tv Defense Department Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Briefing CSPAN February 13, 2016 11:15am-12:36pm EST
-- they the explicitly for bid and forbidden from communicating with each other because of the way contracts are managed. government reserved for itself the job of coordinating how this was going to go. they did not have that skill set. the government was not equipped to do that job. what was going on made zero cents. >> that discussion tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. president obama's 2017 budget request allows $580 billion for defense spending. , the vice chair of the joints chief of staff and other pentagon officials outlined the details. this is one hour 15 minutes.
>> good afternoon, everybody. thank you for joining us as we roll out the fy 2017 defense budget. the defense budget request totals $523.9 billion in discretionary funding for our billion in and $58.8 overseas contingency operations for a total of $582 billion. that sustains the national defense strategy and the figures conform to the budget levels found in the bipartisan budget agreement. when building this program that informs the budget that we are going to talk to you about today , secretary carter first asked partners to take a long view. how is the next 25 years going to differ from the last?
the future is inherently unknowable, but we concluded that five of these strategic challenges would most likely drive the focus of our planning program in the budgeting processes. the first to challenge is reflect the most significant shifts in the future security environment. a return to an era of great power competition. we are faced by a resurgent russia and rising china. both are nuclear armed powers. both building advanced capabilities at a rapid rate. both are primitive members of the when security council and both take issues with some aspects of the principal international order that has preserved stability and enabled the pursuit of prosperity for decades. both are becoming more aggressive along their peripheries. russia and china. cooperate continue to
on issues of mutual interest to both countries, which included the department must be prepared for increased competition over the next way five years. challenge isategic more applicable. north korea is already a nuclear armed power and is now pursuing advanced ballistic missile capabilities that already threaten our allies. committed to developing long-range nuclear armed missiles which can pose a direct threat to the continental united states if it is successfully designed and fielded. the new leader has demonstrated a propensity for publication. north korea continues to station forces along the demilitarized
zone. for these reasons, we must continue to retain forces on the peninsula that can fight tonight if called upon. the new leader has demonstrated a propensity for .ublication -- provocation iran seeks to become the dominant regional power. in support of its goal, it is pursuing ever long-range -- a tog-range of the stat stabilizing activities. -- destabilizing activities. the fifth challenge is our sustained global campaign against terrorist networks. with a near-term emphasis on degrading and defeating isil and an effort to train afghan forces
to counter the spread of isil in south asia. from our perspective, the campaign against global terrorist networks will be an enduring condition for much of the next when he five years. we have to be prepared to monitor it constantly and treat it would necessary. -- for the next 25 years. this does not reflect a prioritize asian of strategic threats. ation ofitiz strategic threats. we therefore sought to develop a portfolio with the capacities,
capabilities and readiness to address all five of these strategic challenges with some degree of risk. that is important to note. the president's budget allows us to execute our strategies. given the current level of funding, we simply cannot reduce every risk associated with every strategic challenge. we therefore developed a program that addresses all five and the secretary said if we cannot reduce risks in all of the challenges we have to prioritize . they told us to do three things. we should prioritize strengthening our conventional deterrent against the most potential adversaries. to match expect this numerically or symmetrically. he told us to offset their strengths using new technological operational and organizational constructs to achieve a lasting advantage and strength and deterrence.
the advanced capabilities where developing -- we are developing are directly applicable against lesser states and also strengthens deterrence in that regard. with respect to the services, the secretary asked us to focus far more on shape and size. to achieve the best balance of modernization and readiness within the existing budget level. in terms of readiness, he committed us to focus on reconstituting full readiness. he charged us to place heavy emphasis on innovation. ensure we retain the advantage we enjoy in human capital. our people are the best and most powerful competitive advantage that we have across all five challenges.
the force of the future aims to keep it that way. plans andupdate our operational concepts. the secretary and chairman are pushing the department to look at each of these challenges in terms of trans regional multi-domain answers. don't just look at it regionally. look at it by exploiting our global posture. he asked us to seek game thating technologies exploit our advantages and adversaries weaknesses. become a lean and agile 21st century organization and we want to free up additional resources to devote to other programmatic needs and fight down any residual risk that remains in the program. the vice chairman of the joints chief of staff and i will be
happy to take your questions. >> thank you, mr. secretary. by expressing my deepest appreciation to this team of professionals who are the men and women who work the long hours to develop this year's defense budget submission. no easy task, even in the best of times. we face the unenviable task of complexo address challenges to our national security interests despite the enduring strain of constrained resources. this collaboration is what the service jeeps and i believe is the best possible balance based on the resources available. mistake, today's environment is more unpredictable than i have seen in my 35 years of service. our soldiers commitment and marines have been battling terrorism around the globe for 13 years.
the pervasive threat posed by violent extremist organizations has been and remains an immediate threat. , it has come at a heavy cost, degrading readiness meddling modernization and increasing our overall capacity. the rest of the world has not remained stagnant during this time. increasinglyd by aggressive state actors demand our action. we face growing challenges from russia and china, which are asserting the power at the expense of regional security. nuclearrea's pursuit of weapons and listing missile ballistices this missile technologies and iran's activities as the chief exporter of terrorism and the stability.
-- instability. preserving force structure and advancing readiness. for the army, it supports the ongoing transition back to high-end combat and full spectrum capabilities. in improvements in service capability, tactical aircraft and investments in advanced undersea escape abilities. it maintains the reading core -- the marine corps as the most and forresponse force the air force, this budget invests in high-end capabilities across the range of domains that we expect our air force to respond in while attempting to improve readiness through training for the high-end fight. this proposal reflects the hard choices we've made in the context of today's security environment and economic strength -- constraints. we are in the process of engaging congressional leaders
and their staff to address their questions and concerns. i look forward to continuing to work to eventually get an to provide int the investment -- for the investment effects x ability to address our national security interests into the future. thank you again for being here today. -- flexibility to address our national security interests into the future. about the thinking behind the new $200 million in debt countering threats in north africa, west africa, in that region? what you expect to buy with that money. for the afghanistan amount, about what troop levels for the coming fiscal year. and maybe just an overall -- the increase in funding.
what do you expect to buy with the -- what are you hoping that buys? for $58 million, that was built from the bottom up. whatdo we need to do to do we need to look operation afghanistan? the president made a decision to keep 9800 troops through sometime this year. and down to 5500 at the end of the year. that,udget fully funds fully funds all the operations going on in both iraq and syria. asks for iraq train and equip. this provides us everything we need we believe right now to execute our global operations. that left over $5 billion to
cover base needs -- needs. generally, $5 billion was able to address those needs. that reemphasize the fact in the budget as submitted, we have funded all of our anticipated operational costs across our trans regional fight against terrorism. that has all been fully covered. of the services will be able to cover the detail of the request. we have covered all the anticipated expenses in that endeavor. >> what about this $200 million for the africa region? can you expand on that a little bit? about thethink
threats across all of africa, the newly formed isil clerks it goes back to at the secretary and chairman were saying. we have to approach this as a trans regional problem. from theo approach it western coast of africa all the way to afghanistan. intentionally, also in southeast asia. none of these problems we look at as a central command problem. we look at what do we need trans regionally? doinge are anticipating is with the broader support of our global campaign against terrorism.
after 2021. how serious is this that the next administration faces? during the republican debate, there has been a constant drumbeat that the american military has been gutted. address the selection today when they hear that it has been gutted. overall ofng about .his verse the u.s. military >> amid talk about this way. i would like to turn it in and talk about the physical issue received going forward. the primary problem we're faced
with is that we really like the budget deal. we applaud congress being able to provide assist two years of stability. 2018, we're planning on going up again the sequestration cap's. of the moneyll between 18-20 $100 million we are counting on that we are not certain we will get. number two, the future is osha. howlett be done in the future? that is a big uncertainty. we have money there that should be in the base that has happened over the last 14 years. we have to adjust that. 2135 is $18 between billion per year to reconstitute and recapitalize our nuclear deterrent. --that comes out of our date conventional forces, that be
very problematic for us. rather than talk about that, there is future fiscal risk that the country, congress and future administrations must come to grips with. soon as we have a better understanding of that, will be assured of that our defense strategy is on the right track. >> i will take umbrage with the notion that our military has been gutted. i stand here today after wearing the uniform for 35 years. been more confident that we have the most powerful military on the planet. of course we have challenges. globalu're faced with a set of threats, you have to focus your energy. stated, we have focused on violent extremist terrorist threat for the last 15 years. it that consumes the readiness of our force to do the other
tasks. readiness is a challenge that each of these services will face. we're far from gutted. in your joint force today to most powerful army in the planet. the most determined air force on the planet. we have a marine corps nobody can match. i will argue that is far from gutted. reality of the men and women serving our army, navy, and air force. they are the best the world has to offer. >> we have time for one more. expand on the lcs. also, if hearing on the growth to 90 caps. what in this budget addresses that growth?
example ofa perfect what the secretary meant by focusing more on shape rather than size. the requirement for the u.s. navy is 308 ships. , there is aships class kruger or a gutted missile destroyer. there was a requirement for 52 lcs is. for a total of 140 surface combatants. if you take a look at last year's plan, the navy was good -- the navy was going to build up to 321 ships. ourselves, what can't we buy a since we're going for 308-321 we cannot by capability. so, this is not an indictment against the lcs. if we do not like the ship, we would stop buying it.
those 12 ships would take us from 321 down to 309. it allowed us to put more money into torpedoes advanced munitions. more money into tactical aviation. it was more about achieving that balance between size, readiness, and modernization. we think the navy is much stronger because of this decision. and, the plan, will get the 300 ships. we will get the 308 ships. ships. stay above 300 of this was the type challenge and the trade that the vice chairman was talking about where, you look at it and say what i rather have the 12 extra ships are what i rather have all of the capability that allows us to buy? where building the 90 low-end caps. healthy isr caps on
the air force. that means they will have 10 highlights her line. for orbit. that is a sustainable force structure. cap.rmy is going to add 16 that is a global force management allocation plan. they will have 16 orbits. governmentfind 10 owned shock absorbers. that kansas upwards of 86. then, the other are supporting the software today. that is how we get to 90. we would not get to 90 until the latter part of this. we are on track. there's no slowdown. we hope that congress will support us in that goal. did you have anything? thank you.
thishave to push you on one. you say you have one out of 17? flexible ony's are these points. the navy came in and said that in terms of competition, it would help if both yards had a ship. change the 40. we are going to get 40 ships. it was a slight change in the profile. it was allowing us to make sure that the frigate was a way to do it. on all of these things, these are hard choices. choices between size, modernization, and readiness. each of these services will explain to you the choices they had to make. about what we think is the best balance. thank you.
his left is the director of resources and assessment for the joint staff. general anthony ird. >> thank you. good afternoon. first, want to say deputy and vice chairman have been a great the internment over many months. since this is the last time i will be doing this, i want to recognize the hard work that withon across the building some people with services and command. we're going to get the budget done. i want to take a second to get the enormous contribution of two people. moore, herejimmy was leads a great team over there. i'll get to the second one, it was not early november where we got the budget deal. it started back in late spring.
so, we're far along our process. we're building the budget. scramble for the last six weeks to cap $17 billion. i will explain that number. it was only last 10 days of our project that we knew what congress had done to the 16th budget. a lot of information came late. my staff, a particular works to get a quality product. close my remarks by thinking my staff. we did the work of two people throughout the entire process from november. we were missing and are still missing the top career budget officials. he has been out for illness for an extended. of time. in the meantime, it is done enormous work to do his job. slide,n go to the first the deputy kind of covered, first of all there are three things. number one, there are the facts.
budget.a total a think it of you can read that. the second, he talked to some degree about the secretary's guidance to us and the idea that you have to fight to win across a range of challenges. it is really the important place to start. what problem are trying to solve. what problems does the secretary moniz to solve. for anybody listening who did not read the secretary's remarks from a week ago, oh encourage them to go to the website and kind of start their come if you would with his speech for what he is trying to do into a little more meat on the bones in the challenges which is what the government is trying to address. finally, the w touched on this. a word on this as we hit it off to the next administration, the sequester issue is still hanging out like a bad cold. news to taking care of. our plans have been consistent. we'll talk about that over the course of several years. if weans will not work
can i can this problem solved and get back up to the level of resources that we need to keep this process going. we do think we're making progress here. i will skim past the next slide which shows you the history of i want to moveet to the next light after that and theled down little bit on three your time. we have just been through and are about to start. so, what is important about the budget situation and budget deal, a few things. from 16-17, the two bars on the right, we are up to $.5 billion. that is under the terms of the budget deal. it is very flat from year-to-year. the yoko budget for this two years, we're only up to billion dollars. what did you have this suit compared to what you had last year? if you do the math, the pay raise that we had basically consumes that amount of money.
a, taking that aside, we had flat amount of money once they got of the compensation that really speaks to the deputies point about this being more about the shape of the budget and the size. the shot -- the size is not growing. if you look back to the year before, one reason the secretary said he was grateful for the budget deal is that it jumped us up from where we had been stuck in a rut for three years. i would certainly much rather be in the 520 neighborhood than in the 490 neighborhood heard that is with the budget did for us. it is a better jumping off point for trying to get the next jump up we need in the future. again, when his secretary talks about being grateful for the deal, i think you speak in terms of the fact that he has been calling all your for compromise. when he says he is grateful, he does not mean he had to get her thing he wanted come he still
thinks it is a good deal. he got some stability which is important to the troops. in that sense, the deal was both a stub up much closer to where he think we need to be and also, some near-term certainty which is probably the best we could expect under the circumstances. get the next slide, will go back a year at this time. we are off of the second year of the ryan deal. it was a free for all in terms of what would happen in the budget. after a timeing being stuck in the four 90's. we had a very large increase. now, i will flip to this year's picture. the budget deal came in. we had the bipartisan budget.
it gives us everything we wanted. jump to something in the way. so, we need this year, our top line is that there is no drama. we looking ahead to the future. just as we did from the 131415 something we is need to make another jump to the 17. this is the most consistent administration i have seen. budget,ook at the 15 they are purple, blue, and green. every five-year plan is slanted down lower. we have stuck to our position well.
resources we need it. it also speaks to the point of deputy was making about hundred million dollars. whether they are still enforced. it made it about $25 billion per year. it is what is at stake for us. the law is not changed. for second, the deputy talks about this. i do not think we need to say too much more. the thing that strikes me about the secretary wants from us is just the breadth of what we need to be addressing. our military as the vice chairman said, it is nothing
else we will contemplate. when you think about what he is asking us to do, we need to fight and win today. we think about the five , it is from the time to the domain, the land and space, and cyberspace, just the breadth of what we're attempting to be excellent at something only our military will do. this is something no normally do in a budget brief which is what to not saying the budget. know we will have two slides on this. budget, we have the predominant part of the budget agreement.
there are just $22 billion below what we had planned for this year. now, a couple slides ago, i talked about the kitchen table mass come how much might have last year, how was to have this year? this is what degree plan for? compared to that plan, the budget deal was $22 million. as we have already discussed, when the deputy was up here, the budget agreement for the first time had a specific number in their for wartime spending. when we built all of our requirements come as we did from the ground up, as we always do, we came out to $5 billion less than that. we had $5 million of relief. it was directly intended by the budget agreement. that brought down $5 billion from the $22 billion.
as from 17.8 million dollars. over on the right-hand side of the chart committee first two things we did was to apply the economic savings. it is either the assumption for the whole government motors a large part. or the one-to that we developed yourself. everybody knows that we live in an area of low inflation. everybody can look to see was having with the fuel prices. with the consumer goods and services, those two things service $5 billion. those are the first two things that help us move some extensions in the agreement. if a bring is favorable economic assumptions. it will solve $10 billion of the problem. that still leaves us in $11 billion problem which is 2% off
the top line. we have efficiencies which we will talk about, they grew over time in the first year for half $1 billion. that is a small bar there. the programs change cut things out of the plan. it is the bulk of the $11 billion. so, we can flip to the next slide. what is in that green bar of $11 billion? let me talk about what is not in there. what you do not see in the chart. we did not cut compensation. there is no net reduction to the compensation portfolio. for $17 billion, that portfolio is as well-funded as it was before. to say there was not one change to want the gamer. generally, a for sure sure hand we have before is a four
structure plan we have now. we did look at modernization. i would not say that and a stupid way. we did not terminate programs. these run the people side. typee do not knew do the of things that would involve flailing around and breaking things. we were careful and thoughtful and how we approach this. students of defense reductions have everyone familiar at this. they will study this over time. especially when you have a short-term, in this case to make to your budget deal that tells a you have less money. it doesn't make a lot of sense to try to fundamentally change the structure. so, we went to the modernization was tense to be the most volatile. that is where we have to take some risk. so, you see for example, 25% less black hawks, fewer be 22's.
the aircraft accounts for billion dollars less money for shipbuilding. these are not maybe things that we love to do. we talk about protected readiness recovery, people are the most important asset, with the kind of advisability and trying to make this change in a structure over two-year deal, this is where we had to go, also we had the risk and installation which is already lower than what any of us would like it to be. so, we can talk more about this later. modernization is where we had to take this and terms of how to get the number down. quarks now, let me talk about what is in the budget. to go to the rest of the talk. are what wee levels have been planning for some time.
it is what we will experience. been aency has really hallmark of the resource levels. we'll talk a little bit about that from the futures later. the core structure which is on the next slide, and looks pretty similar to everyone. these levels from the nuclear side, maybe the deputy was talking about the ship account level. 54 fighting squadrons. it is the same as last year. we're still over the marks on the wall. it was a 980,000 person army. that is still our mark in the wall. we go up to 460 this year on the active side. we are dropping, as we had planned, from 475 to 460. and from the next year to kind of reach the objective level.
the marine corps stabilizing out at 182. again, there could -- there should not be much surprise to folks here and from the troops from around the country and from around the world. same thing on the , i think is important to have for the troops. again, people should recognize the numbers. arehe component side there three changes, none of which can see a thousand people. owner real change is the army dropping 10,000. it has been planned for some time. the next slide i will try to briefly touch are the major programs. haveis one more we would wanted fewer than we had planned. something, taken $17 billion out in six weeks is the challenge.
we have to look at some of the large programs where the money is. it is the shape -- changing we have to do. that, also planes and to the changing of having multi-years. if you cannot see the quantity there, and this year, will be completed, the ddg is ali flight three ship. ddcn, the summering in the 's will in the multi-your category. talk a little bit about innovation, a few things that were started last year. this changes the innovation agenda as the deputy can talk about. really expands the gambit largemaller efforts to
programs or larger efforts that will have significantly more fighting impact. the secretary mentioned one last year. there are a variety of projects both classified and unclassified that we are pursuing. to turn over to the readiness and the people side of the budget. >> good afternoon, first want to say that readiness is absolutely a critical part of our efforts. funds service efforts to address readiness from the standpoint of both, ensuring that the units are we will make sure the joint force is ready if they accomplish missions. that is the recovery of a joint force full spectrum readiness. it is a reorientation, the joint
force is engaged in combat operations over the past 10 years or more. now, weorm of conflict, must shift focus to the full spectrum to the outline that is implied. are programmed. however, resources are not the dominant factor in readiness recovery. it is different in every service. it is also impacted by mission demands. they may be occurring at any time as occurred today. resources are not the dominant factor. force capacity, up-tempo, maintenance input, all add to this challenge. talk andvices will
more specificity about this as we get into a generating more types of services and the joint force. we're talking about the early portion of the next decade. it is the full spectrum capability. dependent on overseas contingency operation funding for current operational demands and future requirements. next chart. here if you have the services where we will talk later. each of the services have their plans to regenerate a full spectrum readiness. in the case of the army, it is about training individual levels. ensuring combat training centers. we find 19 rotations in 2017. this allows the army to achieve full spectrum readiness.
leaders and soldiers and units in these environments to answer readiness so that they can have a full spectrum capability. the navy's focus is in loving maintenance requirements to support consistent and sustainable presence. in ensuring that the force is ready for the demand. the marine corps will continue to focus on crisis response and extradition capabilities. air will maintain both the admissions. they will balance between flying hours and weapon systems to continue full spectrum readiness. the air force is intensely involved. they operations that are occurring today, and our missions abroad, time will be needed to regain combat readiness. finally, we will maintain funding for deployments and have
sufficient search capacities and contingencies. we will look to the 2020 timeframe to try to regain its full spectrum readiness. i have one concluding chart from a portion here regarding the all volunteer force. the first thing i would like to point out is that as the chairman views this, it is about comprehensive and a holistic view of compensation for our force. the health of the forces viewed holistically. our servicemembers train. you have proper equipment? us thend general tells notion that we have. the vast military in the world is resilient and dedicated. it is also running very hard. the 2017 request for 1.6% pay ,aise for our servicemembers within topline constraints
reflects the unique demands and recognizes the unique demands and sacrifices of our servicemembers. between down on the gap where we want to be, and where we are. pay is therease in largest one of the last for your time. it is a supporting part of what we did. we generally assess this budget. we will also see a modest modification. i will talk very briefly here. first, to increase the shaping of the services. provide greater flexibility in continuation. will start matching contributions later, to incentivize retention. next, we want to ensure lifetime benefits here. an increase the defined matching rate.
and allow it to occur until the end of the service. finally, we will propose -- the department will propose modernization and improvement in the military and health care andem, to increase value simplicity with greater choice. the skills and proficiency of military health care providers. tovide them with opportunity treat the beneficiary for the benefit of the entire joint force. and to have their skills honed on a day to day basis. and finally, to have a balance fiscal sustainability to this package that will be included as a legislative proposal. with that, i will pass it back. >> thank you. i'm almost done.
, beyond thede traditional parts of compensation, i think the secretary has really put a lot of effort into the future. the point is that there are a few things. in november, he gave a speech about sustainability. it is about making it easier for people to serve their country either in uniform or as a civilian. us having been here, the hiring process one is one of the things that has to be improved. aspect in the future was going into late january. it had to do with the family portion childcare. fertilityansion with benefits. and, also maternity leave.
regards the building and everything, the secretary was very cognizant that i we are competing for talent with the prospect of the country. that we us to make sure are and remain a top-tier employer. span of ouross the retirement benefits, education benefits, the health care system , we already are a good employer. where ourknows that dues people trying to raise a family, and maternity leave. things that we think might able andelp us move the needle attract and maintain the best people. ideaally speaks to the that compensation and a quality of life is for you and your family. which is, as the saying goes, your crew the member, you retain the family is beyond a paycheck. i think that is to me, what the
future is about. it is not about particular cost benefits. mindsetally more of a to try to have us compete for talent. we know we have to compete technologically. won a talk about some of the reform proposals letter in the budget. on this chart, i kind of put bring them into two categories. it is the stain -- the same or substantially the same to what we were dealing with congress. cruiser modernization plans, and also the brack proposal. those are the same proposals we have had before. this is 2019-2017 because it is physically impossible given the restrictions on our activities.
what we have seen in the budget is probably one that has more to that. maybe got not before them. their general was describing the tri-care proposal. which is similar financially, but is a different proposal. and come we have dr. woodson from the department here today. if we need to go into that, we can. we have plenty of material posted on the web about tri-care proposal. specific prices like that. the third thing that is a common proposal has gotten a lot of attention, this year's proposal is a different proposal. it more trusty savings of the business and. that is different in an important way from the troops perspective. the mostr probably
well-known reform agenda proposals. things were we believe that given that the continued ,ressure, the budget deal remember, the in the day, we reduce resources from westerners plans. at least, we have this compelling with the reform before we got more money from the budget deal. we still have to make some hard choices. may bet slide is somewhat slower visibility. it is indicative of what they are trying to do across the market. it moves from the mandate we have impose on yourself to reduce headquarters staff. that the d.c. is going to have to deal with regards to the service contract. sexual assault prevention efforts. the secretary has already talked about it. let me talk about the last one.
everybody probably recalls the massive breach of personal information from last year. there is a proposal in this budget which mentions that the dod is not limited to the system we're going to move to. it is where we will have the new entity created. it will be responsible for investigations. it will not be an admission of opm mixed in with other others. .t'll be a new entity sort of like it is now in terms of agency responsibility. i have a government wide agency to do the investigation. the information produced by them is under the proposal fee. it will possibly protect the information behind our secure system. so, we will become a service provider with information on the i.t. side with the entire government.
would remain the service provider for an entire government. proposal will calm and different part of the defense budget. we are a part of it. the last thing i want to talk about before we take questions is the deputy a little bit. we have, continuing and effort in afghanistan. this question was asked before. the average troop strength is 9700. is not the end point is more well-known to people. 5500 is the average number throughout the year dropped throughout the year. the average strain and iraq-syria is roughly constant between the two years. the increase in funding is driven by the pace of operation tempo.
again aboutuestion, the ethics part. we're trying to get them more help to have more robust resources to help deal with our situation as it stands for such a large swaths of geography. the counterterrorism partnership fund is constant from westerners level. probably the biggest increase is the european reassurance initiative. it is something we have had good success working on -- working with congress on. this more than triples what we got last year. .t quadruples what we asked for the biggest increase in this area is to start pre-positioning equipment in europe to enable a faster response and provide a greater deterrent.
theother biggest part of increase is basically a doubling of the tempo if you will aspect will have all of our units training due to european partners. with a so-called heel to toe basis or we are constantly on the ground exercising, that is a doubling of the operating budget part from what we had last year on top of that, we will add this new positioning aspect, just to touch on what the deputy already made clear, everything on this page that we have in the category, whether it is in the iraq syria operation the afghanistan operation, the european resurgence initiative, without the numbers based on what we thought requirements were needed and what was executable. especially in the eri category. we're not constrained at all by the budget deal. came up with everything we thought we needed to do. and the bottom come you see what is left to use of the let rest of the headroom of made available to us.
so, that was about $5 billion. after we got done with everything we needed to do. to talk about the last slide, we're not going to read it to you. basically, as the deputy said to him what we are all about this trying to bring in a set amount of money from western to this year. we have the higher-level resource we believe we made a compelling case for. reshape and address the challenges that the secretary wants us to address. is what the research process is about. we have a project that does that. we're happy to take questions. meeting, toan has a mention what you had with the secretary of the vice-chairman all caps on, there is a path to recovery.
i look at documents like the rebuilding of the army where it has plateaued. force, will bypass this once we get to 2020, then we'll have eight years. we certainly have a very long resurgence people probably ever between two and three. it seems a this is a very long issue. with our previous sense of what the steps are that you would like in but maybe can't because of a lack of funding or too much coke cost demand. i would start out by saying it is not linear. today, although to certainly required, it is certainly not sufficient to achieve this. readiness are referring to. ,es, and each of the services it is a little different. the calculation includes time
and availability for the units. and, the ability to train and focus on those tasks. some of the deployments are units have, in fact contribute to readiness. some do not. operate in a to different organizational design to accomplish the tasks we are trying and meet the mission requirements the context of the environment in which our units , it does not always lend itself to the full spectrum readiness that combats and support units have to have. so, it is a function of time. it is a function of having adequate resources. as a function of having units that are available to go through this. the opportunity to go to combat training centers and participate in the high and training environments and exercises to achieve those. it will take time. what we are saying services can accumulate this one, is that it
will be in the early portion of the next decade before we start to see recovery regeneration rates exceed what we need them to be. it is nonlinear. it is certainly not as much as we would like it to be. >> can you tell us how much and personnel reform. how much money is being saved? >> the tri-care number is very similar to last year. my recollection is that it is under a billion dollars. we will get that for you. in the reforms office. >> within the compensation proposal, within the competition portfolio, we didn't really move any money in or out of that
there we have some pay raises and things that are making , we areng more generous doing where there are some savings to keep the health care costs down. we want to move a little more work should be. you.ank beyond the services committee, they have been saying that in robbing the you are base budget to fund the initiative. that when you find the $11 billion in programs, they have the $11 billion. would say the thinking in the budget is that we comply with the budget deal. we comply with everybody. i guess i would not characterize it as robbing the base budget.
we complied for congress agreed to. is whaterstand, that they have been saying in the media. that is why i'm wondering about your reaction to that. >> i will say that if you look at the history of the last 5-6 years, the president has the highest numbers out there. so, i'm not think of us as the ones who are robbing the defense budget. certainly, we have made the case, the secretary and this premium chairman in the previous joint chiefs said we think we have a good case for the resources we have asked for. we have not gotten it. i think the second year of murderer and was the only budget and the last 6-7 years or congress action funded what we asked for. every of the year we had cuts 20-30,000,000,000 dollars. we are dealing with cuts from the budget control act.
so, i think we have been making the case for higher resources but congress has not agreed to give them to us. so, the budget deal was not everything we wanted. to having cuts over the last few years. we still view this as progress. again, i think that we have done nothing more and nothing less to comply with the budget deal. i do not think that we have played any games. at the beginning with the obama administration, they were trying to deal with the marching orders. a lot has happened with budget gaps and threats. how is the department now looking in the long-term? done on aike it is yearly basis every year. are you taking more of a long-term approach these days? the way you have
made it an addendum to the base budget? >> we have had a lot of effort over this. when it started, the administration was trying to tighten up the rules. i would say we did a good job with that. we moved from what was the practice of the previous administration to submit one or intoupplements, to build what the wars would cost into the budget. have had, as a result, a pretty decent predictability. certainly, greater transparency than what came before. there were some reasons why that worked well, and some reasons why we had ongoing conflicts just a little harder when things are changing a lot to do with that way. in the last few years, there has been an effort we have worked with to try to find a way to get these costs down and get everything back into the base budget.
i was a budget deal that was enacted went in the opposite direction. i think it leads the future of oak oh a little uncertain as we get ready to turn over this administration, probably they will take a fresh look. the budget deal in my view gave was no guidance about what would happen after it expires. 18, 19, 20,about 21. we are back to his level down here. we have the proposed resource level. we have no information in the budget deal about what we think about that. the vocal arrangement was unprecedented. i have never seen emergency spending numbers written advance. it is hard for me to tell. to work to put some more predictability in 20 go to get all of the other resources back into the base
budget. we have not really made a lot of progress. we're certainly confused right now in terms of what is the future. we have a budget that looks like it does now? you'll ask them appear, this is the gift that keeps on giving. can you give a reality check on emergency results, and how they will integrate into general priority? what is the significance of setting up an armor brigade on a continual presence over to europe? what is the symbol of us sending that over there? it, we have had the large effort this year with the military departments.
they will have their current your resources. two of those have gotten their reviews back from the independent auditor. i do not know if they are all published or not. the third one is coming within less of a month. at disclaimer is for the first two. it was not a surprise. the first time you try something this involved. notink you could say it is an issue, as my predecessor used to say, you really have to get -- you have to call in the independent evaluators to really tell you what you're doing right and what you are doing wrong. we've spent a lot of time over this administration as well as previous ones with what i would call a necessary first step. at some point, you only really know by getting in and checking in the military.
you go to a national training we have these opposition forces out there, then you really learn what you're doing right and which are doing wrong. i'm not discouraged with the fact that we have disclaimers. we have a lot of hard work ahead of us. i think we are moving in the right direction. thing that can be frustrating is, if you can imagine working thing you find you have something else to fix. as you get into it, you can really find that there is a lot to get your arms around. then you work on it. that is something we will keep that. we are making progress. think that observers we have the right plan and that we are making progress.
we will keep pushing because i think we are working in the right direction. whether we are there is another question. the european initiative for the budget is 3.4 billion. two main areas. number one is the increased theence, which will include united states army brigade. they are on a rotational basis. they have no break in the availability of a full armored brigade. the second main part is the pre-positioning of army equipment. brigadeg, another army in a pre-positioned state in europe. we have the exact details to follow. those are the principal components, along with the infrastructure required to help
us operate in europe. the significance of an armored because,s important the united states army units as part of the joint force, this time, we do not have an army stationed in new york. previously, there were two heavy brigades withdrawn from europe as part of the army's drawdown. this is an important enhancement to the ability of the commanders. it, commanders and the joint forces commanders. the army commanders to conduct this maneuver, and have the right capabilities on the ground. >> thank you. can you give us details on the overall f 35? that, what is a percentage reduction? will this impact the unit cost? how much is this giving us in saving?
>> there are a number of questions. we will have to deal with that later. that is not the proper term here. come up isail i have within the 63 in this budget. 16 for the marine corps, four for the navy. the biggest reduction i would say compared to our previous plan, and that is how i'm always talking is definitely on the air force side. the unit increase is not expected to be noticeable. i would not say we will not know what it is. , you have to look at the totality of the program, including the partners have your crack numbers there. so, we will get with our folks
in the program office to give you the prediction from the areas that it is not going to be a significant change in the unit cost. definitely, there are a lot of resources. we are trying to get it back up to where he wanted it to be. .t is a lot of money it is unclear that we will be able to get this program back to the levels we had hoped for previously. >> we have time for tumor questions. >> do you know what the third offset effort was funded by? where did the rest of that money go after 17? >> we will have to try to get you information on that. not a tag in our budget
system that says this would not or could not be. ands a little less precise saying what is connected to this program? >> is at the amount of money that went towards it? it is under the third offset. >> we will get you the best numbers that we can. >> can you give us a breakdown of the contribution of the dod test? and the rationale for that? level in terms of our budget is not in norms, it is in the $100 million per year range. 17, we have the
pre-existing cost of the protection services that we have to offer people. 80% were in the dod family. cause that we are going to be doing it. a will be doing this as service provider, so for those entities outside the defense department, we would be doing and expectedn -- to be reimbursed. a cause that we and sending it back from under -- other agencies. >> thank you for your time.
>> tonight, the republican presidential candidates are in south carolina for a debate that will be live on cbs. the associated press reports that marco rubio is facing pressure to write his campaign after his performance in the last debate and finishing fourth. it rubio's stumble has we energized his opponents in great questions if yes the experience to be president. test six remaining contenders will be on stage in greenville, far from a long line of candidate who took the stage in earlier gop debates. if you missed the debate
tonight, you can watch it tomorrow at 4:00 p.m. eastern right on c-span. the best presidents, the greatest president have been willing to recognize they want the smartest person in the room. and to surround themselves with people who but they were smarter. >> sunday night, former secretary of defense robert gate, discusses his book, a passion for leadership, lessons .n change and reform mr. gates has served under several presidents, most recently, george w. bush and barack obama. >> when i was director of central intelligence, i came to believe very strongly that the american people had given cia a pass on a lot of things because of this existential conflict
with the soviet union. i believe that after the end of the cold war, we would have to be more open about what we did and how we did it to the american people better understand why intelligence was important to the government and two presidents and why presidents valued it. >> sunday night on c-span's q&a. >> the potomac institute healthy for monday on countering terrorist organizations and dialogical threats. speakers included former home in security tom ridge, former senator joe lieberman, defense vincent, andagent officials from sri lanka. this is over two hours.
>> ladies and gentlemen. i am the ceo of the potomac institute of policy studies and it is my great honor to welcome you to the 18th annual review of terrorism event. opportunities to deal with it, and concepts and studies to prevented. for the last 18 years, the potomac institute has been a very proud home of the international center for terrorism studies that has been headed by professor alexander. i am sure you are all here because you know about professor alexander and the tremendous work he has done. of this as the foremost institute for terrorism study in
the world. it publishes dozens of articles, seminar findings, and books every year on almost every aspect of terrorism. how it is being carried out around the world and a different parts of the world are dealing academics ended in an scholars can come up to offer ways to deal with it and to do with the underlying causes of terrorism. -- haser has come initiated a number of books on the issue from the islamic state, which is just recently out. to theon nato terrorism consolidated writings of osama bin laden. all of these are available from and wesite and amazon, will be very happy to dict