warning about the effects of sequestration. we went to a lot of places where men and women in the military say how can we possibly do this, cause this uncertainty in the lives of the men and women who are serving? latest being cancellation of deployment of the aircraft carrier? meanwhile, the president of the united states that it won't happen. during the campaign, won't happen. we're worried for a long time that it was going to happen in this disgraceful to treat the men and women in the military, who we all speak with such advocacy and passion on their behalf to be subject it to this kind of day today kind of uncertainty that they volunteered to serve this country. but we owed them a certain amount of certainty i see how they are going to be treated, with their assignments will be an frankly what their will be. would you agree quick >> i absolutely do. >> would you say, by the way, omb put out the word don't worry sequestration is going to take place. you don't have to comply with the warrant act. the warn act requires 60 days, in some cases 90 days notification to employees that will be laid off. i think we just place the federal government in a state of very significant possibility of calling a lot of money to a lot of the military. most importantly, and i don't expect you to respond to this, but we elect presidents for a reason and that is to lead. it seems to me that it's now time for the president of the united states to call leaders of congress to the white house and save up, if you accept the word of every one of our military leaders as the effect of sequestration, if you accept the fact that the world is becoming more and more dangerous, then this is the worst time and we should sit down and come to an agreement to prevent the sequestration if only not only for national security, the benefit of the men and women serving this nation and i'd be glad to hear any response you might have an respond to one of my assertions. >> thank you, senator ayotte and senator graham. our member when he took that trip and is very grateful because we have felt like we've been voices crying in the wilderness for 16 months. this committee is an exception because each and every one of you knows the department of defense, and his national security and could really be aware of what we face. you know, there was a time when i thought that sequestration wasn't likely either. i used to say that i was hopeful and optimistic. and then i said i was just hope i'll end now i'm not even hopeful because for only two weeks away from it. so we now have for some time not only been planning for it, but taking action and nice witchy or describes, even though it hasn't kicked in, in order to soften to the extent that's possible in the last few months of the year, the effects of this were starting to take actions now. that's what you see in carrier and other things. if sequester goes away in march 1st or shortly thereafter, all of these actions will have been unnecessary and inefficient as was pointed out early. but we feel like we have to take them now because we can't rule out the possibility that were really going to do this. >> i believe our witnesses would agree this could have a long-term effect on retention. i thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator mccain. senator mccaskill. >> thank you, mr. chairman. one thing this place is good about us and them moment comes that we have to compromise yelling about how we got to this place in the first place. i want to gently point out for the record that both the ranking republican on the senate armed services committee and the chairman of the house armed services committee voted for the budget control act. .. >> sign me up for the compromise and for some revenue. i think that, you know, we have money right now that we are paying out to farmers that we all acknowledge is a huge waste of money. and billions of dollars come it isn't really going to farmers. whether they are making a lot of money or not, need to cut back on the we need to do with the next two weeks, we need to make sure that the money goes towards defense where we know we cannot afford what we are looking out over the next 10 years. having said that, i would like someone to tell me if we gave you the ability, because you know, there are a lot of folks that say 46 million -- excuse me, 46 billion out of the budget ought to be manageable. if you have the authority to cut it where you want to cut it instead of the way that we are handcuffing you under the sequester, where but that 36 billion come from >> at a minimum, we ought to give you a discretion to cut where you would do the least amount of harm. >> okay, if i may, you are right that obviously the mechanism of sequester which makes us cut everything in proportion is done from any kind of managerial point of view. i have to say at this point in the fiscal year, it doesn't matter that much. we have to go everywhere to get a $46 billion at this point. anywhere you can get the money, we must go and get the money. because remember in many places we can't access it or lay people off. we can furlough them, but we cannot furlough them for more than 22 days. we can furlough them for a up for 22 days. the president has rightly exempted military personnel. by this time in the fiscal year, a large amount of the funding has been obligated or constrained. all we have is left. as general or tierno explained, it is tiny. he has no room to go. it doesn't help that much. although, i appreciate the thoughts. >> if there are any specific you can give us about whether or not it would help to give you that discretion, if there are any specific that you can provide, that would be great. very rarely do we have all of you here at one time. all you are all here, you mentioned this to a couple of you. if you have not yet seen the documentary, the invisible war, i certainly hope that every single one of you see above for the next chance i have to visit with you. if you have specific recommendations after seeing that movie on how we can look ourselves in the mirror and feel much better about the victims of sexual assault within the military, i would love to hear your ideas. i'm determined to make a difference in that regard over the next year. the movie is nominated for for an oscar for one of the best documentaries this year. i certainly hope that you all see it. thank you. >> mr. chair, let me respectively correct the senator senator from missouri. i did not vote for that -- >> i should've said at the time that it was voted upon, the ranking republican, senator mccain and buck mckeon voted for the budget control act. they were the leading republicans on armed services in the two houses at the time. i should have made it clear. it was the ranking republican of the time we took the vote. >> senator ayotte? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank all of our military leaders are being here today, for your service and everything. everything you do for us. to put things in a bigger picture here, sequestration, on a scale from one to 10. one being the least dangerous and 10 being the most dangerous, how dangerous is sequestration in terms of the safety of this country? >> i will take a shot at that, senator. it sure feels like a think tank may not country and want to negotiate me down -- >> i'm asking for your professional judgment. any disagreement on that? >> we are at a place right now where we are facing very dangerous times around the world. would you all agree with that? it's not a time to take a peace dividend? >> if i could, because i didn't get a chance to respond on the issue of the mechanism is one thing. the magnitude of this thing even if we got all of the authority and the universe to deal with it, this would be the steepest, biggest reduction in total obligating authority in history at a time while i will attest to the fact that it's more dangerous than it's ever been. >> i thank you. you know, one of the things that we have mentioned, it was mentioned by senator inhofe and others on this panel, a bill that would come up with alternative savings to provide at least sequestration for the end of the fiscal year. there are many of us who are trying to work towards solutions. as senator mccain mentioned, we could travel around the country over the last 18 months, having heard from all of you about the concerns of what this would do torment and women in uniform. i want to ask the admiral about a particular impact and are attack submarine fleet. would you believe will be the impact on that on the attack submarine fleet, the virginia class submarine and public shipyards? >> well, i believe under sequestration, you will see us take action to do for the repairs in the naval shipyard. you will see us make every effort to preserve our dominance, and the we have issued contracts in 2013, and those will be -- for example, there is a training ship that is affected by sequestration has an impact. in a few years, there will be production of 1100 operators per year, for example. by the end of this year with the hiring freeze, we lose about 350 workers per week, 1400 per month out of our industrial base, we will be down 3000 in our shipyards, if we furlough, we will furlough the workers in our shipyard, it will cascade through the public yards and really cascade us going forward. >> i think you come at all. i am sure that my colleagues, senator king and senator shaheenshare my concern on the important work done in maintaining this. i appreciate the insight that you have provided us there. another impact showing us why this is important. why our national security is not impacted by sequestration. i have some additional questions. i'm hoping that we will have a second rounder i will submit to you all additional questions for the record, including secretary carter. i would like to understand whether we would have to pay damages because the omb guidance. >> thank you, senator kelly ayotte. senator udall? >> it is clear from your testimony that sequestration will have very real threats to our national security. as is the case, our soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines and coast guardsmen will be the bill payers if we fail to meet our obligations. the senator from missouri, she voted for the dca in the summer of 2011 to avoid defaulting on her good credit rating. it is on our shoulders to put the national interest ahead of the petty partisan sniping that has been occurring in this town, in regards to the sequester. i really like to say that frankly if we allow this kind of harm to be done to our country, it will not make a difference. if we can't compromise, let's work to mitigate the effects. >> i understand it is sequestration takes hold, training above the battalion level will essentially stop, except for units preparing for afghanistan. he began to see that, we believe in trying to increase the amount of time, we've been taught that our troops and men and women in uniform. can he speak to that? >> yes, we have currently funded the next group of units that would go into afghanistan. we cannot from the group that comes after them. that would be done in the later part of 2013. what that means is the initial replacements are funded. we would take them much longer to be prepared. we will have to make a decision somewhere along the line to extend those already there or send people there that are not ready. and i choose people not to send them there. that is a cascading impact that we have the we will probably have the 2013 budget. >> thank you for that clarification. another reason why we have to get this right here in the congress. general, if i could turn to you, we probably host the command in colorado springs. last week you issued a press release that warned that sequestration could lead to major cuts in essential programs and i want to quote this morning and say see surveillance, our operations to eight hours per day will be cut. it will impact missile warning, situational awareness, and the intelligence community. that would indicate that the space command would not be able to fulfill their basic mission requirements is sequestration goes into effect. is that an accurate assessment? how would ballistic missile warning to be affected by reductions in surveillance operations. of course, our friends in north korea are at it again. they just had another test. you might speak specifically about that situation as well. >> thank you, senator. space command has the advantage of having a fairly wide latitude of where to take the money from under the cuts for sequestration. compared to some other accounts, it actually gives him a little more freedom. what they have done -- when you talk about 24/7 coverage, it takes him down to providing capacity in their system. missile warning is not impacted. but we still have the impact. that threat will not be detected. but the redundancy, what is now indicated, when they are cut we have to take the money from somewhere, we've taken it from the backup, the secondary capabilities of those major radars. that is actually what is happening. >> thank you for the clarification. i see my time is up. i would like to urge the senate armed services committee to lead the way in finding a compromise that could involve revenue, strengthening our entitlement programs, and targeted spending cuts. we could do this in this committee, show them the way forward. >> thank you, senator. senator fisher? [inaudible conversations] >> we are going to need you to use another microphone. maybe you can switch seats. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you ranking member senator inhofe, i would like to begin by thanking all of you for your service. i thank you on behalf of the people of this country, and i would also like to recognize the men and women that you recognize and represent. thank you. i would like to visit with you some about our nuclear modernization and readiness. doctor carter, as you know, the president has committed to modernizing our nuclear deterrent and the cost estimates that were provided, i believe it was last year by the department, it was about $56 million in order to sustain and modernize that over five years and 126 billion. is that still a good estimate, do you believe it is an affordable investment, that americans should be making in our deterrent capabilities? >> well, we do need to have a safe and secure, a reliable nuclear deterrent as far into the future as that i can see. it does require that we have the scientists and engineering base. the facilities and the life extension programs and other things that we do to keep the nuclear arsenal going. if the budget cuts that begin with sequestration extend over 10 years, if they are actually visited upon us, i can't imagine that we won't have to also look at the nuclear part of our structure in order to accommodate some of the savings. you know, that is true also with the department of energy, which we don't have responsibility towards come about does have responsibility for budget cuts as well. the only thing that i would say is that the nuclear deterrent is pretty important. it's the last thing you would want to do serious damage to. so i would imagine that the department of energy and the leadership there,, certainly we in the department of defense would attract this to the maximum extent possible. you know, general welch was just describing that. it's not critical. he is still able to do the mission. but he is doing a little bit less than he used to do. i think you will see that in the nuclear programs. >> you know, we are looking at severe cuts and conventional forces. if i'm hearing you correctly, you would say that our nuclear deterrent and would be a national priority? >> i think it is, but that doesn't mean that it will escape entirely the cuts of this magnitude. but it is something that we would value pretty highly because look at what the north koreans are doing today. we really have to have a safe and secure and reliable deterrent. >> thank you, i will have a follow-up question in regards to that. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you senator fisher. senator shaheen? >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i'm sorry, i misspoke. >> i thought you're going you were going to let me get in their. >> she slipped in time. i apologize to you. senator hagan? >> thank you, mr. chairman. we appreciate your service to our country. thank you for your time today. the devastating impacts of sequestration, which we have all heard about, if it is to be avoided in this late hour, i really do appreciate the candor that you have shared with us that certainly does play an important role. the emerging threats and capabilities subcommittee, i'm very concerned about the possible impact of sequestration and north carolina is home to the headquarters of the u.s. army joint special operations army command in the marine corps and army command. as well as thousands of special operators and their families. admiral mcraven has noted repeatedly that there is a greater demand for special ops forces today than at any point in our history. as we prepare to drawdown in afghanistan, special operations forces will likely remain. additionally, as long as al qaeda and its affiliates remain a threat to our nation, our special operations will remain engaged abroad. i understand the combined impact of these issues, they could cut approximately 23% and the special ops operations and 9% in the investment accounts, essentially returning to command fiscal 2007 levels, low the budget request for fiscal year 2013. doctor carter, general dempsey, if these cuts go forward, how will the impact the readiness of our special operation forces? >> well, it is devastating. i will let the chairman speak to it more. but the reason this is hit especially hard, it is the same reason that general odierno and the army gets hit especially hard. mainly that they have a lot of funding in the overseas contingency operation account. that gets hit by sequester, and we have to protect the wars. you protect a part of it that is working in afghanistan right now. the rest of it has to pay a larger price. i would say that our strategy is not to shrink our special operations forces, but to grow them. we said lester that we were going to take $487 billion in cuts, and that we could do it and that we have a new strategy. that strategy -- our plan is -- it still is to go our special operations forces. all of that is obviously in question now because of sequestration. but of sequestration is averted and we get back on course, special operations forces will actually grow slightly. i think from 65,000 up to 72,000, if i remember. i was just at fort bragg a couple weeks ago and discuss this. it is a priority to we are counting on these individuals. we are really looking to the special operations forces. and it just seems incongruous to me that we think we can count on that. at the same time we are looking at a 20% cut. >> there is plenty of incongruent vehicle around and i would only add to it with the deputy secretary said. in the first round of these cuts, we did advance the special operations. but of sequestration occurs in the magnitude we are discussing, everyone will be affected. we have to maintain the joint force of conventional and unconventional capabilities. >> well, obviously -- special operations forces to rely heavily, as you're saying, for the significant enabling support, including the intelligence surveillance reconnaissance medical evacuation and logistics. the general and the admiral, i'm running out of time. as representatives of the military services, how would that impact your ability for your services to provide these critical enabling capabilities to our special operations forces >> senator hagan, if i could go first, again, as i said, reduction in training, aviation training, all of these will have an impact on providing much of the enabling support we provide to special operations forces. we are going to lose 37,000 flying hours in 2013. that will take a while to recover from. we have to go through and meet all of our forces, so they will be affected by the reductions that we face. >> senator hagan, 6.5 years ago, a number of marines were planned to be about 2500. due to the requirements and meet in the real world, i believe we should grow that for 700,000. we are sitting about 2600 today. the sequestration continues to persist, especially over the next 10 years. it is unlikely that the extra thousand that i said would be available. >> two areas rest, we will continue to provide the enablers to her special forces. on the platform, you will see a decreased presence in the more difficult time during the training and preparation for deployment because of sequestration. >> thank you, senator hagan. here is where we are at. the votes that were scheduled for 11:00 o'clock are scheduled for 1130 pm. which means that we can completely finish our first round and hope that we have a couple, perhaps, second rounds, if necessary. the goal being to complete this hearing by 11:40 p.m. it is now five minutes after 11:00 a.m. >> [inaudible] >> i would ask our staff to notify our members that there may be a few minutes for a few second rounds. if they are interested, they should let us know. the meeting of our committee that was scheduled for 2:30 p.m. will begin at 2:45 p.m. we have two votes at 2:15 p.m. this afternoon. after consulting with senator inhofe, we will begin our meeting this afternoon at 2:45 p.m. instead of 2:35 p.m. i would ask everyone to vote early so we can begin promptly at 2:45 p.m. this afternoon. now, i am going to call in and senator graham and then go to senator shaheen. to thank you, gentlemen. thank you, mr. chairman for having this hearing. i can't think of a better topic to talk about. can you tell us how bad this is? >> i have a degree in english from duke university, and the answer is yes. i don't know what it's going to take, but we will just keep trying. bases closing seems to get everyone's attention. we'll be have less legal basis is sequestration is implemented. >> that falls under the base closure realignment process. >> how many shifts will they have? >> if it is enacted with the budget caps over the nine-year period, we anticipated to shrink by approximately 50 ships and to carrier air groups and a proportional number of other groups. >> groups. >> in english, how many is that? >> 220, 230. >> all right. we have less airplanes? >> yes. >> what happens to the f-35? >> it depends on what it is going forward. >> with a sequestration goes fully into effect. >> we will have to look completely at the program. >> it will be hard to modernize, wanted? >> yes. >> would make it more difficult to go in to a situation like an attack on iran in the future? >> yes,. >> from the army point of view, the general will agree unless army bases? we will definitely have less with the combat teams come, about 40% reduction of sequestration. >> okay,. >> we will have to look at closing basis that we do not. >> okay. has anybody thought about resigning in protest? >> i don't know if you're going to journey aboard idle. >> well, none of us run away, that is not our nature. i will tell you personally, if ever a force disintegrated and so on when ready, then we are asked to do it, it would be immoral to use the force must is well-trained and well-equipped. are we rb on the path to creating that? >> we are on the path. please understand that we are on the path to require our military protect us in a circumstance where they know that they don't have the ability, given what we are doing, the training, the readiness of the forest, and general dempsey, i can't see it any better. you all of you agree with the general statement? would you please say yes or no into the microphone? >> yes. >> yes. >> yes, sir. >> thank you all for your service. >> thank you very much, senator graham. senator graham, your question, as i understand it, is an extremely good one. referring to the current nine-year sequestration. >> yes, we are on the path. >> sequestration is putting us onto a path of putting our military leaders in a great moral dilemma, knowing that they cannot -- knowing that they cannot prevent people from dying unnecessarily. >> i understand that. i agree with that. i just want to make sure. >> yes, sir. >> it was bad enough the first year. >> okay. senator shaheen? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you all very much for being here and for your candor in terms of your response to what has clearly been irresponsible on the part of congress. i voted for the budget control act, as did the majority of my colleagues in the senate and the majority in the house. because i thought we were going to be responsible about how we been responded to coming up with a long-term solution to address this country's debt and deficit. the fact that we have not, i think it means that each and every one of us in the congress should take a second look at what our job is in this body. the fact is that we can come up with with a long-term solution that avoids the impact of sequestration and the devastating toll that all of you are talking about this morning on our military and our defense. but in order to do that, we all have to put aside some of our sacred cows and be flexible. we have to look at the entire budget. we have to look at spending. we have to look at revenues. and we have to look at our mandatory programs. i can pledge to you that i can do everything that i wanted to be flexible and be willing to look at all of these options that we have to get a solution. because this is not, just as you point out, military readiness and national security, it is also about the economy of the country. anyone who looks at those economic numbers from the fourth quarter has to understand if we continue on the path we are on, we are going to put economic growth in this country, that means everything and all the other perspectives are of the economy, we are going to put that at risk. i can understand your frustration. i share it and i don't blame you one bit. now, i have a question. you talk very eloquently about the impact on men and women who are serving on our security. but i would like you, if you would, to please talk about the impact on this country's industrial base. because i know that we have heard from some of the businesses in new hampshire, there has been one firm quoted as saying that 20,000 small businesses would be affected these cuts are not addressed. i am wondering if you could elaborate on the potential reversibility of sequestration with respect to the industrial base and small businesses. >> secretary carter? >> i thank you for the question. it is a very serious impact. i talked about larger companies that are telling me, as i said, maintaining more liquidity, they have a capital structure that allowed him to survive. sixty to 70 cents of every dollar ends up as a subcontractor. many of these are small businesses that don't have the capital structure to be able to withstand blows and to be turned on and off and so forth. i am concerned. our industry partners are concerned. some of them are just not going to make it. and you don't have a supplier for a critical component until both of the magnitude and abruptness of the impact -- also the uncertainty that lingers. small businesses are important to us because they are the source of a lot of innovation. they bring new ideas and people into the defense field, which we need. many of our most dynamic new ideas and systems and so forth, they originate a small business. we are concerned about the health of the so-called lower tiers of the industrial basis we make this adjustment. >> senator, if i could ask him another concern for the navy is the people involved. the very highly skilled craftsmen and tradesmen, taking yours developed. that we could lose those skills on or goes away. when they are furloughed and they may make a choice to retire federal service. with that aspect, and in the secondary one, we have many suppliers. if we cut off the development and construction of these systems, they don't have any work for them for critical components. >> okay, that could have a significant impact on jobs and the economy is dependent. >> jobs could also reconstitute the industrial base and the ability is in response to crisis to rent ramp-up in the future of. >> obviously i share the concern of senator ayotte and senator king. we are seeing that already with potential impact this could have. i thank you all very much. >> thank you, senator shaheen. senator blunt? >> thank you, let's talk about jobs and the workforce. enrile ferguson, just to be sure that i understand what you're saying, but in the shipyard, if people get furlough, some of them eventually decide this is not my long-term career path. >> i think that is the potential outcome. >> okay, general welch, i asked the other day about the team in st. louis because that is the big line that i'm most familiar with. we have lots of little defense contractors in missouri. i did it to her of some of these businesses last year. as i recall, one of them was out in the country and at one time, it had been a dairy barn. everything is run by computers. you know, very sophisticated. very purposeful, but if they don't have that contract, i am sure they are not conditioned in the way that allows him to just wait until the next. that business would go away. but what about -- as i have always been told, is that always was to go away, that is why some of our sales were so important to keep the line open. what are your concerns if you all say that we are going to be able to follow through with our plan for the number of planes that we ordered. >> some of the major defense contractors have the ability to absorb some of the workforce into their public side of the house. a very large public aircraft production capacity, we are facing a more immediate problem especially for the remainder of this year. if we stop 150 airplanes that i mentioned, and sequestration occurs, we will furloughed not just furlough, but the workload stop. many of the small business contracts that provide parts and people to come in and do specialized work, it will really start to go downhill. this will be a furlough not because you are furlough when people because of sequestration, but it meant that they don't have any work to do? >> it will be both. >> let's talk about the other part of that. general, you and i talked about some of your uniform personnel because of the way the function uniquely. we have civilians wearing the uniform, things like [inaudible] but on your civilian personnel, what are you thinking you have to do in terms of telling them not to show up for work a certain number of days for the next six months? >> senator, if sequestration were to kick in, some of the information that we passed on is one day a week, maximum, for the rest of the fiscal year, starting probably in april. again, we have not implemented that. we are taking a look at that. what it means for the national guard is the bulk of our maintenance is completed each day by civilian technicians. the ones that work each day. as we begin to draw those down for that time, we begin to see a detriment in our readiness of armories across the nation. i just did a study other day looked at a 10% reduction of our stock and aviation within the next six months. that is on top of shutdowns that are going to cause us problems. >> i may have some questions. i have one last question, and then i'm out of time. i appreciated your sense that even if you are given some flexibility, the time is so short, what money is left -- that may not be what we need to have done. when you submitted your budget, were you asked to submit an alternative to the sequestration number for next year? >> no, we were not. we were asked to prepare the 2014 budget according to the guidance we were given. late last year. >> okay, thank you. senator blumenthal? yields senator nelson for question. >> mr. secretary, how do you think the u.s. should respond to this dangerous and unprecedented action by north korea? >> well, there is nothing more provocative than what the north koreans did. they did it to coincide with the state of the union. they had several other holidays this week that they could've taken advantage of, they tend to like to do it on holidays. it is very dangerous. we will take action to condemn and get the rest of the international community to condemn north korea. i'm particularly looking to china to join in that condemnation. they are a pivotal role in influencing north korea. that is an extremely dangerous situation. and the chinese have significant influence over it. we need them to use it. >> thank you, senator blumenthal? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think each and every one of you for your service to the country and your extraordinary performance under very difficult conditions. not only fiscal conditions, but also you are caring for the men and women in uniform, it has impressed me beyond words. your dedication to them, whether it is health care or families. we often say that our people are the most important aspects. and you have lived that concept in the way that you have led by example. i am very grateful to you on that. i would like to ask in terms of people, you outlined the effects on tri-care. cuts of two to $3 billion, and that our health system may not be able to pay its bills. can you tell us very briefly what you see for the effects. the potential sequester our men and women in uniform? >> yes, i can talk about secretary hale adding to that. but you are exactly right. under this scenario the scenario that we all fear so much, by the time we get to the end of the year, we are out of money. it is very hard to cut back health care the way that you can cut back meetings or training. because you can't just tell people they can be sick or they can't see a doctor. you can do a little of that with elected procedures and so forth. but the reality is by the end of the year, we are a few billion dollars short. that means that we may have to cut back on the care we can provide. >> just briefly, we are looking for a way around what i view as a crisis. it may be the best way by far, to trigger the scum you have heard it repeatedly. but let me just add my voice to that. we need to not do this. >> okay, my understanding is that the navy is continuing to do its program. is that correct? >> only 2013. the 2014 numbers, we don't have an appropriations bill and the issue is unresolved. so the two in 2014 are under contract and proceeding. it is questionable based on the outcome of congressional action with our budget request an appropriate authority. >> i am concerned, as my colleagues have said, about the defense industrial base, our workforce, our skilled working men and women, those with the joint strike fighters, the submarines, those all around the united states. those retaining be at work force that we are faced with, when it comes to sequester. i think all of you for your service. i hope you will be able to talk about that policy. >> okay, mr. chairman, on that point, we talked a lot about furloughs. it is just worth noting that we need to find $46 billion of the sequestration between now and the end of the year. for loading everybody, oliver 300,000 employees in the maximum allowable under the law is 5 billion. even if we do that, we still have 41 to go. that $41 billion shows up and contracted services. that is where the money will come from. it will affect all of the people who work for us that have worked for national defense, but they are not employees of the department of defense. and there are many such people, we do depend on them. the builder systems. they provide some of the expertise. that $41 billion, much of that will go to cutting their work for us. >> if i could just add to that. >> yes, general. >> we're going to have to reduce purchase orders over his 3000 small companies. persistent tells us 1100 of those are at moderate to high risk of bankruptcy. we're not even talking about the impacts of the small companies that exist -- we are being spent on every installation. we actually believe that sequestration goes into effect and it will be well over 10,000. the impact that we have built between art that those and our civilian assistance will be quite significant. it will be -- it will hit the small companies, which i think is devastating for us as we move forward. >> that is very important. >> thank you, senator blumenthal. there have been a number of questions for the record that have been referred to. and we would ask due to the shortness of time, we would ask that you respond to those questions within five days. thank you. senator tommy? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank all of you for your service to our country. general grant, obviously in indiana we have a large national guard. he touched upon it briefly. i was wondering if you could detail, in terms of the national guard, the impact that sequestration will have as we move forward. >> senator demint, the major impact in the near term sequestration will be the reduction in our maintenance and maintenance readiness, which will require us in the army side -- it will ties with the contracts and a lot of our equipment returning from overseas is already backlog. in addition to that, if we have a hiring freeze, we will go ahead and reduce the amount of maintaining at this level in america, which further degrades the annual services. if nothing else. with that, that time to respond to the disaster in their home states, it begins to increase. we had 2500 this past weekend i responded. we will be able to continue to do the smaller ones. i'm very concerned about the catastrophic and complex catastrophes. >> thank you. mr. secretary, this is for you. general dempsey, do you have a number that you can live with in terms of reductions? >> you know, 487 was too high. what is a number that you cannot let? >> well, we have said that we can live with 487. we worked very hard lester to accommodate an adjustment at large. as i said, that kut was on top of the cut that secretary gates imposed. which was another several hundred billion dollars. we understand that we need to play a role in deficit reduction. we understand the country cannot afford to give us the amount of money they have been over the last 10 or 11 years. what we are saying here today is that we are now -- we were able to do that, but we are now on the edge in many of our capability areas. the suddenness and the scale of the sequester is what causes all these effects that you have heard about today. >> and the magnitude. the magnitude of another half trillion dollars over 10 years on top of the 487 and the gates era of efficiencies. it will put the current strategy at risk. now, it will make it infeasible. so the question back to you will be, what strategy will view, what would you be willing to live with, which will be a degraded capability from what we provide today. we will believe that discussion. any additional cuts will change the strategy. >> okay. i would just like to ask really quickly, in terms of suicide prevention programs. as i mentioned last week, we lost men and women to suicide, four of them, in the past year. i'm wondering i am wondering the effect of sequestration on those programs? the mental health programs. >> well, sequestration has an impact on everything. we have invested money and effort and time in trying to build resiliency and talking about issues that we have with suicide and many other issues. we have counselors in every one of our installations that help our families and our soldiers. we help them to work through coping mechanisms and problems that they have. but we may not be able to afford the number of counters that we have today. it is just simple and we cannot do it. that is one of our high priorities in trying to sustain the highest level possible as we go forward. but it will have to be a reduction. although the effort that we put into it, we have not yet put this into everything is a problem. it impacts other critical family programs. those that have helped us over the many years as families have sacrificed so much over the last 10 or 12 years. those will have to be reduced as well. we are working with this very carefully to define where the ones are that are important. in every case, we will have to reduce the size of other programs. >> thank you. thank you, very much. >> thank you, gentlemen. this hearing must feel bizarre to you guys. it is one of the most strange hearings that i've ever been in. where the united states government is essentially talking about going out of business because of decisions made somewhere else in the government. senator mccain talked about it and i would say it's more alice in wonderland. very strange for a situation. mr. carter, i'm so glad you use used the word dumb. because i was in the word list of my notes. this whole thing is dumb. it means nothing. march 1 has nothing to do with what is going on in the economy or the united states or anything else. it is a self-imposed deadline. the impacts will be drastic. in my small state, 7000 jobs is the calculation. george mason university has just done a study of what the impact would be state by state. i commend it to my colleagues. they estimate 7000 jobs in the defense sector, it is a disaster. it is a self-imposed disaster that we don't have to do. >> it is also hitting the wrong targets. your budget, as a percentage of gdp is relatively stable in the fact that it's been declining. nondefense discretionary spending is at the lowest level it's been in in 50 years. the growth in our budget over time, the deficit problem relates mostly to health care. the sequester has nothing to do with that whatsoever. we have to be having that discussion. it is also terrible timing because it's hitting at a time of a fragile economy. i don't know if it can push us back into recession, but it certainly won't help with these thousands of layoffs and furloughs around the country. it is certainly going to kill the confidence of the economy in this institution of the united states government, that we could make decisions on a timely basis and respond to these problems problems intelligently and not with a blunt instrument. i believe that some of you have testified today that it will increase long-term costs. in the navy, for example, by getting rid of multi-procurements, bishops are ultimately going to cost more. deferred maintenance is not savings. it has to be done eventually. that is exactly what is going to happen here. so i would again associate my comments with senator mccain. i think the one person who can help us resolve this, that the president of the united states, i think he has to participate and if i were him, i would have a helicopter running on one of the capital this evening, take the leadership of the congress and leadership of this committee to camp david and say you have three or four days, nobody leaves, men and women until we get this thing solved. and i hope that he takes the initiative. because right now we are slouching toward a catastrophe for this country in terms of the economy and in terms of its military readiness, and i think you for what you've done today. hopefully the message that you have given us will have some impact throughout the congress and at the other end of pennsylvania avenue. because we can solve this. it is ridiculous to be at the stage at this time, given the seriousness of the danger. thank you, thank you very much. >> thank you. thank you senator king. here is the order, we have senator gillibrand, senator manchin, i suggest to the senate that he go vote and try to come back so that he can have his turn. it is now senator ron senator ron all and so litter can kill a brand. >> i join all my colleagues in thinking our panel. the nonmilitary spending will be quite devastating. secretary carter, i was very struck by you saying clearly that this is a self-inflicted situation. and it is brought about by political gridlock. and it will take us sitting here along with the president to get out of this gridlock. i know that there are many potential things that we face today. only this morning we learned of action taken by north korea that is very troubling. the administration is correct in talking about rebalancing and secretary panetta said last week that sequester woodcut naval operations by a third. general odierno, i would like to ask you about the impacts on the army's ability to carry out missions in the area of responsibility if sequester cuts are put in place. >> thank you, ma'am. first, as i talked about, 80% of our force having stopped training this year, that includes our forces in hawaii. so they will be significantly degraded capabilities to respond to anything that goes on. additionally ,-com,-com ma the army is responsible for providing a significant amount of communication support and intelligence support or logistical support. their ability to do that will also be affected by sequestration in fiscal year 2013 and beyond. our defense capability is at the highest level. we will continue to do that. the cuts and family programs, soldier programs, it will also impact korea as well. for us, it has the ability to operate for the next several years. >> for the general, general dempsey, i am glad that we are going to pursue the wounded warrior program. because that is one of the more important programs to enable our people coming back from iraq and afghanistan, to be able to transition back into civilian life. but i think as was mentioned, but other programs, family related programs, with those kinds of programs that support its service members be negatively impacted by sequestration? >> i should mention that in addition to this, we are in the process of moving the united states marine corps into the specific and general can speak to that. think of it this way. base operations, that is to say that the support services, whether it is any of the things you mentioned or teachers in the schools and clinics, medical professionals. about 30% of base operations will be degraded. >> thank you. my time is up. >> okay, i would suggest -- wait a second, we may miss the first vote. >> please, if you would, senator gillibrand. >> thank you, thank you very much, mr. chairman. i will be as brief as i can be here. on december of 2012, senator chuck hagel was nominee to become the secretary of defense. when he was asked about the outgoing secretary leon panetta's comments about budget sequestration that would be disastrous to national defense, the senator replied as follows. the defense department, i think in many ways, has been bloated. the defense department has gotten everything it has wanted. the last 10 years and more. we have taken priorities, dollars, programs, policies out of the state department. and another of other departments and put them in defense. the abuse and waste and fraud is astounding. .. with him or her >> or something like that. it was obvious that in some places had accumulated over the decades that is why secretary gates started the efficiency initiative that i was a part of to improve performance and requisition system. in parallel, we had absorbed for madrid $87 billion budget cut in a way wear we said we could still accomplish the mission of the nation speaking to the fact we could do what the country needed with less. but today we cannot do that strategy. so we have accommodated substantial budget adjustment. we try to do it a strategic way but how we cannot take another major cut to sustain that strategy. >> my time has expired i a will differ although that does seem to be inconsistent with senator hegel's statement made recently in december. >> thank you for your testimony it is distressing to hear the statements you may today i am troubled about emerging threats in new york city is a top terrorist target and we have two emissions of wmd under eartha national guards that puts us at risk. of national guard contingencies and operations throughout the state li-sao what an amazing job they said -- did with hurricane sandy but we are exposing yourself to grave vulnerabilities. also cyber threat is the greatest in emerging threat and i am worried about our training. obviously it is a premier training for the army and the need to keep those resources available. i would like you to talk about briefly if you can quantify how are other risks elevated because of these cuts? >> i will answer briefly, you ask exactly the right question, how is risk elevated? we provide a head teacher rent the assurance of the allies then we talk about risk. we will be less for verge verge, less forces so the risk goes up and we could find ourselves vulnerable to coercion. but let me say this. >> senator i do applaud the agree work of the past weekend but my concern for the national guard is as we continue to drive down wilt have the efficiency of the leaders and many times when the response to a situation those pilots are situations to decrease the ability to fly. >> the senator has asked that you answer the question for the record. i am sorry for the interruption. >> my time expired? >> my second question is looking at emerging threats worldwide al qaeda has metastasized. since it is now operated worldwide, all over the world, another president is intending to drive down troops, a 34,000 common do you imagine having a lighter fingerprint with emerging threats is something you will recommend to shift how we spend money and in what way? >> i will comment on that. it is part of a strategy before the sequester to maintain a light footprint presence in many parts of the world where terrorist groups could seek a safe haven. you do see that going on and it is part of a special operation structure that we've discussed earlier and namely our decision if the sequester does not go through to slightly increase operations forces so they could maintain that global footprint as things wind it down. >> the question you ask is what the joint chiefs do to look at ways to do things sometimes directly or through partners in the region and what you're hearing today is the ability to do that is going to be called into doubt given the effects of sequestration. >> we will call a short recess until the chairman returns. thank you. [inaudible conversations] >> we will come back to order and we will put questions in the record and aha like questions will be made part of the record. i want to thank our panel for their powerful testimony this morning. it is incumbent upon those of us that our elected to do the country's business that we avoid sequestration, with the yearlong see our eyes welled these are mindless mindless, irrational activities, not intended to become operative but force us with the mechanism to do what needs to be done and hopefully they can still perform that role. as of right now that remains incumbent upon the congress and president to remove that threat as they are both threats to the well-being of the country with security and other programs the government helps to fund. we appreciate the answer is within five days because of the time constraints. we are grateful for your service and with those you serve and families and we will stand adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> of the committee meets today to consider the nomination of chuck a goal to serve as the next secretary of defense. we receive the nomination three weeks ago and held a hearing on the nomination tobes ago, senator hays has provided personal and financial information required by the committee, received letters from the director of office of government ethics and the acting defense department general counsel certifying he meets our ethics and conflicts of interests standards. and the board fails policy questions and for these reasons i believe the time has come for the committee to act on this nomination. senator hegel has received broad support from senior statesman, defense and foreign policy organizations and the jittery 31 hearing he was endorsed enthusiastically by to former chairman of the committee the senators on the mission has been endorsed by five former secretary of defense who served under democratic and republican presidents, gates , a calling, perry, a brown and ugly year and endorsed by three former secretaries of state of six former national security advisers. receive letters of undress and from nine former ambassadors who worked on middle east issues and 11 and retired officers and 50 embassadors in national security officials. supported by the major groups of american veterans including iraq and afghanistan veterans of america, of vfw, a vietnam vets of america, and that an american legion and receive support from the military officers association of america, and the noncommissioned officers it is underscored by "war and peace" and i believe he enlisted in at army and received two purple hearts for the combat infantry badge. he served as deputy administrator during the reagan ministration and was twice elected to the united states senate where he served on the foreign relations and intelligence committees. since he left four years ago, senator hegel has been chairman of the board of directors for the atlantic council that counts among its directors seven former secretaries of state and four former secretaries of defense with other senior officials of the administration's of both parties to amend the council as part of the mainstream of american foreign policy establishment. much at the time at the handful of statements he made over his career overran another issues he explained to clarify the statements and put them in context and apologize for remarks and told the committee he would say things differently had the chance. senator hagel was clear and firm and the positions he takes today and will, if confirmed take it as secretary of defense. of particular the senator and stated forcefully and -- and unequivocably iran poses a significant threat to the eyes states, allies come of partners, our interest globally and continues to pursue the illicit program and will provoke an arms race to undermine the global non-proliferation regime for goods also one of the us mainstays sponsors of terrorism and could spark conflict against the united states interest quote. second, he is "fully committed to the president's goal to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon en quote all must be on the table to achieve the goal and his policy would be quote at one of prevention and not of containing quote. third, while he believes engagement is clearly in our interest, it is not negotiation. "i never thought engagement eyes of weakness or thought it was surrender or appeasement that i think it is clearly in our interest to get the international sanctions behind you and if the military option is the only option, it is the only option quote. finally, believes "we have a special relationship with israel and will insure our our friend and ally israel maintains qualitative military edge and will support systems like iron dome witches saving israeli lives from terrorists rocket attacks quote. the senator recognizes the other risks posed as a unique budgetary pressure voice cuts previously agreed upon and budgeting by the continuing resolution and the impending threat of a sequester. this is what he told the committee "if allowed to occur would damage readiness , a people, military families. results in the grounding of the aircraft returning ships to pork, reducing the global presence to respond to contingencies. vital training reduced by half and the department would be unable to reset equipment from afghanistan in a timely manner. the department would reduce training and maintenance and forced to reduce procurement of vital weapons systems and suffered the schedule delays and price increases. employees to be furloughed about 22-- and these and negatively affect long-term readiness and would send a talent -- terrible message choose a workforce that we hope to recruit and both allies and adversaries around the rove quote. some members strongly oppose president obama as foreign policy. but regardless of how we may feel the vote on the nomination will not change as policies. if there is a risk it will be the department's leaderless under military challenges and under combat operations underseas the senior leadership would be unlikely to benefit men and women in uniform given the explosion of the nuclear device for the delay to adopt this nomination i think will send the wrong message to north korea. the president needs to have a secretary of defense who will give unvarnished device, integrity and as a personal understanding relative to the use of military force. senator hegel's certainly has those qualifications and is well qualified to lead the department of defense. >>. >> as i have said many, many times going back to senator hagel how much i admire his service to his country, the job he did, the purple hearts but in my mind is that a justification to confirm to the nomination as secretary of defense? what you said was accurate in terms of the hearings. but that is now with you said or lived in the past. i was the first who decided to oppose him and that was before we did not know nearly as much as three do today. those sanctions against iran one of four senators who voted against the clearing the iranian revolutionary guard as terrorist i remember because of the solidarity won a four who did not sign that i was also concerned the global movement we won the nuclear-free world but i heard all of his answers but the group he is a part of is unilaterally doing away with nuclear capability. i am concerned arguably he -- could be the most severe terrorist state and they said things like where you want to wipe israel off the map it is a cancerous tumor and all these things and yet that country is endorsing his confirmation. lastly, i mention this to mr. chairman how much i personally appreciate you bending the rules to let him put the odds of zero video up where he agreed that israel committed war crimes and sickening slaughter. for those reasons and others have other reasons but i still oppose his confirmation. >> we would give everybody an opportunity to make a statement then vote. the time will be determined how much of us want to make statements i cannot get that yet but i have not had a nef chance to chat with senator in half but may inclination is to say we should make statements in a time limit of eight minutes. i am not encouraging ever ready to speak or use it to there 80 minutes i hope that is not implied. after we get a feel thinly will have a fix times ever betty could be given perhaps a 20 minute warning to do the best that we can and now i call upon senator reid. >> i will try touse set the example by taking less than eight minutes. some of the most respected experts on foreign policy in the united states showing off republican and democratic presidents are supportive of chuck hegel nomination. bill gates, madeleine albright, brent scowcroft, and pickering, these ladies and gentlemen, have represented the united states interest their lifetime of service, some of the strongest evidence that they have senator hegel's nomination for secretary of defense there is a lot of discussion about i was struck from the former ambassador to the united states and he said i have met the senator many times sandy regards israel as the true u.s. ally. i think that is the case as an individual or a business leader gets out but this is a very dangerous moment. we're facing budget issues issues, national security issues, and a process of operations and within hours to detonate nuclear device this is when we need is secretary of defense. >> senator mccain. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i believe senator hagel as far as i can determine has complied with the requirements for the parameters for informational needs to be disclosed and i am somewhat disturbed to hear today fare is two more speeches he had no reported that may have just surfaced yet at the same time i believe he has complied. i do not believe we should move forward with his nomination to of questions are answered that senator graham and i have asked to be answered. for the first time in my political career i found myself in agreement with mr. robert gibbs to stated on sunday that senator hegel's performance before the senate armed services committee was the most oppressive and unfocused he has ever observed. i a agree. the most unimpressive i have seen to see many nominees coming before the committee for various positions. he did not even know our policy toward iran is not one of containment to be corrected by the chairman of the committee and his failure to answer specific questions that i asked is very disturbing. the issue of the of lives of servicemen in the iraq, senator graham and i were harshly critical of the bush to administration who called for the resignation of secretary room smelled when he said there is only a few dead end kids love to take on their own administration and secretary of defense senator hagel also thought we were losing when the search was implemented it was the worst blunder since vietnam and went on with some nonsense was in cambodia to say it would fail but we are responsible for the record to point* out where i had been wrong but for him to fail, to agree what was a success to me indicates he did not want to be forthcoming and i don't thing he complied with the requirements. i am aware some think it became tense to talk about thousands who had been put on space. and it continues to be wrong and refuses to it meant he was right on this issue and many heather's. said gratuitous attacks for example, saying president bush was the worst president since herbert hoover of course, were just a gratuitous attacks the you can only judge somebody by there past performance of order to predict the future performance. the performance before this

Related Keywords

Vietnam , Republic Of , Madrid , Spain , China , California , United States , Washington , District Of Columbia , Duke University , North Carolina , Connecticut , Rome , Lazio , Italy , Egypt , Cambodia , Libya , South Korea , New York , Sandy Hook , Pennsylvania , New Hampshire , Iran , Afghanistan , Texas , Missouri , Fort Bragg , Kentucky , Florida , Indiana , Virginia , Tunisia , Iraq , Mali , Israel , North Korea , Houston , Kansas , Capitol Hill , Hawaii , Americans , America , Chinese , North Koreans , Iranians , Korea , Iranian , North Korean , Israeli , American , Marco Rubio , Theodore Roosevelt , Herbert Hoover , Robert Gibbs , Tony Cardenas , Bob Casey , Madeleine Albright , Patrick Purdy , John Yarmouth , Los Angeles , George Bush , Chuck Hegel , Enrile Ferguson , Steve Kline , Brent Scowcroft , John Yarmuth , James Amos , Chuck Hagel , Ashton Carter , Robert Hale , Al Qaeda , Martin Dempsey , Feaster Conan , Ray Odierno , Glynn Jenkins , John F Kennedy Cbn , Richard Blumenthal , Kelly Ayotte ,