An Army AviationRestructuring Initiative both of those combine to be 6 billion. If we dont get those reforms. Were going to have to find 6 billion, and find another half a billion for brac, thats who it costs every year for excess infrastructure. If we dont get those things, were going to have to find that money somewhere. Great thank you. For navy and marine corps, it is slowing down the growth of pay and compensation. Its we simply have to do that. We are at the point where were choosing between keeping people or getting them the tools that they need to do their job. And i think that the proposals that have been put forward are reasonable, theyre sound. And from talking to sailors and marines around the world they are the thing that concerns them the most is certainty. And the concern about sequester and whether they will have the tools to do the job that they joined the navy and marine corps to do. Congressman, in addition you heard me with the compensation reforms, i agree with brac. I would add a couple other examples over the last year or two. We have a series of aging platforms, where we have proposed retiring some of them in order to free up money to modernize the rest of them. And to go to the next generation. And those sorts of actions have tended to be blocked. So im thinking of the jstars last year, and theres a series of them in that regard. One other that ill give you which is difficult to work through, and im an alumni of this committee, i understand this, but nonetheless, these are tough choices. We have too many overall c130s in our fleet. For all the shortages we have, thats the one platform that leaps to mind that we probably have too many of them. Were trying to reduce the overall numbers modernize, upgrade some of the older ones were going to keep we have all this going on at once and were trying to shift them around the country to get better efficiencies and also to provide certain coverage of certain areas, because we dont have the authority to do a brac. That whole movement, that entire plan has been put on hold. And so we cant do it until we provide additional information, more reports and the like. Those would be some additional exams i would offer up. If i may, we appreciate the work with the congress and our modernization program. The original sustainment modernization and operational fund, if we could get back to the original intent of that fund and remove those restraints that would be helpful. I think the key point here, sometimes when were protecting jobs back here at home. Were putting lives at risk overseas it its really your decision to make those tradeoffs, if you have anything to add in writing, i appreciate it. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Gibson . I appreciate the panelists, and i for one have been listening these many months and years, i think the services have provided great detail and impacts on the sequester. I voted for ryan murray, that gave us reprieve for two years, i hope that we have the wisdom and the will, we summon it up to replace hopefully in total, the sequester, but at least for a period of time to give some stability for the services goingforward. Mr. Chairman, you mentioned agility, just a few moments ago, thats where i want to go with this. Two different types of threats. With nation states, so much of the worlds actions can be explained by this concept of deterrents. And deterrents roughly assembled through capability and will. And im interested in delving into strategic maneuver. Restoring the Global Response force capability. Im interested from each of the services your commitment from the Global Response force. You can include modelling and simulation and exercises. I believe ill be the same. The problem we have is, feeling the Global Response force and all our assets are being used in operations everywhere else. The air force is that we have a limited capacity now in certain key areas. We have got isr, mobility, air refueling, and command and control in demand and all parts of the globe. And as a result, we cannot meet the commanders requirements today in those areas. We dont have enough of it any more. As you heard us discuss already today. We will have to take more capacity out of those areas. Were committed to Global Response force, theyre already doing something. I would say, one of the things i think our committee ought to be doing is documenting the risk. We talk every day about russia, we talk about iran, north korea, we havent really talked about our role in restoring this capability. Let me go to the other services. Our situation is much like general welch were meeting our requirements in the Global Response force right now which is a fairly small commitment. Its the forces that are back at home station, currently about 50 of them that have training, personnel and equipment shortfalls that are the concern. Its our ability to deal with the unexpected that really is the issue. Thank you, congressman. In fact i was at Fleet Forces Command when we sequestered in 2013. And the first thing that happened is, we ended up eliminating some deployments and we ended up reducing flying hours and getting that next set of deployers ready to go. We ended up delaying the deployment of a carrier, when you talk about the Global Response force our ability to train our folks and our ability to have that next set ready is very much tied to the budgetary top line. Right now, were we have two carriers ready to go, we always have two ready to go, were Building Back up to a larger Surge Capacity clearly with sequestration our ability to maintain that projection is significant significantly challenged. We have a designated force out of the 82nd division with en5ib8ers prepared to go. What i would say is the fact that we have less camability out of the army now, the importance of Global Response force has increased significantly. And unfortunately i think it goes beyond now just the ability of the 82nd Airborne Division to force entry operations anywhere in the world. I go back to general dunford. Its about the air force being able to respond directly. I worry about the readiness levels as we stated earlier, those units having the ability and capability of being able to do that. Putting the joint dod piece on this is modelling and how we Work Together as a team. Thank you very much for the responses. Mr. Ashford. Thank you, mr. Chairman and thank you. From a parochial perspective. My district is omaha. The 55th air wing. As an historic tweak. My father flew bombers in world war ii. The plane was built at the martin bomber plant which is scheduled to be demolished after all these years. Obviously were very proud of it and its history. Stratcom, thank you for all your support there. There have been a number of questions asked, regarding this question, butt i really still dont have an answer. I its not because of you. It seems so dynamic. The situation in the middle east where we were is dynamic, and it seems to me that if the we dont do something about sequestration, those problems are going to continue to exist. We dont know whats coming next. I would just ask one more time, what do you see in the next year to two years, through 2016 possibly, with the possibility of this situation in the middle east becoming more difficult or even just the level its at now. I think we understand for sure what is a minimum, what we know were going to have to continue to train Iraqi Security forces, advise them as well as a syrian moderate resistance, we know that for sure. That requires Response Forces in case our troops get into trouble that are there advicing we have to have forces that are readily available in kuwait and other places. Thats the minimum. If we decide thats not working and the president makes the decision we have to do reassessment, well have to be prepared to do that. And thats the concern. Are we prepared to do that. And do we have the readiness to accomplish that mission ifness necessary. If you would, from your perspective. I guess the even thing i would add is, theres two trends, you talk about dynamic. The shiite sunni issue. This is one it is a dynamic environment, we do know what were trying to do in iraq and syria specifically. What we dont know is whats going to happen into 2016. Which makes our readiness to deal with the unexpected all the more important. I think the the problems are dynamic thats what we can expect. More instability more uncertainty. More groups arising just like isis surprised most americans as it appeared. I think that will lead to frustration in the u. S. , it will lead to frustration on the ground. And i think that will lead to more debate on the best approach to take as the situation changes again. And so i think this will be an ongoing discussion, ray was exactly right saying were going do have to continue the operations were executing now were going to have to continue to execute them well. They have to be done in a manner that allows us options that this dynamic situation develops. Its just to see, observe whats going on, and the exceptionalism of the team over there is beyond anything. So thank you very much. Mr. Brooks. Thank you, mr. Chairman. 30 minutes before this hearing began, the embargo on congressman prices proposed house budget was lifted. It was embargoed until 9 30 a. M. This morning. I have some preliminary questions, and secretary mchugh, i hope you can assist me with those. What does the president request as his base budget for National Defense . How about i give you the army number. Does someone here have the total number for National Defense nor the president and his budget . 571. 561. 561 is the base . And then how much for overseas Contingency Operations . Again for the army its 20 billion, so i think its very close to 50 billion, 48 i believe is the number. I have it as 51 billion, does that sound about right . It sounds about right. That would give us a total of 612 billion, does that sound about right . The budget control act has a limitation on base. 523 billion, the president s proposing a burgdget that if my math is correct, about 38 billion more than what the budget control act says is permissible. Do you have any information how you can disregard the budget control act of 2011 and throw out a budget thats 38 more than the limitation . No one . I wont speak to the lie, you directed. You asked if i could perhaps help on this, i can tell you in discussions, at osd level the president believes the sequestration level is so irresponsible that it if i can interject, i have limited time. Im looking for the legal explanation not the policy explanation. I didnt hear anyone come up with a legal explanation. Im a title 10 authority, i dont have legal responsibility from the department of defense. Let me move on then to congressman prices proposed house budget. He starts accords to page 40 of his news release graph s5. Hes got the base at 523 billion. But then he has 94 billion for oko. In order to go beyond what the president has requested for National Defense oko is defined as global war on terrorism. Of that 94 billion for oko 20. 5 billion is called reserve which we may or may not have received. It may be 70 some odd billion as opposed to the 94 that is in these graphs. For a rough total of around 617 billion. My question is kind of akin to what congressman fleming was asking. Does it make any difference to the department of defense if the money comes to the department of defense via the base versus overseas Contingency Operations. How does it affect your ability that needs to be done. I think i addressed that earlier when i said that for the army receiving relief through our end strength provisions above 450 provides us 4. 2 billion in one year relief. We view the can we . Im trying to explain. Well, i have only 1 10 left. So let me move on to something more specific. Electoral combat ships being built in the state of alabama. Can that be built out of oko funds . Under the current rules, i dont believe any new construction can be. We did do we cant use it for that purpose, not as good as base money in that instance then. Is that a fair statement . I believe thats correct. We do a lot of Missile Defense, can you do Missile Defense out of oko monies . General, do you know . As far as we know, were not able to do that. It depends right now, we dont have the flexibility. Its about flexibility in the oko budget. We dont know how its defined, it would be difficult to give an answer. Is it fair for me to conclude that it is a whole lot better for the money to be in base as opposed to oko. And to the extent its in oko. It does have some adverse effect on our National Security capabilities. Would you agree with that . Yes, sir, i did earlier. It presents some challenges. Secretary mavis, would you agree with that . Yes it would be better to be in base. Secretary james would you agree with that . Yes. Does anyone have an idea how much worse our National Security would be . The worst is if we dont get this fixed through some mechanism. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Secretary mavis i was happily surprised to see you devote so much time to power and Energy Initiatives in your written testimony. Your comment about fuel being used as a weapon particularly struck out to me, i felt that theres a strategic imperative to energy use in the department of defense. In 2003 and 2007, dod put out numbers that said 80 of all supply trucks on the road in iraq and afghanistan over 3,000 americans troops and contractors were killed in fuel supply convoys. Every time we talk about Energy Initiatives, what gets lost in a conversation are the National Security implications of what you and other services are trying to do. Its not just about going green or trying to achieve some larger environmental goal, its about developing technologies that will lighten the loads of our soldiers and marines. Its about developing technologies that will allow soldiers and marines to push further into the enemy territory. Theyre not dependent on huge logistical tales. Its also about enabling greater persistence, range, endurance and time on airplanes. Its about being able to project greater and more lethal power. Anything that enables us to do that, im all for, and i think it should be embraced. Could you outline some of the innovative anywhereinitiatives the navy is taking thank you so much. I couldnt be more articulate than you just were on that, some of the specific things that we are doing in Energy Efficiency were doing everything from coatings, to changing the light bulbs, to doing Voyage Planning to putting electric drives on some of our larger ships for slower speeds to building an all electric ship. The marines as always are leading the way here and your statistic about we were losing a marine killed or wounded in afghanistan for every 50 fuel trucks that were brought in thats just too high a price to pay. Weve got seal teams in the field that are pretty much net zero in terms of energy. They make their energy where they are and they make their water where they are. For a Marine Company by using solar power to power radios, gpss, they save 700 pounds of batteries per company. They dont have to be resupplied with that. In a larger, more strategic scale. The ability to use fuel as a weapon, and the volatility of fuel prices that go up dramatically and down dramatically create immense problems for us in terms of being able to pay for that fuel and being able to plan for how much that fuel is, and were moving to a fan fossil fuel sources to provide some competition in the fuel market. But also to smooth out that volatility and to create american jobs and to have a home grown source of fuel. Thank you. Can you talk about some of the army initiatives . If you could have an lsa that could produce some of its own fuel on base and keep a convoy or two of soldiers out there, running fuel for the generators at bellad or some place. Can you discuss that . As we discussed in the past it really is as you so accurately put a matter of soldiers lives. And thats particularly true with respect to our Operational Energy programs. Weve conducted constricted our Energy Utilization by about 17 in recent years. The frustrating thing is, the cost of that energy, nevertheless continues to rise. But having said that, we think we have a responsibility to our soldiers as again you noted to lighten their load. Like our friends in the marine corps, we have reduced weights. We have solar blankets that can be used in just about any climate to charge various radios, to charge our battery supplies significantly lessening the load and weve also, through the use of more efficient engines caused the need for fuel much less demanding. Much fewer occasions. Again, to the strategic aspect of this as secretary mavis said, this is a matter of yes the environment, its also a matter of saving dollars. I appreciate that. Thank you, mr. Chairman, i appreciate this panel being here today this is directed to secretary james, its referenced to the champ system added 10 million to the fy 15 omni bus proegss to build the system. The capability they have asked this committee for and right now is a Cost Effective way, you talk about affordability obviously, and were looking to save money in areas that we can. But its very Cost Effective for us and very expensive for our addversaryies to try to defeat. America is leading the world in technology at the moment. Near pure nations are catching up, at a time when we really dont need that, and we certainly shouldnt deploy or delay deployment of this particular weapons system. Despite the obvious benefits and the low cost timeliness of authorization, appropriation outright encouragement by this congress. I was briefed earlier this year, that the air force is not fully committed to building champ by 2016. This is not a limitation on technology, auth