And this is part of it. We sent airmen, marines to deploy our notice ends they want to take care of their families. We are going to have to cut some programs. We i him him him him him him. This is a fantastic question. When we get together come our conversations dont start, we are talking about our plans and we talk about soldiers and airmen, marines, guardsmen, we talk about the impact on the families all the things that are important to our people. A the problem is that 31. 5 million manhours overload workforce is awfully tough to mitigate. That is where we need help. We cannot control that. Now, the other thing that i mentioned is that the workforce is someone else we should have been keeping track of. They havent had pay raises. Now we are going to take 20 of the fiscal payraise. This is an important part of what we do, not just in this active department, but in the guard and reserve as well. I have been to a number of air force installations and there have been air force calls up an entire babys population. The entire question, every single one of them is about sequestration. Every single time. They are paying attention and we know that there is an impact coming we just dont know how it affects them congressmen. Many those numbers serve as well. Theyre probably talking about the military technicians and back to the video assignment and the armories where they serve in a civilian capacity. They could be faced with losing homes and cars within months. We are watching very closely and trying to reach out to some of the support organizations and make sure that they have that help in place when they i do return. More for the longterm, we rely heavily, especially since this has been going on with Mental Health professionals that we put into the state grid helping people that are on their second, third, fourth deployment. Not only just the servicemen, but the families. If you look at full sequestration, you look at tens of thousands of veterans coming back to their home towns. Their communities. That help will not be there for them some will come home and there will be anything there for them. Okay. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I would like to ask you about something that is maybe not as glamorous, maybe not as outfront, and that is the maintenance part of this equation. I have heard you all talk about maintenance and operations in men and women in all of these very important things. Things like maintenance is something that is always kind of in the background. Whether its planes or tanks, there is no area that will be exempt from that. The general talked about a hollow military. It seems like that is the first that to holler out the military. Neglecting maintenance. It has happened from time to time in our history. I know in my district, they decided to cancel about 200 million worth of maintenance contracts. I believe what the navy has said, if we go along with the sequester and the continuing resolution build, i think that one of the reasons that happens, as i have read, it is less visible, and also considered to be the most reversible. In other words, you can skip the maintenance because you can always make it up when it came time to deploy for the gulf war, because they have skipped maintenance after maintenance, it could not deploy. They rushed and then finally, they decided that they would just decommissioned decommission the carrier. Still adding about 15 years of life. Which is cheaper than decommissioning of because of all of the lack of maintenance that has taken place. So it seems to me, and maybe i will direct us to the navy, because the numbers matter in the navy. Obviously it is a lot of great people. We have half as many chips as we had 30 years ago. Some people say that that is okay because they are technologically advanced we dont need as many. Which i am sure that that is true in part. But it does seem like numbers matter to a certain extent. That is the thrust of my question. We are asking you, the navy, to do a lot of things. To go and chase the pirates off the coast of samarra. We are asking you to send humanitarian aid from the caribbean and citizen destroyers and we will need to keep an eye on china as well. It seems like the world has not gotten safer. The question to the navy and the other services, three simple questions. How do you decide the priorities that you are asked by the Combatant Commanders. These different missions. How do you make that decision in terms i priority when you only have limited access . Also, are there areas of the world where cousins will be decreased because of this . And also, most importantly, what impact does this have on our National Security and Global Security securities well . If you could address those and if anyone else would like to address it as well. The decision as to where we go is a debate, if you will, that we had with the joint staff and the secretary of defense. The outcome of that is my signal. This is what i have to to provide. It is called a Global Force Management and allocation plan. Its where we distribute naval assets. What ive written, i have to be where the maritime crossroads are. That is in the strait of hormuz and the arabian gulf and the western pacific and down by the straits of malacca. So we decide that and lay that out. That is my signal. Whenever there is a reduction in the budget like we have today, we say what is the priority . We go to the defense that was laid out. We balance it in the asia pacific, but the mideast is extremely important today. That is where a lot of energy and product is. We balance the two. But my point you is that it is a conversation with the secretary of defense and Combatant Commanders as well as the chief of staff. So that is kind of the area. The impact of what happens now, i have a . 6 million in deficit, if you will, in my operations account. Well, what will happen is we will keep the gulf in our present and most of the combatants are there today. Fortunately, in the asia pacific, we have 40 ships that are out there day in and day out. That is the advantage of operating forward. Those ships were already there. They were in japan, they were guam and singapore. Those ships will remain there. But the problem is, as you said, if we dont do maintenance, what happens then . Well, there is a debilitating effect and he laid it out clearly. You have to change this back sooner or later. You see examples of the congressmen and we shouldve done that before for 2 million, now we are doing it for 24 million. So it is a debate at the level of the department and a cherry decision was an outcome of a similar debate as to where we go. We will reduce presence in the Central Command by one carrier right now in a couple of destroyers. We will reduce it and we wont have any ships at the end of the year. That is constantly interjected last year, but i guess we wont be part of this year. In african command, we will only have a couple down there. Terrorism, pirates of the mentioned before, similar story in the european command, again, the we have a number of ships there. But we still arent supplementing them with destroyers missiledefense destroyers. We can help reconcile this if we can get some funding mechanism. Thank you, sir. In the interest of trying to give a fair balance here, im going to move on to another one on this side. So let me go to mr. Ken calvert. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Good morning and thank you all for your service and leadership. And also the enormous impact that our budgets are operating under. I would never ask this to cost me more money, it is the product that is a national defense. We do have enhanced programming authority. We understand that the Defense Budget agrees to in the budget control act, it will remain in effect. What specifically would you cut in order to ensure that the service is able to be as effective as possible . Congressman, the client structure it is a current structure of absent sequestration. Coming down to 182,000. It is purpose built for the strategy that the president has put in force a little over a year ago. The strategy that we all worked on. I cannot do that based on the current strategy. What is going to have to happen with this sequestration is that we will likely have to go back in and revisit that strategy. Im not strategy proficient, so what is the piece that i . What are we going in and changing . We have this strategy that is driven. We dont know what the future is going to hold with regard to the strategy. Congressman, with the budget control act, we develop a strategy that was in line with the numbers that came out in the budget control act. It is such a thing that allows us to provide the capabilities needed to meet the defense strategy. If we get additional cuts, sequestration specifically in this case, i am talking about, 40 of the armed budget is in people. The bottom line is that in order to maintain that balance, it will have to be the reduction of people. Military and civilians. So we are going to have to figure out what is the right balance. Again between the readiness and the modernization. What this will mean to us is reduction in capacity. So although we are confident we can meet the new strategy with the budget control act numbers, i believe that is the lamest just said, we will be significantly challenged me to strategy with the sequestration. So were probably going to have to do a review of the new strategy. That will be the impact on us. It is our ability to respond, whether it be in the middle east or not. If we are not ready, we put our soldiers at risk, that is why we have to sustain the balanced. Thank you. One other concern that i also have is in the acquisitions process. Obviously, we all want to save the government money. But i expect sequestration has the potential to cost far more in the long term when you look at it contract by contract. Can you give us an idea of what we are likely to see on this acquisitions process, what mechanisms are causing these overruns, and how much how much approximately do we need to spend as a result of sequestration . Holding up these contracts, restarting these contracts. If i could, i cannot give you the specific numbers, but i can talk about a few things. What we are having to do is stretch out every one of our programs. What is going to happen is it will cost more per item, whether it be an apache helicopter, whether it be another helicopter, whatever system over time and the cost becomes more inefficient. That is the only way we can do it. Especially if we want to sustain these modernization programs that are necessary. Multiyear contracts. Okay, so one of the problems is that we can do multiyear contracts. For example, we have multiyear contracts with these helicopters are issued. What will now cost us a little money in order to execute this program, for example. I know you have enough problems in the acquisition process already. Without having a sequestration problem of honey. But if all of you to give a report to the committee on any additional costs and the acquisitions process, that would be helpful. And while you are at it, the acquisition process has been pragmatic over the past. Any changes that you can suggest, it can help keep the costs more manageable in the future. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen. This is a reality type of hearing what reality is coming home. I would just like to think the general board this program and the First Marine Expeditionary force and what they are doing with the training institute, it is an Amazing Program that i have been working closely with and i think its something that can help build a level of resiliency that we need in our troops. To prevent them from experiencing the kind of trauma, the trauma that they encounter in the very early stages. A wonderful program, i look forward to continuing to work with you, given these young men and women, giving them the skills that they need with these complex and stressful situations and deal with it in a way that can prevent a lot of mishaps we all end up dealing with. So id like to thank you so much for your leadership there. The general for his leadership as well. General welch, i have a lot of numbers of the air force in my Congressional District and you hit a nerve when he said when he started talking about the reduction in flying hours, the flying hours lost, scaling back training, up to two thirds. And what really hit me was that we will be nonmachine on transMission Capable by july. Then it would take six months or more for us to turn back to full capabilities. So can you just make that point again . Can you let us know in the taxpayer know what kind of cost we will have to get our men and women back to Mission Capable . Yes, congressman. This is a part of the air force. The problem that we had is that after we set aside the forces are committed to supporting operations in afghanistan, other named operations, other things, those that need to maintain a level of readiness, we are just running out of flying hours. And as long as we can stretch the money out. This will be beginning in march. Sixty days later, for most of our pilots, the pilots themselves will be mission ready, and by july, the unit itself. That is what i am referring to. When we start the next fiscal year, assuming that we have the right amount of flying hours to keep those continuously ready, that is not going to be enough to recover the readiness. We will need more flying hours next year to bring them back up to speed, which will take more training, more demand from instructor and evaluator time, it will take about six months to return the force readiness and it will have cost some increment, we are working the number now a bubble we already have on the program for flying hours for next year. If we are not Mission Capable by july, further out there we go, the worse it gets . Is six months the number to get them back to Mission Capable . Or does that number does that length of time it longer the longer they are out . It gets longer the longer we go. As we ride this thing out until next year youre talking about a good number across the military of training and i just think this is a really important point. The longer that this goes, the more complicated it gets. The more expensive it gets. And the less ready and prepared that we are. Exactly, congressman. And the higher the risk. I think it is important for all of us to understand that if there is a contingency that occurs, it is beyond what we are offering now. It is not that the nation is not going to respond. The risk goes up because our force will not be as ready as they would be otherwise. That is our concern. With the reductions that are going to be made, putting us at further risk. The one issue, and i hope this committee, i hope this is an appropriate question on cyberterrorism. My real concern is that as we go through this, we are still going to be able to maintain what we are doing with regards to cybersecurity. Reading the paper and we, as americans, are realizing how active and engaged a lot of people are, banking system, military, the government, our financial institutions, so anyone who is feeling the spirit to address that issue on maintaining that capability as we go through this budget process. Could i make a quick comment. I would like to talk about this. One of the things that is important, a critical piece of our structure that we have talked about, 40 of our cyberwar curse the furlough affects the capability beginning the first day. Our ships and our aircraft are instances of cider. They deliver cyberattacks. If they are not out and about and ready, then what you are losing is arrows in the quiver. Quiver itself, that is cyberheadquarters, we are doing everything that we can to horrid money to keep out where it needs to be. To keep them ready. I am okay with that. Time is so critical here. As you mentioned before, every month that goes by, we lose opportunities to train. But it is also between cyberand it is harder and harder to get up that hill. We are, as we downsize and increase, i think that we are increasing the number of people and we are starting to train additional people now. That has become one of our very top priorities, to make sure that we have developed our priorities due to the potential threat of the nation. We have identified that as a key component of future strategies, but it is at a cost. We have to find it is important right now that that is one of our priorities, continue to increased our investment in that even with the sequestration . Yes. We are moving forward with increasing our investment. Because of the criticality, we believe it is necessary in order to protect ourselves. That there should be more than increased without sequestration . I cannot answer that right now. I think what will happen right now is we have agreed to do this. At the time we agreed to this increase, we were not sure that sequestration was going to happen. Sequestration will delay but not eliminate the implementation. The mechanism of sequestration, it goes to every Single Person of personnel. But if we have the means to reallocate money, we can get that priority program. Even if there is an increase, it will still be effective. That is right. The limits are cyberoptions. They are instruments of cyberas well as other things. In our world, that is an impact. Thank you, that is my concern, mr. Chairman. If something happens here, they are going to look at us and say, what were you all doing . That is a very good question. Thank you, sir. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, i was at Camp Pendleton a few days ago. One of the generals there, i wont call him by name, but he was echoing the concern that mr. Cutshall raised about the maintenance issue. His analogy is one that Many Americans can understand. If you go out and buy a new car today, if you dont change the oil on it, you can probably run it through three or four years and it will be it will still run. The longer you own it, the more expensive it is. We all know this to some degree. I would like to ask, correct me if i am mistaken, but the information is first testimony goes, we are currently talking about the third and fourth quarters of this fiscal year, and that would mean as it was scheduled for maintenance, and it would not be included in the repair facility. If i am correct, i guess the question is, given that there would be no direct impact, did you consider, and i know that this is the small changed the build ends the youre talking about, but what about the induction of the uss enterprise . Did you consider that as part of your budget considerations . Yes, we did, congressman. If we can get the authority, that is certainly something that the secretary and i would like to talk about. Split funding, if you will. The reason we ask this, we will check i