SECRETARY CARTER TESTIFIES BEFORE SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE

FROM:  U..S DEFENSE DEPARTMENT

Secretary of Defense Ash Carter testifies before the Senate Appropriations Committee's defense subcommittee in Washington, D.C., May 6, 2015. DoD Photo by Glenn Fawcett   

Carter Urges Senators to Support Stable Defense Budget
By Cheryl Pellerin
DoD News, Defense Media Activity

WASHINGTON, May 6, 2015 – Slashed budgets and high worldwide demand for U.S. military forces have created an unbalanced defense program that is taking on increasingly greater risks, Defense Secretary Ash Carter told a Senate panel this morning.

The secretary testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee’s defense subcommittee on the Defense Department’s fiscal year 2016 budget request. Joining him was Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

“Over the past three fiscal years the Defense Department has taken more than three-quarters of a trillion dollars in cuts to its future-years defense spending,” Carter said.

The frequently sudden and unpredictable timing and nature of the cuts and continued uncertainty over sequestration have made the stresses greater, he added, forcing DoD to make a series of incremental, inefficient decisions.
A Tumultuous World

“Even as budgets have dropped precipitously, our forces have been responding to unexpectedly high demand from a tumultuous world,” the secretary said.
Carter said he believes the result is an unbalanced defense program.
“We’ve been forced to prioritize force structure and readiness over modernization, taking on risks in capabilities and infrastructure that are far too great,” he added.

“High demands on smaller force structure mean the equipment and capabilities of too many components of the military are growing too old, too fast -- from our nuclear deterrent to our tactical forces,” Carter told the panel.
A Road to Nowhere

The secretary said that in recent weeks some in Congress have tried to give DoD its full fiscal year 2016 budget request by transferring funds from the base budget into DoD accounts for overseas contingency operations, or OCO –- funds that are meant to fund the incremental, temporary costs of overseas conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere.

“While this approach clearly recognizes that the budget total we’ve requested is needed, the avenue it takes is just as clearly a road to nowhere,” Carter said, explaining that President Barack Obama has said he won’t accept a budget that locks in sequestration going forward, as this approach does.

“And he won’t accept a budget that severs the link between our national security and economic security,” the secretary added, “[so] legislation that implements this budget framework will … be subject to veto.”

If the Defense Department and Congress don’t find a different path by fall when a budget is needed, Carter said, the department will again have to make hasty and drastic decisions.

‘Holding the Bag’

“The Joint Chiefs and I are concerned that if our congressional committees continue to advance this idea and don’t explore alternatives we’ll all be left holding the bag,” Carter said, adding that the OCO approach does nothing to reduce the deficit.

“Most importantly,” he added, “because it doesn’t provide a stable multi-year budget horizon, this one-year approach is managerially unsound and unfairly dispiriting to our force. Our military personnel and their families deserve to know their future more than just one year at a time -- and not just them.”
Defense industry partners also need stability and longer-term plans to be efficient and cutting-edge, Carter said, “[and] … as a nation we need to base our defense budgeting on a long-term military strategy, and that’s not a one-year project.”
Such a funding approach reflects a narrow way of looking at national security, the secretary said.

Ignoring Vital Contributions

Year-to-year funding “ignores the vital contributions made by the State Department, the Justice Department, the Treasury Department and the Homeland Security Department,” he said.

And it disregards the enduring long-term connection between the nation’s security and factors like supporting the U.S. technological edge with scientific research and development, educating a future all-volunteer military force, and bolstering the general economic strength of the nation, Carter said.

“Finally, the secretary added, “I’m also concerned that how we deal with the budget is being watched by the rest of the world -– by our friends and potential foes alike. It could give a misleadingly diminished picture of America’s great strength and resolve.”

A Better Solution

To create a better solution than the one now being considered, he said, “I hope we can come together for a longer-term, multi-year agreement that provides the budget stability we need by locking in defense and nondefense budget levels consistent with the president’s request.”

Carter pledged his personal support and that of the department to this effort, and, he told the panel, “I would like to work with each of you, as well as other leaders and members of Congress, to this end.”

SECRETARY CARTER CALLS FOR "FULL-COURT PRESS" TO ADDRESS NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT

Right:  Defense Secretary Ash Carter provides remarks on the national security budget and the relationship between the Defense and State departments at the Global Chiefs of Mission conference at the U.S. State Department in Washington, D.C., March 26, 2015. DoD screen shot.  

Carter Calls for ‘Full-Court Press’ on Security Challenges
By Jim Garamone
DoD News, Defense Media Activity

WASHINGTON, March 26, 2015 – Defense Secretary Ash Carter called for a “full-court press” within government to tackle the pressing national security issues of the day.

Carter spoke today at the State Department’s Global Chiefs of Mission Conference. He is the first defense secretary to address the conference.
Carter called on Congress to put money into the effort. “We can’t just theorize and strategize,” he said. “We have to invest in the whole-of-government way.”

Sequestration Would Harm Defense, Partner Agencies

The secretary said he and other military leaders “have been vocal and specific about the damage that sequestration-level budgets would inflict on the need to restore readiness, on badly needed technological modernization, and on keeping faith with troops and their families.

“And I want to emphasize that current proposals to shoe-horn DoD’s base budget funds into our contingency accounts would fail to solve the problem, while also undermining basic principles of accountability and responsible long-term planning,” Carter said.

And, as the defense secretary, Carter said he cannot ignore cuts in partner agencies such as State, Homeland Security and Treasury.

“I cannot be indifferent to the vital national security responsibilities across our government, just as I cannot be indifferent to my own at DoD,” he said.

‘Whole-of-Government’ Approach

The secretary stressed that most of the national security issues facing America require resources from a number of different agencies working together.

Diplomatic, economic, information and military aspects must be fully integrated for U.S. policies to succeed, he said. Cuts in the State Department budget, for example, affect the Defense Department and vice versa, Carter added.

In recent years, many have been calling for “whole-of-government” approaches to world problems. They also talk about “smart power” -- meaning using more than just the military to effect change. These terms, Carter said, are relatively new, but the basic concept has “been around from Sung China to the Holy Roman Empire -- the idea of leveraging all resources of state is an enduring principle of strategy and statecraft.”

The United States used the whole-of-government approach in crafting and executing the Marshall Plan after World War II, Carter said. That plan, he added, laid the foundation for the Common Market and now the European Union.

Interagency Operations Vital

But harnessing the power of the government has not always been easy, Carter said. Since World War II, State and Defense have often been working at cross purposes, he said, but that has changed.

“We work with a generation of national-security professionals in both agencies, who are actually steeped in interagency cooperation,” the secretary said. “Most of today’s senior officials cut their teeth in the multidimensional policy challenges we faced in Haiti and the Balkans in the 1990s, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and against terror brought even closer interagency cooperation.”

Carter noted that then-Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates testified before Congress in 2010 in support of the State Department’s budget request, and he has done the same.

“Senior Defense Department officials have become some of the most vocal constituents for greater civilian involvement not just in conflict zones but … also in what I have called ‘preventive defense,’ or the influencing of the strategic environment to prevent and deter conflict in the first place,” he said.

Military personnel also recognize that ensuring victory requires much more than guns and steel, the secretary said.

“In conflict zones, it requires good governance, reconciliation, education and the rule of law,” he said. “And in addressing the wider catalog of strategic challenges, it requires marrying the threat of force with financial and diplomatic leverage.”

Coalition ‘Putting ISIL on the Defensive’

Operations against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant are a case in point, Carter said. “Today, our global coalition's military campaign is putting ISIL on the defensive,” he said. “Just yesterday [in Iraq] the coalition that many of you in this room have built began conducting airstrikes around Tikrit. But we know that lasting defeat of ISIL requires an integrated campaign with equally potent political and economic maneuvers.”

A lasting defeat of ISIL, he said, requires DoD to work closely with the State Department to support the government of Iraq and the nascent Syrian opposition, and to assemble and then fully leverage the commitment and resources of a vast coalition. It also requires the U.S. Agency for International Development to work closely with regional and global partners, as refugees continue flowing into Jordan and Turkey, he added.

Defeating ISIL requires the U.S. Treasury to choke off the terror group’s resources, “while Homeland Security, the intelligence community and law enforcement together keep watch on our borders” and deter attacks on the United States and its friends and allies, Carter said.

Unified Approach Needed for Diverse Challenges

The same whole-of-government effort is needed against Iran’s nuclear program, he said, and against Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea from Ukraine and continued operations inside Eastern Ukraine.

A full-court press also is needed in the aftermath of disasters, he said. “We’ve worked across our government, demonstrating that in an hour of need, the United States shows up for our closest allies and friends,” Carter said.

The secretary pointed to the U.S. response to the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear reactor accident in Japan as an example. “This effort powerfully reinforced the U.S.-Japan alliance, demonstrating to Japanese citizens just how deep and broad that alliance really is,” he said.

Securing cyberspace requires the efforts of many U.S. agencies and international partners, Carter said. DoD is working with the National Institutes of Standards and Technology, the Department of Commerce and the Department of Homeland Security on protecting this new domain. The State Department is leading an effort to build international agreements on norms of state conduct in cyber space, he said.

“To pack the fullest strategic punch, we need to do a better job developing joint strategies and pooling our resources to execute them,” Carter said to the State Department audience. “We need to adequately fund and empower your mission as our nation's top envoys.”

Those in national security, the secretary said, need to “think big and anew, even re-imagining the future of our national security machinery to address classic strategic challenges, such as those in Asia, alongside campaigns that we’re conducting in the Middle East, while also tackling transnational challenges like global health security and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.”
The full-court press needs to be applied not only to challenges, but to opportunities as well, he said.

“We need to put a whole-of-government muscle not only behind our challenges, but also behind our beckoning opportunities, from strengthening and modernizing our longstanding alliances to advancing our shared prosperity through new trade agreements with Europe and Asia, to building new partnerships with rising powers like India,” Carter said.

AIR FORCE TRIES FOR $10 BILLION ABOVE SEQUESTRATION ALLOWANCE

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Air Force Seeks $10 Billion Over Sequestration Funding
By Army Sgt. 1st Class Tyrone C. Marshall Jr.
DoD News, Defense Media Activity

WASHINGTON, Feb. 13, 2015 – The demand for Air Force capabilities is increasing, therefore the service is requesting $10 billion more than sequestration-level funding provides, Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James said today in Orlando, Florida.

Speaking during the Air Force Association Air Warfare Symposium and Technology Exposition, James discussed why the Air Force is taking its strongest stand to date against sequestration.

“There is just absolutely no question in my mind that we are the best Air Force on the planet -- precisely because of who we are, what we believe and what we do,” she said.

Fully Engaged Air Force

“Today, our Air Force is fully engaged in joint operations around the world,” James said, to include participating in the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in the Middle East, contributing to the maintenance of a strong NATO alliance or deterring possible conflict in the Asia-Pacific region.
“Or it might be humanitarian disasters anywhere around the world,” James added, “or the very important mission of protecting Americans right here at home.”

Regardless, she said, the demand for Air Force capabilities across all three of its warfighting domains -- air, space and cyber space -- continues to rise.
“So, in short, the way I put it is, everybody wants more Air Force,” James said.
Stand Against Sequestration

James explained what the Air Force is doing about a “perfect storm” of factors that are coming together as the budget forms.

“We are trying to take the strongest stand yet, that we have taken, to date, on sequestration,” she said. “We have said many, many times that sequestration, if it is implemented in [Fiscal Year] ’16, will damage our national security.”
Consequently, James said, the Air Force has submitted a proposed FY ’16 budget that contains $10 billion more than sequestration-level funding would provide.
“Now, $10 billion more represents the difference between a force that our Air Force combatant commanders require and our nation expects, as compared to an Air Force that, with $10 billion less, will not be able to meet the defense strategy -- period,” James said.

The Air Force cannot meet the national defense strategy with $10 billion less in the proposed budget as currently written, James said. The additional funding being requested, she added, “recognizes just how important the Air Force is in every joint operation around the world as well as how important the Air Force is in protecting the homeland.”

Saving Taxpayers’ Dollars

The proposed increase in its budget will enable the Air Force to better support its top priorities, which include taking care of its people, striking the right balance between maintaining today’s readiness level and preparing for tomorrow’s anticipated threats, and ensuring that every taxpayer-provided dollar counts, James said.

The Air Force also requires more funding to modernize, she said, while always keeping an eye on spending taxpayer dollars in the most efficient manner.
Force Readiness

The previous day at the Orlando event, James noted, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark A. Welsh III discussed the Air Force’s reduced end strength, making it the smallest Air Force since its establishment in 1947.

“You also heard General Welsh talk about our aging aircraft,” she said. “The average age is about 27 years and that’s the oldest that they have ever been in our history.”

The Air Force’s readiness level is also “not where we want it to be,” James said, “especially not for what we call the high-end fight that we might, one day, have to fight.”

James said she’s aware of today’s difficult budget environment. But, she added, the Air Force is under fiscal pressure and it needs more funding to perform its missions.

“These are all serious facts,” James said. “There’s no ignoring these facts. We are the best on the planet, but we are also an Air Force under strain and something’s got to give.”

VICE CHAIRMAN JOINT CHIEFS SAYS NO MORE MONEY IN BUDGET FOR RISK

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 
No Room for More Risk in Defense Budget, Winnefeld Says
By Jim Garamone
DoD News, Defense Media Activity

WASHINGTON, Feb. 2, 2015 – While the president’s Fiscal 2016 Budget Request funds the defense strategy, the department has been assuming risk since sequestration, and there is no more room in the budget for risk, Navy Adm. James Winnefeld said here today.

The vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said the department is at “the manageable edge of risk” with the 2016 budget.

The Defense Department request – $534 billion in the base budget – breaks the sequestration cap of $498 billion set under the Budget Control Act of 2011.
Reversing Budget Declines

In the opinion of the nation’s military leaders, this is needed. “Fiscal Year 2016 reverses the decline in national defense spending of the past five years,” said Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in a written statement on the budget. “The proposed budget helps ensure we can manage risk and meet near-term defense needs while preparing for the future.”
But it is not all brightness and light, the chairman said. “It represents the minimum resource level necessary to remain a capable, ready and appropriately sized force able to meet our global commitments,” he said.

Winnefeld said those crafting the plan hit the hard budget “trifecta” -- citing declining resources, constraints on DoD flexibility and uncertainty over future resources.

“No budget is perfect, but we believe we’ve assembled the best possible combination of capability, capacity and readiness investments that we need to protect our nation and our national security interests,” he said. “We also believe it meets the current and future needs of the all- volunteer force that has served us so well and that represents our most asymmetric advantage in this world.”
Buying Back Risk

It’s time for the department to buy back the risk incurred when the Budget Control Act kicked in in 2013. The 2016 budget provides the resources needed to execute the defense strategy, “but we have little margin left for error or strategic surprise,” the admiral said.

For the past few years, the military has accepted greater risk than normal to execute the strategy with fewer resources. “We believe there's no room left on that end of the balance,” he said. “So, our best military advice is that any decrease below the (president’s fiscal 2016 budget) … will require adjustments to our defense strategy to restore balance. It doesn't mean the strategy completely breaks, but we will have to make adjustments to that strategy if we're going to stay in balance.”

If the funding and flexibility is not forthcoming, “it will mean reduced American leadership and freedom of action, and that’s, of course, an option, but not one that I think most of us would prefer,” he said.

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S REMARKS ON THE FY2016 BUDGET

FROM:  THE WHITE HOUSE 
February 02, 2015
Remarks by the President on the FY2016 Budget
Department of Homeland Security
Washington, D.C.

11:27 A.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you so much.  (Applause.)  Thank you, everybody.  Please, have a seat.  Well, good morning, everybody.   It is good to be here at the Department of Homeland Security.  And let me thank Jeh Johnson not only for the outstanding job that’s he’s doing as Secretary of DHS, but also for a short introduction.  I like short introductions.  (Laughter.)  Give him a big round of applause.  (Applause.)

This is a great way to start the week, because I get to do something I enjoy doing, which is saying thank you.  Nobody works harder to keep America safe than the people who are gathered here today.  And you don’t get a lot of attention for it -- that’s the nature of the job.  But I know how vital you are, and I want to make that sure more Americans know how vital you are.  Because against just about every threat that we face -- from terrorist networks to microscopic viruses to cyber-attacks to weather disasters -- you guys are there.  You protect us from threats at home and abroad, by air and land and sea.  You safeguard our ports, you patrol our borders.  You inspect our chemical plants, screen travelers for Ebola, shield our computer networks, and help hunt down criminals around the world.  You have a busy agenda, a full plate.  And here at home, you are ready to respond to any emergency at a moment’s notice.

It is simply extraordinary how much the Department of Homeland Security does every single day to keep our nation, our people safe.  It’s a critical job, and you get it done without a lot of fanfare.  And I want to make sure that you have what you need to keep getting the job done.  Every American has an interest in making sure that the Department of Homeland Security has what it needs to achieve its mission -- because we are reliant on that mission every single day.

Now, today, I’m sending Congress a budget that will make sure you’ve got what you need to achieve your mission.  It gives you the resources you need to carry out your mission in a way that is smart and strategic, and makes the most of every dollar.  It’s also a broader blueprint for America’s success in this new global economy.  Because after a breakthrough year for America -- at a time when our economy is growing and our businesses are creating jobs at the fastest pace since the 1990s, and wages are starting to rise again -- we’ve got some fundamental choices to make about the kind of country we want to be.

Will we accept an economy where only a few of us do spectacularly well?  Or are we going to build an economy where everyone who works hard has a chance to get ahead?

And that was the focus of my State of the Union Address a couple weeks ago -- what I called middle-class economics.  The idea that this country does best when everybody gets a fair shot, and everybody is doing their fair share, and everybody plays by the same set of rules.

The budget that Congress now has in its hands is built on those values.  It helps working families’ paychecks go farther by treating things like paid sick leave and childcare as the economic priorities that they are.  It gives Americans of every age the chance to upgrade their skills so they can earn higher wages, and it includes my plan to make two years of community college free for responsible students.  It lets us keep building the world’s most attractive economy for high-wage jobs, with new investments in research, and infrastructure and manufacturing, as well as expanded access to faster Internet and new markets for goods made in America.

It’s also a budget that recognizes that our economy flourishes when America is safe and secure.  So it invests in our IT networks, to protect them from malicious actors.  It supports our troops and strengthens our border security.  And it gives us the resources to confront global challenges, from ISIL to Russian aggression.

Now, since I took office, we have cut our deficits by about two-thirds.  I’m going to repeat that, as I always do when I mention this fact, because the public oftentimes, if you ask them, thinks that the deficit has shot up.  Since I took office, we have cut our deficits by about two-thirds.  That’s the fastest period of sustained deficit reduction since after the demobilization at the end of World War II.  So we can afford to make these investments while remaining fiscally responsible.  And, in fact, we cannot afford -- we would be making a critical error if we avoided making these investments.  We can’t afford not to.  When the economy is doing well, we’re making investments when we’re growing.  That’s part of what keeps deficits low -- because the economy is doing well.  So we’ve just got to be smarter about how we pay for our priorities, and that’s what my budget does.

At the end of 2013, I signed a bipartisan budget agreement that helped us end some of the arbitrary cuts known in Washington-speak as “sequestration.”  And folks here at DHS know a little too much about sequestration -- (laughter) -- because many of you have to deal with those cuts, and it made it a lot harder for you to do your jobs.

The 2013 agreement to reverse some of those cuts helped to boost our economic growth.  Part of the reason why we grew faster last year was we were no longer being burdened by mindless across-the-board cuts, and we were being more strategic about how we handled our federal budget.  And now we need to take the next step.  So my budget will end sequestration and fully reverse the cuts to domestic priorities in 2016.  And it will match the investments that were made domestically, dollar for dollar, with increases in our defense funding.

And just last week, top military officials told Congress that if Congress does nothing to stop sequestration, there could be serious consequences for our national security, at a time when our military is stretched on a whole range of issues.  And that’s why I want to work with Congress to replace mindless austerity with smart investments that strengthen America.  And we can do so in a way that is fiscally responsible.

I'm not going to accept a budget that locks in sequestration going forward.  It would be bad for our security and bad for our growth.  I will not accept a budget that severs the vital link between our national security and our economic security.  I know there’s some on Capitol Hill who would say, well, we’d be willing to increase defense spending but we’re not going to increase investments in infrastructure, for example, or basic research.  Well, those two things go hand in hand.  If we don’t have a vital infrastructure, if we don’t have broadband lines across the country, if we don’t have a smart grid, all that makes us more vulnerable.  America can’t afford being shortsighted, and I'm not going to allow it.

The budget I’ve sent to Congress today is fully paid for, through a combination of smart spending cuts and tax reforms.  Let me give you an example.  Right now, our tax code is full of loopholes for special interests -- like the trust fund loophole that allows the wealthiest Americans to avoid paying taxes on their unearned income.  I think we should fix that and use the savings to cut taxes for middle-class families.  That would be good for our economy.

Now, I know there are Republicans who disagree with my approach.  And I’ve said this before:  If they have other ideas for how we can keep America safe, grow our economy, while helping middle-class families feel some sense of economic security, I welcome their ideas.  But their numbers have to add up.  And what we can’t do is play politics with folks’ economic security, or with our national security.  You, better than anybody, know what the stakes are.  The work you do hangs in the balance.

In just a few weeks from now, funding for Homeland Security will run out.  That’s not because of anything this department did, it’s because the Republicans in Congress who funded everything in government through September, except for this department.  And they’re now threatening to let Homeland Security funding expire because of their disagreeing with my actions to make our immigration system smarter, fairer and safer.

Now let’s be clear, I think we can have a reasonable debate about immigration.  I'm confident that what we’re doing is the right thing and the lawful thing.  I understand they may have some disagreements with me on that, although I should note that a large majority -- or a large percentage of Republicans agree that we need comprehensive immigration reform, and we’re prepared to act in the Senate and should have acted in the House.  But if they don’t agree with me, that’s fine, that’s how our democracy works.  You may have noticed they usually don’t agree with me.  But don’t jeopardize our national security over this disagreement.

As one Republican put it, if they let your funding run out, “it’s not the end of the world.”  That’s what they said.  Well, I guess literally that’s true; it may not be the end of the world.  But until they pass a funding bill, it is the end of a paycheck for tens of thousands of frontline workers who will continue to get -- to have to work without getting paid.  Over 40,000 Border Patrol and Customs agents.  Over 50,000 airport screeners.  Over 13,000 immigration officers.  Over 40,000 men and women in the Coast Guard.  These Americans aren’t just working to keep us safe, they have to take care of their own families.  The notion that they would get caught up in a disagreement around policy that has nothing to do with them makes no sense.

And if Republicans let Homeland Security funding expire, it’s the end to any new initiatives in the event that a new threat emerges.  It’s the end of grants to states and cities that improve local law enforcement and keep our communities safe.  The men and women of America’s homeland security apparatus do important work to protect us, and Republicans and Democrats in Congress should not be playing politics with that.

We need to fund the department, pure and simple.  We’ve got to put politics aside, pass a budget that funds our national security priorities at home and abroad, and gives middle-class families the security they need to get ahead in the new economy.  This is one of our most basic and most important responsibilities as a government.  So I’m calling on Congress to get this done.

Every day, we count on people like you to keep America secure.  And you are counting on us as well to uphold our end of the bargain.  You’re counting on us to make sure that you’ve got the resources to do your jobs safely and efficiently, and that you’re able to look after your families while you are out there working really hard to keep us safe.

We ask a lot of you.  The least we can do is have your backs.  That’s what I’m going to keep on doing for as long as I have the honor of serving as your President.  I have your back.  And I’m going to keep on fighting to make sure that you get the resources you deserve.  I’m going to keep fighting to make sure that every American has the chance not just to share in America’s success but to contribute to America’s success.  That’s what this budget is about.

It reflects our values in making sure that we are making the investments we need to keep America safe, to keep America growing, and to make sure that everybody is participating no matter what they look like, where they come from, no matter how they started in life, they’ve got a chance to get ahead in this great country of ours.  That’s what I believe.  That’s what you believe.  (Applause.)  Let’s get it done.

Thank you.  God bless you.  God bless the United States of America.  (Applause.)

END

CHAIRMAN JOINT CHIEFS SAYS SEQUESTRATION HURTS U.S. ABILITY TO MEET RESPONSIBILITIES

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 
Dempsey: Sequestration is 'Absolutely Crazy'
By Lisa Ferdinando
DoD News, Defense Media Activity

WASHINGTON, Jan. 26, 2015 – Sequestration is "absolutely crazy," will hurt national security and make it "impossible" for the United States to meet its global commitments, according to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The world has changed dramatically since sequestration was passed into law in the Budget Control Act of 2011, Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey said.
Dempsey spoke Thursday, in an interview aboard his plane as he returned to Washington following a European trip focusing on threats to the continent.
"The combination of the Budget Control Act and the sequestration mechanism will make it impossible for us to meet our global responsibilities," he said.
The sequestration mechanism forces across-the-board government spending cuts, a "mechanical withdrawal" that "doesn't allow you to balance your books," Dempsey said.

"The readiness hole is still the readiness hole. The global security environment is more dangerous and sequestration is still on the books as the law. It's absolutely crazy for this country," the top general said.
A More Dangerous World

The changes in the global environment since 2011 include the emergence of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, Russia's fueling of instability in Ukraine, and a "host of security issues," he said.

"ISIL hadn’t manifested itself as a trans-regional threat," the chairman said. "Russia had not annexed Crimea and violated the sovereignty of Ukraine, and in so doing, by the way, stirred up nationalism and ethnicity in Europe in a very unhelpful way."

In addition, the United States is now engaged in trying to reduce sources of instability in Africa, including the mission supporting the fight against Ebola.
In those years since the law was passed, the world has also seen provocations by North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, Dempsey said.

"All those things require consideration of forward presence, readiness, resourcing, countering technological advances by some of our potential adversaries, and that's changed a great deal," the chairman said. "We're trying to encourage everyone to understand that change."

Sequestration Hurts National Defense

Military leaders in 2010 were predicting that even if the United States withdrew from Iraq and Afghanistan, he said, the military would need three or four years to recover its readiness.

"Because for 10 years we've been focused very narrowly on the counter-insurgency, counter-terror threat and we've lost some of our training edge," Dempsey said.

The United States deferred maintenance on some of its high-end capabilities because of sequestration, he said, including ships, submarines and airplanes.
In a separate interview with DoD News while in Europe last week, the chairman said he would like to have a "conversation with Congress" about reversing the effects of sequestration.

"If they're not reversed, they're going to be imposed in 2016, and they will negatively affect our national security interests," he said.

The chairman added, "Collaboratively we shouldn't allow that to happen."

DOD VIDEO: ARMY CHIEF OF STAFF SAID LEADERS MIGHT WANT TO RECONSIDER REDUCING SIZE OF FORCE

ARMY GEN. ODIERNO SAYS BY 2016 FORCE WILL BE SIGNIFICANTLY DEGRADED IF SEQUESTRATION CONTINUES

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 

Left:  Lance Cpl. Dominique Sparacino pauses while on patrol during Mountain Exercise 2014 on Marine Corps Mountain Warfare Training Center in Bridgeport, Calif., Sept. 8, 2014. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Sgt. Emmanuel Ramos.

Army Chief: Fiscal 2016 Sequestration Marks ‘Breaking Point’
By David Vergun
Army News Service

WASHINGTON, Sept. 19, 2014 – Should sequestration resume in fiscal year 2016 as current law requires, "it will be very difficult for us to lead around the world,” Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno said here today.

Fiscal 2016 is “a breaking point," Odierno told the Defense Writers Group. "I'm not seeing peace breaking out around the world in ’16," he added.

Everyone wants the United States to lead the way in resolving global conflicts and crises, the general said -- not necessarily supplying the preponderance of forces, but being involved to some extent. The nagging question, he said, is "Do we want to do that or not?"

In fiscal 2016, Odierno pointed out, the Army’s budget will go down $9 billion from what it is now. That would have a "significant degradation" on the force, he said, "because I cannot take people out fast enough."

The general explained that manpower, modernization and training need to be kept in balance, even as the budget shrinks. And it's currently out of balance with too many soldiers and not enough dollars to properly train and equip them, he said. A reduction of 20,000 soldiers a year is as far as he's willing to push manpower reductions without seriously degrading operational concerns and personnel considerations, Odierno told the writers.

Vast majority of budget is mandatory spending.  Although the total Army budget is around $120 billion a year, the general said, the vast majority of that is mandatory spending that can't be touched, such as funds for equipment and personnel costs. About 46 percent of the budget alone is for personnel, he noted.

Sequestration takes a large percentage of a small portion of the budget that otherwise would have gone to training and equipping the force, he said, noting that the slashed budget will delay aircraft purchases, platform upgrades, command and control system and a host of other needed requirements for years to come.

The active Army is now 510,000 soldiers, down from a high of 570,000. It will be 490,000 by the end of fiscal 2015, 470,000 by fiscal 2016, 415,000 by fiscal 2017 and 420,000 by fiscal 2019, he pointed out.

Before the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant offensive and the Russian incursion into Ukraine, Odierno said, he testified to lawmakers that a reduction to 450,000 would pose a significant security risk, and 420,000 would mean the Army would be unable to execute its current strategy. Since that time, he said, the risk has increased while the ability of the Army to deploy soldiers to a number of hot spots around the world simultaneously causes him grave concern. "I'm in a box," he added.

Over the last two days, the Army chief said, he approved letters for the Army secretary to sign, replying to about 40 lawmakers who had expressed concern that the Army will reduce the number of soldiers on installations in their home states.

"I wrote back that the reason I'm taking soldiers out of your installation and out of your state is because of sequestration, not that I want to do it,” Odierno said. That's the dilemma we're in."

The nation needs to have a security debate what it wants to do, the general told the writers. "Not a budget debate,” he added. “A security debate about what capabilities and responsibilities we want from our Army."

Summing up the current state of affairs -- sequestration and degradation of readiness, even as unforeseen problems emerge in Africa, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and elsewhere -- the general remarked: "This is a lousy way to plan and do business."

ASIA-PACIFIC REBALANCE CONTINUES

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 

Asia-Pacific Rebalance Remains Central to Strategy, Spokesman Says

By Claudette Roulo

DoD News, Defense Media Activity

WASHINGTON, Aug. 14, 2014 – Despite recent events in the Middle East, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and the Defense Department remain dedicated to the U.S. rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region, Pentagon Press Secretary Navy Rear Adm. John Kirby told reporters today.

“Given the fact that there's a lot going on in the world, that we're still making these visits and still having these discussions, speaks volumes about how important we believe the Asia-Pacific theater is,” he said at a Pentagon news conference.
With more than 350,000 American troops based in the Pacific -- including the majority of Navy assets -- and with five of the seven U.S. treaty alliances there, DoD is very committed to the region, Kirby said.

“It doesn't mean that we take our eye off the ball of the rest of the world,” he said. “We know we have security commitments around the world in the Middle East, in Africa [and] in Europe, and we continue to work mightily on those commitments. And there's been no slackening in that regard.”

But, Kirby noted, if sequestration remains the law of the land, “it's going to be harder and harder for us to meet those commitments.” Unless Congress acts to change the law, sequestration spending cuts will return in fiscal year 2016.
“The defense strategy that we put forward, which allows us to conduct this rebalance and still focus on those parts of the world, will be put in jeopardy” under sequestration, Kirby said.

Hagel returned yesterday from a trip that included a stop in India, where he met with Prime Minister Narendra Modi and External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj to discuss the importance of continuing robust defense cooperation.
“It was a very successful visit. … There are opportunities here for co-development and co-production that we hope will come to fruition here in the future, particularly with the Javelin anti-tank missile, shows great promise,” Kirby said. “But we were warmly received by Indian officials, came away from it feeling very, very positive. In fact, the secretary was talking about that this morning to the staff about the trip and feeling very, very encouraged by it.”
The department is looking forward to continuing to develop the defense relationship with India’s new government, he said.

“We had a great set of discussions. We believe the relationship is on a good, strong path forward, and that's the secretary's focus -- it’s on the future,” he added.

U.S. ARMY GEN. VIA SAYS SPENDING CUTS CUMULATIVE IMPACT AFFECTS READINESS

FROM:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Sequestration Chips Away at Readiness, General Says

By Army Sgt. 1st Class Tyrone C. Marshall Jr.

DoD News, Defense Media Activity

WASHINGTON, July 23, 2014 – The effects of sequestration spending cuts may seem overstated, but their cumulative impact affects the military’s readiness and its ability to respond to future contingencies, the commander of U.S. Army Materiel Command said here today.

Army Gen. Dennis L. Via discussed how the budgeting mechanism influences decisions and affects national defense for the Army and Defense Department at large during a meeting with the Defense Writers Group.

“Sometimes, there can be an impression that it’s overstated and [a question of] what the impact of sequestration will be,” Via said. But as the military emerges from 13 years of war and has to reset its equipment while downsizing force levels, the question of impact is a cumulative effect over time, he added.
“The impact is to our readiness and ability to be able to respond to future contingencies,” Via said.

Via said some “plus-ups” of funding in fiscal years 2014 and 2015 have mitigated some of the effects, but he noted that sequestration returns in fiscal 2016 at a time when the Army is trying to reset the force.

“We have to implement all of those cuts and have to reduce the force to, potentially, [420,000 soldiers],” he said. “That has significant risk to the nation.”
Looking around the world today, Via said, no one can say where the next contingency will be.

“But we know there’ll be another contingency,” he added.

And depending on what the future brings, the general said, the Army must be prepared “to conduct forces to meet the requirements -- whatever that level of force is.”

While that isn’t his decision, Via said, when the decision has been made to commit forces, “we have to make sure that they’re ready and prepared to go and accomplish their mission.

“They have to have the equipment, so we have to reset and get it back in their hands,” he continued. “We have to have the materiel available to surge if an event goes beyond what we think would be an initial [push].”

It’s also necessary to ensure that forces are postured to be expeditionary-capable, the general said, despite becoming more home-station-based, and to have power-projection platforms to push forces forward.

And with sequestration and the general budget uncertainty, readiness “continues to have us go up and down,” Via said.

“In readiness you have to maintain … what we call a band of excellence. You have to remain and operate in that band so that when you’re called upon … you can do so in a matter of days,” he said.

“The longer sequestration impacts and your readiness declines, it’s just like your car when you sit it out and you don’t drive it for a few months,” the general said. Using that idle vehicle as a metaphor for readiness, he explained how the lack of readiness can be felt.

“For three months, you can start it up and probably be OK,” Via said. “If you let it sit for nine months, all of a sudden the seals go, the tires, other challenges happen, and before you know it, you have an automobile you can’t drive.

“And that’s what happens to readiness when we’re talking about aviation [and] other platforms,” he continued. “Sequestration has what I call a constant chipping away at readiness. At some point, you get down to a point where it’s no longer affordable, and you have ‘have’ and ‘have-not’ units.”

When called upon to deploy, the general said, the “have-not” units cannot deploy, and if they do, they are not prepared.

“We don’t ever want to be in a position where we’re sending America’s sons and daughters into harm’s way not ready to accomplish their mission,” Via said.
“So I think when our chief of staff of the Army and secretary of the Army talk about that if we get down to a certain level -- that [420,000],” he explained, “you’ve got to understand that’s not 420,000 [soldiers] ready to support operations.”

A large portion of that, Via said -- 70,000 to 80,000 soldiers who are recruiters or otherwise serve in what he called a “generating force” -- as well as many tens of thousands in the recruiting pipeline and in training, take a big bite out of the 420,000-soldier Army.

“Before you know it, you’re down to 200,000 [soldiers]. … Are they going to be ready to meet for contingency?” he asked.

Looking at the number of contingencies happening around the world today and where soldiers are forward-stationed, Via noted the Army provides about 40 percent of the enabling capabilities of every combatant command.

“What do I mean by that?” he asked. “Communications networks, port opening, theater opening, airfield opening, theater intelligence, medical, pre-positioned stocks, logistics and support and contracting -- the Army does that,” Via said.
So with decisions forced by sequestration and having to “reduce, reduce and reduce,” the general said, then the culminating effects on the force, over time, become apparent.

“That’s where I worry about sequestration,” Via said. “At the end of the day, the Army’s primary mission is to prevent conflict, shape the operational environment, and if committed, win decisively.” That’s true whether it’s in a kinetic fight or during humanitarian assistance disaster relief efforts, he added.

“We want to be able to respond, because that’s the reputation … and security of the country,” Via said. “So when we look at that, sequestration impacts significantly our ability to prevent conflict.”

Conflict is prevented, he said, by having ready forces and equipment around the world that can respond very, very quickly.

“Sequestration, over time, will continue to cut at that readiness,” Via said. “The concern is … over a period of time, it’ll be that car we’re talking about that you just left for a period of time. You think it’s OK until you go out to start it and it doesn’t start. Where are you then? That’s where we don’t want to be.”

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE HAGEL'S REMARKS ON NATO EXPANSION

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 

Right:  Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel delivers remarks during the forum "Into the Fold or Out in the Cold? NATO Expansion and European Security After the Cold War," at the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington, D.C., May 2, 2014. DOD photo by Glenn Fawcett. 

Hagel Calls for NATO Meeting on Defense Investment
By Cheryl Pellerin
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, May 2, 2014 – At a Wilson Center forum here this morning on NATO’s 21st-century security challenges, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel called for the creation of a new NATO ministerial meeting focused on defense investment that includes finance ministers or senior budget officials.

Hagel’s proposal builds on President Barack Obama's March 26 speech in Brussels, and Atlantic Council statements earlier this week by Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State John F. Kerry urging every NATO-member state to meet its commitment to the alliance.

Holding such a ministerial meeting would allow finance ministers or senior budget officials “to receive detailed briefings from alliance military leaders on the challenges we face,” Hagel said.

“Leaders across our governments must understand the consequences of current trends in reduced defense spending,” he added, “and help break through the fiscal impasse.”

Since the end of the Cold War, America’s military spending has become increasingly disproportionate within the alliance, the secretary said. Today, America’s gross domestic product is smaller than the combined GDPs of the 27 NATO allies, but America’s defense spending is three times its allies’ combined defense spending, he added.

Over time, such a lopsided burden threatens NATO’s integrity, cohesion and capability, the secretary said, and ultimately, it affects European and transatlantic security.

“Many of NATO’s smaller members have pledged to increase their defense investment, and earlier this week at the Pentagon, I thanked Estonia’s defense minister for his nation’s renewed commitment and investment in NATO,” Hagel told the audience.

“But the alliance cannot afford for Europe’s larger economies and most militarily capable allies not to do the same, particularly as transatlantic economies grow stronger,” he said. “We must see renewed financial commitments from all NATO members.”

Russia’s actions in Ukraine have made NATO’s value abundantly clear, the secretary said, adding that he knows from frequent conversations with NATO defense ministers that they need no convincing.

“Talking amongst ourselves is no longer good enough,” Hagel said. “Having participated in three NATO defense ministerials and having met with all of my NATO counterparts, I have come away recognizing that the challenge is building support for defense investment across our governments, not just in our defense ministries.”

Defense investment must be discussed in the broader context of member nations’ overall fiscal challenges and priorities, he added.

In meeting its global security commitments, the United States must have strong, committed and capable allies, and this year’s Quadrennial Defense Review makes this clear, the secretary said. Going forward, the Defense Department will seek and increasingly rely on closer integration and collaboration with allies, and in ways that will influence U.S. strategic planning and future investments, Hagel said.
From the early days of the Cold War, American defense secretaries have called on European allies to ramp up their defense investment, he noted. In recent years, one of the biggest obstacles to alliance investment has been a sense that the end of the Cold War ushered in an end to insecurity, at least in Europe, from aggression by nation states, the secretary said.

“Russia’s actions in Ukraine shatter that myth and usher in bracing new realities. Even a united and deeply interconnected Europe still lives in a dangerous world,” Hagel said.

“In the short term, the transatlantic alliance has responded to Russian actions with strength and resolve,” he added. “But over the long term, we should expect Russia to test our alliance’s purpose, stamina and commitment. Future generations will note whether, at this moment of challenge, we summoned the will to invest in our alliance.”

NATO should find creative ways to help nations around the world adapt collective security to a rapidly evolving global strategic landscape, the secretary said.

Collective security is not only the anchor of the transatlantic alliance, he added, but also is a model for emerging security institutions around the world, from Africa to the Persian Gulf to Southeast Asia.

“I say this having just convened a forum of [Association of Southeast Asian Nations] defense ministers last month,” Hagel said, “and having called for a Gulf Cooperation Council defense ministerial this year.”

He added, “These institutions bring our people, interests and economies closer together, serving as anchors for stability, security and prosperity. Strengthening these regional security institutions must be a centerpiece of America’s defense policy as we continue investing in NATO.”

DOD CHIEF WORRIES SEQUESTRATION MAY PUT AT RISK U.S ROLE AS GUARANTOR OF GLOBAL SECURITY

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT  
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, March 13, 2014 – If sequestration begins again in fiscal year 2016, the U.S. military will not be able to carry out defense strategy, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told the House Appropriations Committee’s defense subcommittee this morning.

A return to sequester would put at risk "America's traditional role as a guarantor of global security, and ultimately our own security," Hagel said.

Events in Europe over the past few weeks underscore the need for American involvement, Hagel said. President Barack Obama's fiscal 2015 defense budget request reflects that reality, he added, and sustains U.S. commitments and leadership at a very defining time.

"I believe this budget has to be far more than a set of numbers or just a list of decisions," the secretary said. "It is a statement of values. It's a statement of priorities. It's a statement of our needs. It's a statement of our responsibilities."
The budget request is realistic, Hagel said, and prepares the military to defend the nation at a time of increasing uncertainty throughout the world.

From the troop side, Hagel discussed compensation reform. The department is committed to providing service members fair compensation, he emphasized, "as well as the training and the tools and the edge they will always need to succeed in battle and return home safely.”

"To meet those obligations under constrained budgets, we need some modest adjustments to the growth in pay and benefits,” the secretary said. “All these savings will be reinvested in training and equipping our troops. And there are no proposals to change retirement in this budget."

The Defense Department will continue to recommend pay increases, Hagel said, but they will not be as substantial as in past years. The department will continue subsidizing off-base housing costs, he added, but not at 100 percent, as it is today. DOD will pay about 95 percent, he said, and it will be phased in over the next several years.

The budget request includes a provision to reduce subsidies for military commissaries. "We are not shutting down commissaries," Hagel explained. "We recommend gradually phasing out some subsidies, but only for domestic commissaries that are not in remote areas."

Finally, the secretary said, the Defense Department recommends simplifying and modernizing the three TRICARE military health plan systems by merging them into one, with modest increases in copays and deductibles for military retirees and family members that encourage them more fully to use the most affordable means of care. "Active duty personnel will still receive care that is entirely free," he said.

DEFENSE SECRETARY, CHAIRMAN JOINT CHIEFS TESTIFY ON BUDGET BEFORE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE

FROM:  DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 
Hagel: Severe Budget Cuts Will Compromise National Security
By Cheryl Pellerin
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Mar. 5, 2014 – Congressional failure to fund the Defense Department above levels required by sequestration in fiscal years 2015, 2016 and beyond will compromise national security, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said here today.

The secretary testified with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey this morning before the Senate Armed Services Committee on the president’s fiscal year 2015 budget request.

The abrupt and severe budget cuts known as sequestration would result in “a military that could not fulfill its defense strategy, putting at risk America’s traditional role as guarantor of global security and, ultimately, our own security,” Hagel told the panel.

The president’s defense budget is responsible, balanced and realistic, he said, supporting the U.S. defense strategy, defending the nation and keeping Defense Department’s compensation and training commitments to its people.

“These commitments will be seriously jeopardized by a return to sequestration-level spending,” the secretary said. “That is not the military the president and I want for America’s future. I don’t think that’s the military this committee wants for America’s future, but it’s the path we’re on.”

Hagel called the defense budget far more than a set of numbers or a list of decisions.

“It is a statement of values and priorities,” the secretary said. “It is a budget grounded in reality … that prepares the U.S. military to defend our national security in a world that is becoming less predictable, more volatile and, in some ways, more threatening to our country and our interests.”

The department’s fiscal 2015 base budget request is about $496 billion and includes an extra $26 billion, a proposal called the president’s Opportunity Growth and Security Initiative that DOD would use next year to improve readiness and modernization.

“That $26 billion represents an effort that would help dig us back out of the hole that we have been in for the last two years on readiness, and particularly focused on modernization,” Hagel said.

And the president’s five-year plan offers what the secretary called a realistic alternative to sequestration, projecting $115 billion more than the current law allows.

DOD requires the added funding to implement its updated defense strategy as outlined in the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review, a study by the department undertaken every four years that analyzes strategic objectives and potential military threats.

“The strategic priorities articulated in the QDR represent America’s highest security interests -- defending the homeland, building security globally, deterring aggression and being ready and capable to win decisively against the adversary,” Hagel said.

In December, the Bipartisan Budget Act passed by Congress gave the department temporary relief from sequestration and a year of budget certainty, Hagel said, but it still imposes more than $75 billion in cuts over the next two years. Unless Congress changes the law, sequestration will cut another $50 billion from the budget beginning in fiscal 2016.

“Even though we are requesting spending levels above sequestration, we have maintained flexibility in our budget to respond immediately to the lower topline should sequestration be reimposed,” the secretary said, noting that this was done by reprogramming some of the sequestration-level force-structure reductions that take longer to plan and implement, such as the decommissioning of the aircraft carrier USS George Washington.

Hagel also issued formal guidance to the service leadership that these reductions will not be made if Congress indicates it will make future appropriations at topline levels in the five-year plan.

Addressing for the panel critical issues in the budget request, Hagel said that to meet national security needs under a constrained budget the department focused on the balance among readiness, capability and capacity.

“After more than a decade of large stability operations, we traded some capacity to protect the readiness and modernization capabilities as we shift the focus on future requirements. These are shaped by enduring and emerging threats. We have to be able to defeat terrorist threats and deter adversaries with increasingly modern weapons and technological capabilities,” he said.

“We must also assure that America’s economic interests are protected through open sea lanes, freedom of the skies and space, and deal with one of the most urgent and real threats facing all nations – cyberattacks,” the secretary added. “That’s why we protected funding for cyber and special operations forces.”
For the active-duty Army, the department proposed drawing down to 440,000 or 450,000 soldiers, less than 10 percent below its size before the attacks of 9/11. And the department will continue investing in high-end ground capabilities to keep its soldiers the most advanced on earth, Hagel said.

Army National Guard and Army Reserve units will draw down by 5 percent, and the Army’s helicopter force structure will be reduced by 8 percent. The active Army’s helicopter fleet will be cut by 25 percent while keeping the aircraft modernized as the fleet moves from seven models to four.

The decisions, including the department’s recommendation to trade out Apaches in the Army National Guard for Black Hawks were driven by strategic evaluations, Hagel added.

The Navy will take 11 ships out of its operational inventory, and these will be modernized and returned to service with greater capability and longer lifespans, he said.

The Marine Corps will continue its planned drawdown to 182,000, but will devote 900 more Marines to increased embassy security. Hagel said the Marine Corps will remain ready and postured for crisis response as it moves back to its expeditionary, amphibious roots.

The Air Force will retire the A-10, replacing it with more modern sophisticated multi-mission aircraft such as the joint strike fighter, he said.
On compensation reform, Hagel said, under a restricted budget the department needs modest adjustments to the growth in pay and benefits, and the savings will be reinvested in training and equipping the troops. There are no proposals to change military retirement in this budget, he added.

The department will continue to recommend pay increases, the secretary said, but they won’t be as substantial as in past years. The Defense Department will continue subsidizing off-base housing costs, he added, but at 95 percent rather than 100 percent, and the decrease will be phased in over the next several years.
The department will not close commissaries, Hagel said, but it recommends gradually phasing out some subsidies for domestic commissaries that are not in remote locations. And the department recommends simplifying and modernizing its three TRICARE health care plan systems. It will do this by merging them into one system, with modest increases in copays and deductibles that encourage using the most affordable means of care.

“Active duty personnel will still receive health care that is entirely free,” the secretary said. “This will be more effective and more efficient and will let us focus more on quality. Overall, everyone’s benefits will remain substantial, affordable and generous, as they should be.”

The fiscal 2015 proposed defense budget will allow the military to meet America’s future challenges and threats, he said, and it matches resources to strategy.

“As we end our second war of the last decade, our longest ever, this budget adapts and adjusts to new strategic realities and fiscal constraints while preparing for the future,” Hagel told the panel.

“This is not a business-as usual-presentation,” he added. “It is a budget that begins to make the hard choices that will have to be made. The longer we defer these difficult decisions, the more risk we will have down the road, and the next DOD leaders and Congress will have to face more complicated and difficult choices.”

DEFENSE SECRETARY HAGEL DISCUSSED AFFECTS OF BUDGET

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 
Hagel Outlines Budget Reducing Troop Strength, Force Structure
By Nick Simeone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Feb. 24, 2014 – Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has proposed cuts in military spending that include further reductions in troop strength and force structure in every military service in the coming year as part of an effort to prioritize U.S. strategic interests in the face of reduced resources after more than a decade of war.

At a Pentagon news conference today detailing President Barack Obama’s proposed Pentagon budget for fiscal year 2015, Hagel called the reductions -- including shrinking the Army to its smallest size since before World War II and eliminating an entire fleet of Air Force fighter planes -- “difficult choices” that will change defense institutions for years to come, but designed to leave the military capable of fulfilling U.S. defense strategy and defending the homeland against strategic threats.

Under a Pentagon budget that will shrink by more than $75 billion over the next two years -- with deeper cuts expected if sequestration returns in fiscal year 2016 -- Hagel and other senior defense and military officials acknowledged that some of the budget choices will create additional risks in certain areas.

Some of that risk, Hagel said, is associated with a sharp drawdown in the size of the Army, which the proposed budget calls for reducing to as low as 440,000 active duty soldiers from the current size of 520,000, while ensuring the force remains well trained and equipped.

The cuts assume the United States no longer becomes involved in large, prolonged stability operations overseas on the scale of Iraq and Afghanistan. “An Army of this size is larger than required to meet the demands of our defense strategy,” Hagel said. “It is also larger than we can afford to modernize and keep ready.” But he said the smaller force still would be capable of decisively defeating aggression in one major war “while also defending the homeland and supporting air and naval forces engaged in another theater against an adversary.”

The budget request calls for special operations forces to grow by nearly 4,000 personnel, bringing the total to 69,700, a reflection of the asymmetrical threats the nation is likely to face in the future, Hagel said.

The restructuring and downsizing are in line with a two-year budget agreement that the president and Congress worked out in December, which limits defense spending to $496 billion. But Hagel warned today that if the budget for fiscal year 2016 returns to the steep, automatic spending cuts imposed by sequestration, “we would be gambling that our military will not be required to respond to multiple major contingencies at the same time.”

Asked to define that increased risk, a senior Defense Department official expressed it simply. “If the force is smaller, there’s less margin for error,” the official said. “Let’s face it -- things are pretty uncertain out there.”

The proposed budget also envisions a 5-percent reduction in the Army National Guard and Army Reserve. “While it is true that reserve units are less expensive when they are not mobilized, our analysis shows that a reserve unit is roughly the same cost as an active duty unit when mobilized and deployed,” Hagel said.
In addition, the Army Guard’s Apache attack helicopters would be transferred to the active force, while Black Hawk helicopters would be transferred to the National Guard, part of a broader realignment of Army aviation designed to modernize the fleet and increase capability.

Within the Air Force, the defense budget calls for saving $3.5 billion by retiring the A-10 fleet and replacing it with the F-35 by the early 2020s.

“The A-10 is a 40-year old, single-purpose airplane originally designed to kill enemy tanks on a Cold War battlefield,” Hagel said. “It cannot survive or operate effectively where there are more advanced aircraft or air defenses.” In addition, the service also will retire the 50 year-old U-2 surveillance plane in favor of the unmanned Global Hawk.

Hagel warned that much deeper cuts in Air Force structure and modernization will be necessary if sequestration is not avoided in 2016.
Among other proposals in the budget request:

-- The Army will cancel the Ground Combat Vehicle program;

-- The Navy would be able to maintain 11 carrier strike groups, but any steep future cuts could require mothballing the aircraft carrier USS George Washington;

-- Half of the Navy’s cruiser fleet, 11 ships, will be placed in reduced operating status while they are modernized and given a longer lifespan;

-- The Navy will continue buying two destroyers and attack submarines per year;
-- The Marine Corps will draw down from about 190,000 to 182,000, but would have to shrink further if sequestration returns;

-- An additional 900 Marines will be devoted to securing U.S. embassies;
and
-- The Defense Department is asking Congress for another round of base closings and realignments in 2017.

Hagel said most of the recommendations in the budget were accepted by senior military officers. Addressing reporters alongside him, Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the spending plan reflects a balancing of the military while ensuring it remains the world’s finest.

“It reflects in real terms how we’re reducing our cost and making sure the force is in the right balance,” Dempsey said.

Dempsey and Hagel will testify on the budget before Congress next week. Lawmakers will have the final say on spending decisions.

“This is the first time in 13 years we will be presenting a budget to Congress that is not a war footing budget,” Hagel noted.

DEFENSE OFFICIAL SAYS MILITARY COMPENSATION GROWTH RATE MUST BE SLOWED

DOD photo by Erin A. Kirk-Cuomo.

Right:  Acting Deputy Defense Secretary Christine H. Fox answers a question as Navy Adm. James A. Winnefeld Jr., vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, listens during testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee in Washington, D.C., Jan. 28, 2014. Fox and Winnefeld addressed the current budget environment and the possible requirement to slow the rate of growth in military compensation. 

FROM:  DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Fox Says DOD Must Slow Growth of Military Compensation
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Jan. 28, 2014 – The Defense Department must slow the rate of growth in military pay and compensation or the organization will not be able to fight and win the nation’s wars, Acting Deputy Defense Secretary Christine H. Fox said here today.

Fox, testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, said DOD must get a handle on pay and benefits or risk sending service members into harm’s way unprepared.

The deputy thanked the senators for supporting the Bipartisan Budget Act, which she said mitigates the worst of the problems DOD faces under the Budget Control Act of 2011. Still, she added, it only goes through the next two years, and this is a long-term problem.

“Beyond those two years, the BCA remains the law of the land,” she said. “If sequestration is allowed to persist, our analysis shows that it will lead to a force that is too small, inadequately equipped and insufficiently trained to fully defend the nation’s interests.”

Given this budgetary background, DOD civilian and military leaders have said time and again that the one-third of the defense budget consumed by military compensation cannot be exempt as an area of defense savings. “We must find ways to slow the rate of growth,” Fox told the committee.

Inflation-adjusted pay and benefit costs are 40 percent higher than in 2001, even though the active force today is just slightly larger. Defense health care costs alone have grown from less than $20 billion in 2001 to nearly $50 billion in 2013. Payments for housing costs also have increased faster than inflation.
“If this department is going to maintain a future force that is properly sized, modern and ready, we clearly cannot maintain the last decade’s rate of military compensation growth,” Fox said.

Military service is about more than just a paycheck. The jobs and service military personnel perform are as important. If the department doesn’t have money to maintain equipment, or supply the latest technology, or get service members the latest and best training “then they are being done a disservice,” the deputy said.
“When they’re sent into harm’s way, this disservice can quickly transition into a breach of trust,” Fox said. “Here I am referring to our collective, sacred obligation to provide our troops with the finest training and equipment possible, so that they can deploy to combat able to accomplish their mission and return to their families.”

The department does have recommendations for slowing the growth of compensation fairly and effectively, Fox said. “Most notably, just this year, Congress accepted a 1 percent basic pay raise, even though the employment cost index called for an increase of 1.8 percent. We are currently reviewing all military pays and benefits, and may offer further proposals.”

Fox spoke directly to the “COLA-minus-one” or “CPI-minus-one” provision included as part of the Bipartisan Budget Act. The provision required capping cost-of-living raises in retirement pay for working-age military retirees at 1 percent below inflation, as measured by the Consumer Price Index.

“To my knowledge, no DOD officials were consulted on the details of the BBA, including the CPI-minus-one provision,” she said. “The department fully supported the changes made to the provision to exempt military disability retirement and survivors.”

The department does support a comprehensive review of this provision, the acting deputy defense secretary said, including its effect on retirees not currently exempted. “If the Congress decides to retain the CPI-minus-one approach, we strongly recommend it be modified to include ‘grandfathering,’” she said.
Fox called on Congress to refrain from changing military retirement until the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission presents its final report in February 2015.

“There are many ways we might change military retirement, including more fundamental reforms,” she said. “Because the CPI-minus-one provision does not go into effect until December 2015, there is ample time for such a careful review, including waiting for the commission to provide its input.”

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE HAGEL TOUTS VALUE OF WORKFORCE AFTER SHUTDOWN

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT
Hagel Stresses Workforce's Value After 'Manufactured Crisis'
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Oct. 17, 2013 - Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel issued a message to the Defense Department's workforce today, welcoming back employees furloughed by the 16-day government shutdown and emphasizing their value to the nation.

Here is the text of the secretary's message:

Today the Department of Defense is resuming normal operations across the world, now that Congress has finally restored funding for DoD and the rest of the federal government. This manufactured crisis was an unwelcome and unnecessary distraction from our critical work of keeping the country safe.

I know that each of your lives has been disrupted and affected in different ways. I regret the impact that this shutdown had on so many of our civilian personnel, particularly those who I was previously unable to recall from emergency furlough.

Starting today, we will be welcoming all of our civilians back to their normal duties. To those returning from furlough: know that the work you perform is incredibly valued by your military teammates and by me. I appreciate your professionalism and your patience during this difficult period of time, which came on top of last summer's sequestration-related furloughs. Your managers will have more information about this, but I can assure you that you will be paid in full for the time you were furloughed during the shutdown.

Now that this latest budget crisis has come to an end, we have an opportunity to return to focusing on the critical work of this department. Unfortunately, Congress did not end the budget uncertainty that has cast such a shadow of uncertainty over this department for much of the year. In the months ahead, they will have an opportunity to do so. My hope is that they will realize that these kinds of crises do great damage to our people, our national security, our economy, and America's standing in the world. Congress has a responsibility to govern, and it must fulfill those basic responsibilities in order to keep our country strong.

DETAILS OF 2014 SEQUESTRATION PRESENTED BEFORE HOUSE PANEL

FROM:  U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 
Service Chiefs Detail 2014 Sequestration Effects
By Cheryl Pellerin
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Sept. 19, 2013 - One after another yesterday in a hearing before a House panel, the nation's service chiefs described how severe budget cuts required by law in fiscal year 2014 would slash their forces, capabilities and readiness and raise security risks to the American people.

The House Armed Services Committee heard testimony on planning for sequestration in fiscal 2014 from Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan W. Greenert, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark A. Welsh III and Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James F. Amos.

Sequestration is the name for a decade-long series of severe budget cuts mandated by the Budget Control Act of 2011 that amount to $470 billion taken from defense spending in addition to an equivalent cut that already was planned.

In fiscal 2013 the cuts, implemented only in the last half of the year and leading to six furlough days for DOD civilian employees, were $37 billion. In fiscal 2014 they are estimated to be $52 billion.

It is imperative to preserve the range of strategic options for the commander in chief, the secretary of defense, and Congress, Odierno told the panel.

"Together," the general said, "we must ensure our Army can deliver a trained and ready force that deters conflict but when necessary has the capability and capacity to execute a sustained successful major combat operation. The Budget Control Act with sequestration simply does not allow us to do this."

If Congress does not act to mitigate the magnitude and speed of reductions with sequestration, Odierno said, the Army will not be able to fully execute requirements of the defense strategic guidance issued in 2012.

By the end of fiscal 2014, the Army will have significantly degraded readiness, as 85 percent of active and reserve brigade combat teams will be unprepared for contingency requirements, he said.

From fiscal 2014 to fiscal 2017, as the Army continues to draw down and is restructured into a smaller force, its readiness will continue to degrade and modernization programs will experience extensive shortfalls, the general added.

"We'll be required to end, restructure or delay over 100 acquisition programs, putting at risk the ground combat vehicle program, the armed aerial scout, the production and modernization of our other aviation programs, system upgrades for unmanned aerial vehicles, and the modernization of air defense command-and-control systems, just to name a few," Odierno told the panel.

Only in fiscal 2018 to fiscal 2023 will the Army begin to rebalance readiness and remodernization, the general said, but this will come at the expense of significant reductions in the Army's number of soldiers and its force structure.

The Army will be forced to take further cuts from a wartime high of 570,000 soldiers in the active Army, 358,000 in the Army National Guard and 205,000 in the Army Reserve to no more than 420,000 in the active Army, 315,000 in the Army National Guard and 185,000 in the Army Reserve, the general said.

This represents a total Army end-strength reduction of more than 18 percent over seven years, a 26 percent reduction in the active Army, a 12 percent reduction in the Army National Guard and a 9 percent reduction in the Army Reserve, he explained, adding that it also will cause a 45-percent reduction in active Army brigade combat teams.

"In my view, these reductions will put at substantial risk our ability to conduct even one sustained major combat operation," Odierno said.

Today's international environment and its emerging threats require a joint force with a ground component that has the capability and the capacity to deter and compel adversaries who threaten our national security interests," he said. "Sequestration severely threatens our ability to do this."

The Army is increasing its investment in the cyber domain, however, the general said, adding at least 1,800 people to that effort.. And noting that the Army provides intelligence not only for the Army, but also for the broader strategic and operational force -- he said Army officials are reviewing how they do that, but that the primacy of what it does in the intelligence community will not change.

In his comments to the panel, Greenert said sequestration also would reduce readiness in the Navy's preparations for fiscal 2014, its impacts realized mainly in operations and maintenance and in investments.

"There are several operational impacts, but the most concerning to me is that reductions in operations and maintenance accounts are going to result in having only one nondeployed carrier strike group and one amphibious ready group trained and ready for surge operations," Greenert said.

"We have a covenant with the global combatant commanders and the national command authority," he told the panel. "We provide carrier strike groups forward ready on deployment, and that's generally two. We have two to three, generally three, ready to respond within about 14 days. And then we have about three within 60 to 90 days. That's what we've signed up to. That's called the fleet response plan. That has to change now."

The Navy also will be forced to cancel maintenance, inevitably leading to reduced life for ships and aircraft, he said, adding that the service will conduct only safety-essential renovation of facilities, further increasing the maintenance backlog.

The Navy probably will be compelled to keep a hiring freeze in place for most of its civilian positions, Greenert added, affecting the spectrum and balance of the civilian force.

Because the Navy will not be able to use prior-year funds to mitigate sequestration cuts in its investment accounts as it could in fiscal 2013, without congressional action it will lose at least a Virginia-class submarine, a littoral combat ship, and an afloat forward-staging base, the admiral said.

"We will be forced to delay the delivery of the next aircraft carrier, the Ford, and will delay the mid-life overhaul of the George Washington aircraft carrier. Also we'll cancel procurement of 11 tactical aircraft," he noted.

Greenert said the Navy needs to transfer $1 billion into its operations and maintenance account by January and $1 billion into its procurement accounts post-sequestration to get shipbuilding back on track and to meet its essential needs.

"Other deliveries of programs and weapon systems may be delayed regardless," he added, "depending on the authority that we are granted to reapportion funds between accounts."

On the topics of nuclear deterrence and cyber, Greenert said, "My job is to provide strategic nuclear deterrence, safe and credible, No. 1. Right behind that is cyber. ... We are staying the course on our cyber warrior plan that we've briefed in here. Through any budget scenario ... we have got to maintain that."

In his remarks, Welsh told the panel that if sequestration stays in place in fiscal 2014, the Air Force will be forced to cut flying hours by up to 15 percent.

"Within three to four months, many of our flying units will be unable to maintain mission readiness," he said. "We'll cancel or significantly curtail major exercises again, and we'll reduce our initial pilot production targets."

Over the long term, sequestration will significantly affect the service's force structure, readiness and modernization, Welsh said, adding that over the next five years the service could be forced to cut up to 25,000 total force airmen, or about 4 percent of its people.

"We also will probably have to cut up to 550 aircraft, about 9 percent of our inventory," the general said. "And to achieve the necessary savings in aircraft force structure, we'll be forced to divest entire fleets of aircraft."

To determine the proper force structure, the Air Force will prioritize global, long-range capabilities and multirole platforms needed to operate in a highly contested environment. Other platforms will be at risk, the general said.

"We plan to protect readiness to the maximum extent possible [and to] prioritize full-spectrum training, because if we're not ready for all possible scenarios, we'll be forced to accept what I believe is unnecessary risk, which means we may not get there in time, it may take the joint team longer to win, and our people will be placed at greater risk," Welsh added.

Air Force modernization and recapitalization forecasts will be bleak if sequestration continues, he said, affecting every program.

"We will favor recapitalization over modernization whenever that decision is required," he said. "That's why our top three acquisition priorities will remain the KC-46, the F-35, and the long-range strike bomber."

The U.S. Air Force is the best in the world and a vital piece of the world's best military team, the general said, "but the impacts are going to be significant, and the risk occurs from readiness in the ways it impacts our airmen."

In his remarks to the panel, Amos said that for the Marine Corps to meet requirements of the defense strategic guidance it needs 186,800 active-duty Marines to meet steady-state requirements, go to war, and preserve a 1-to-3 ratio of deployed time to home-station time for Marines.

"Our share of the 2011 Budget Control Act's $487 billion reduction cut our end strength to 182,000," he said. "Based on sequestration, I simply cannot afford a force that size." Sequestration will force the Marines to plow through scarce resources, funding old equipment and weapon systems to try to keep them functional, the general said.

The Marines will be forced to reduce or cancel modernization programs and infrastructure investments to maintain readiness for deployed and next-to-deploy units, he said. Money that should be available for procuring new equipment will be rerouted to maintenance and spare accounts for legacy equipment, including a 42-year-old Nixon-era amphibious assault vehicle, he added.

In February, the Marines initiated a parallel study to the Defense Department's Strategic Choices and Management Review, Amos said.

"Our exhaustive research, backed by independent analysis, determined that a force of 174,000 Marines is the smallest force that can meet mission requirements. This is a force with levels of risk that are minimally acceptable," he said.

"For instance," he added, "assuming that global requirements for Marine forces remain the same over the foreseeable future, a force of 174,000 will drive the Marine Corps to a 1-to-2 dwell –[ratio] for virtually all Marine units -- gone six months, home 12 months, gone six months."

A force of that size accepts risk when the nation commits itself to the next major theater war, Amos said. The Marines would have 11 fewer combat arms battalions and 14 fewer aircraft squadrons.

"This is a single Marine major contingency operation force that would deploy and fight until the war's end," the general said. "In other words, we would come home when the war was over."

Marines who joined the corps during that period likely would go from drill field to battlefield, he added. Across the joint force, America would start to see shortfalls in the military's ability to accomplish its national strategy.

"Today we are seeing only the tip of the iceberg," Amos said. "Tomorrow's Marines will face violent extremism, battles for influence and natural disasters. Developing states and nonstate actors will acquire new technology and advanced conventional weapons that will challenge our ability to project power and gain access."

To be effective in the new environment, he said, Marines must maintain their forward influence, strategic mobility, power projection, and rapid response capabilities they are known for today.

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE HAGEL'S MESSAGE ON CIVILIAN FURLOUGHS

FROM:  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE CHUCK HAGEL MESSAGE ON REDUCING CIVILIAN FURLOUGHS

           When I announced my decision on May 14 to impose furloughs of up to 11 days on civilian employees to help close the budget gap caused by sequestration, I also said we would do everything possible to find the money to reduce furlough days for our people. With the end of the fiscal year next month, managers across the DoD are making final decisions necessary to ensure we make the $37 billion spending cuts mandated by sequestration, while also doing everything possible to limit damage to military readiness and our workforce. We are joined in this regard by managers in non-defense agencies who are also working to accommodate sequestration cuts while minimizing mission damage. As part of that effort at the Department of Defense, I am announcing today that, thanks to the DoD's efforts to identify savings and help from Congress, we will reduce the total numbers of furlough days for DoD civilian employees from 11 to six.

           When sequestration took effect on March 1, DoD faced shortfalls of more than $30 billion in its budget for day-to-day operating costs because of sequestration and problems with wartime funding. At that point we faced the very real possibility of unpaid furloughs for civilian employees of up to 22 days.

           As early as January, DoD leaders began making painful and far reaching changes to close this shortfall: civilian hiring freezes, layoffs of temporary workers, significant cuts in facilities maintenance, and more. We also sharply cut training and maintenance. The Air Force stopped flying in many squadrons, the Navy kept ships in port, and the Army cancelled training events. These actions have seriously reduced military readiness.

           By early May, even after taking these steps, we still faced day-to-day budgetary shortfalls of $11 billion. At that point I decided that cutting any deeper into training and maintenance would jeopardize our core readiness mission and national security, which is why I announced furloughs of 11 days.

           Hoping to be able to reduce furloughs, we submitted a large reprogramming proposal to Congress in May, asking them to let us move funds from acquisition accounts into day-to-day operating accounts. Congress approved most of this request in late July, and we are working with them to meet remaining needs. We are also experiencing less than expected costs in some areas, such as transportation of equipment out of Afghanistan. Where necessary, we have taken aggressive action to transfer funds among services and agencies. And the furloughs have saved us money.

          As a result of these management initiatives, reduced costs, and reprogramming from Congress, we have determined that we can make some improvements in training and readiness and still meet the sequestration cuts. The Air Force has begun flying again in key squadrons, the Army has increased funding for organizational training at selected units, and the Navy has restarted some maintenance and ordered deployments that otherwise would not have happened. While we are still depending on furlough savings, we will be able to make up our budgetary shortfall in this fiscal year with fewer furlough days than initially announced.

           This has been one of the most volatile and uncertain budget cycles the Department of Defense has ever experienced. Our fiscal planning has been conducted under a cloud of uncertainty with the imposition of sequestration and changing rules as Congress made adjustments to our spending authorities.

           As we look ahead to fiscal year 2014, less than two months away, the Department of Defense still faces major fiscal challenges. If Congress does not change the Budget Control Act, DoD will be forced to cut an additional $52 billion in FY 2014, starting on October 1. This represents 40 percent more than this year's sequester-mandated cuts of $37 billion. Facing this uncertainty, I cannot be sure what will happen next year, but I want to assure our civilian employees that we will do everything possible to avoid more furloughs.

           I want to thank our civilian workers for their patience and dedication during these extraordinarily tough times, and for their continued service and devotion to our department and our country. I know how difficult this has been for all of you and your families. Your contribution to national security is invaluable, and I look forward to one day putting this difficult period behind us. Thank you and God Bless you and your families.