U.S. President’s Fiscal Year
Submitted Statement -- House
Appropriations Committee-Defense (Budget Request) : As Submitted by Secretary
of Defense Ash Carter, Washington, D.C., Wednesday, March 04, 2015.
Source : DoD, Washington D.C.
Chairman Frelinghuysen, Ranking Member Visclosky, Members of
the Committee: thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the President’s
Fiscal Year 2016 budget request for the Department of Defense (DoD). Oversight
is key to our system of government. I not only welcome your wisdom and
experience; I also want your partnership, and need your help.
I also want to thank Chairman Dempsey for his leadership, as
well as Deputy Secretary Work and Vice Chairman Winnefeld, in particular for all
their hard work over the past year in helping develop the budget request we will
be discussing today.
I. Introduction and strategy
During my first week as Secretary of Defense, I had the
opportunity to see our troops in Afghanistan and Kuwait. Hearing from them was
one of my highest priorities upon taking office.
In Afghanistan, our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines
are helping cement progress made toward a more secure, stable, and prosperous
future, by training, advising, and assisting Afghan forces and continuing their
counter-terrorism mission. They are working to ensure that Afghanistan never
again becomes a safe haven for attacks on our homeland, or on our partners and
In Kuwait, our men and women in uniform are contributing to
our counter-ISIL coalition in Iraq and Syria. They are working closely with Iraq
and our global coalition partners to ensure that local forces can deliver
lasting defeat to a vile enemy that has barbarically murdered American citizens,
Iraqis, Syrians, and so many others, and that seeks to export its hateful and
twisted ideology across the Middle East and North Africa, and beyond.
No doubt the challenges and opportunities we face extend well
beyond the Middle East.
In Europe, our troops are helping reinforce and reassure our
allies in Eastern Europe as we confront a reversion to archaic security thinking.
In the Asia-Pacific – home to half the world’s population and
economy – they are working to modernize our alliances, build new partnerships,
and helping the United States continue to underwrite stability, peace, and
prosperity in the region – as we have for decades.
And as we still meet longtime challenges, such as the
continuing imperative to counter the spread of weapons of mass destruction, our
armed forces are also addressing new dangers, such as in cyberspace.
Across the world, it is America’s leadership, and America’s
men and women in uniform, who often stand between disorder and order – who stand
up to malicious and destabilizing actors, while standing behind those who
believe in a more secure, just, and prosperous future.
Mr. Chairman, this committee and this Congress will determine
whether our troops can continue to do so – whether they can continue to defend
our nation’s interests around the world with the readiness, capability, and
excellence our nation has grown accustomed to, and sometimes taken for granted.
Halting and reversing the decline in defense spending imposed
by the Budget Control Act, the President’s budget would give us the resources we
need to execute our nation’s defense strategy.
It would ensure we field a modern, ready force in a balanced
way, while also embracing change and reform, because asking for more taxpayer
dollars requires we hold up our end of the bargain – by ensuring that every
dollar is well-spent.
The President is proposing to increase the defense budget in
Fiscal Year 2016, but in line with the projection he submitted to Congress last
year in the Fiscal Year 2015 budget’s Future Years Defense Program (FYDP). The
department is executing the plan it presented last year. Accordingly, for Fiscal
Year 2016, the President is proposing $534 billion for DoD’s base budget and $51
billion in Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), totaling $585 billion to
sustain America’s national security and defense strategies.
The Defense Department needs your support for this budget,
which is driven by strategy, not the other way around. More specifically, it is
driven by the defense strategy identified in the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review,
which reflects the longtime, bipartisan consensus that our military must protect
the homeland, build security globally, and project power and win decisively. We
do so in line with our longstanding tradition of maintaining a superior force
with an unmatched technological edge, working in close partnership with friends
and allies, upholding the rules-based international order, and keeping our
commitments to the people who make up the all-volunteer force.
Our defense budget’s priorities line up with our strategic
priorities: sustaining America’s global leadership by:
- rebalancing to the Asia-Pacific region;
- maintaining a strong commitment to security and stability in Europe and the
- sustaining a global counterterrorism campaign;
- strengthening key alliances and partnerships; and,
- prioritizing key modernization efforts.
This budget ensures we can execute our defense strategy with
manageable risk, even as it does require us to accept elevated risk in some
But – and I want to be clear about this – parts of our
nation’s defense strategy cannot be executed under sequestration, which remains
the law of the land and is set to return 211 days from today.
As I have said before, the prospect of sequestration’s
serious damage to our national security and economy is tragically not a result
of an economic emergency or recession.
It is not because these budget cuts are a mathematical solution to the nation’s
overall fiscal challenge – they are not.
It is not because paths of curbing nondiscretionary spending and reforming our
tax system have been explored and exhausted – they have not.
It is not due to a breakthrough in military technology or a new strategic
insight that somehow makes continued defense spending unnecessary – there has
been no such silver bullet.
And it is not because the world has suddenly become more peaceful – for it is
abundantly clear that it has not.
Instead, sequestration is purely the collateral damage of
political gridlock. And friends and potential enemies around the world are
We in the Department of Defense are prepared to make
difficult strategic and budgetary choices. We are also committed – more than
ever before – to finding new ways to improve the way we do business and be more
efficient and accountable in our defense spending.
But in order to ensure our military remains the world’s
finest fighting force, we need to banish the clouds of fiscal uncertainty that
have obscured our plans and forced inefficient choices. We need a long-term
restoration of normal budgeting and a deal that the President can sign, and that
lives up to our responsibility of defending this country and the global order.
And that means, among other things, avoiding sequestration.
To be sure, even under sequestration, America will remain the
world’s strongest military power. But under sequestration, our military – and
our national security – would have to take on irresponsible and unnecessary risk
– risk that previous Administrations and Congressional leaders have wisely
chosen to avoid.
Sequestration would lead over time to a military that looks
fundamentally different and performs much differently than what we are used to.
Not only as Secretary of Defense, but simply as an American, I deeply, earnestly
hope we can avert that future. I am committed to working with the members of
this committee, and your colleagues throughout the Congress to prevent it.
I know how proud you and all Americans are that we field the
finest fighting force in the world. But our military superiority was not built,
and will not be sustained, by resting on our laurels. So instead of resigning
ourselves to having the diminished military that sequestration would give us, I
propose that we build the force of the future, together.
II. Buildingt the force of the future
Assuming the Congress funds the President’s Fiscal Year 2016
budget and averts sequestration, we have the opportunity to build the force of
the future. We have inherited a long tradition of military excellence from those
who came before us, and we must preserve it for those who will come after.
But to do so, DoD must embrace the future – and embrace
change – throughout our institution. We must be open to new ideas and new ways
of doing business that can help us operate more efficiently and perform more
effectively in an increasingly dynamic and competitive environment.
As DoD counters the very real dangers we face in the world,
we will also grab hold of the bright opportunities before us – opportunities to
be more competitive and re-forge our nation’s military and defense establishment
into a future force that harnesses and develops the latest, cutting-edge
technology, and that remains superior to any potential adversary; one that is
efficient and accountable to the taxpayers who support it; and one that competes
and succeeds in attracting the next generation of talented Americans to fill its
These are the three main pillars on which DoD will build the
force of the future.
Competitiveness through Technological
and Operational Superiority
As other nations pursue comprehensive military modernization
programs and develop technologies designed to blunt our military’s traditional
advantages, the first pillar of our future force must be ensuring that we
maintain – and extend – our technological edge over any potential adversary.
The President’s Fiscal Year 2016 budget includes targeted
investments in modernized space, cyber, and missile defense capabilities geared
toward countering emerging threats that could upend our technological
superiority and our ability to project power. DoD would look forward to
providing a full account of our proposed modernization investments, and the
threats that compel them, in a classified setting.
The budget also supports the Defense Innovation Initiative,
which will help ensure the military continues to ride the leading edge of
innovation, and makes deferred modernization investments that will ensure
America’s nuclear deterrent remains safe, secure, and effective. Across all
these efforts, we must be open to global, commercial technology as well, and
learn from advances in the private sector.
Because we know that technology alone – however advanced –
cannot sustain our military’s superiority, just as important is a ruthless focus
on operational excellence. This means using our existing forces and capabilities
in new, creative, and fiscally prudent ways to achieve our objectives. This also
means working to develop more innovative and effective strategic and military
options for the President, introducing a new and more rapidly responsive global
force management model, developing new operational concepts, and reforming and
updating all our operational plans.
Competitiveness through Accountability
The second pillar of building the force of the future
requires redoubling our efforts to make DoD more accountable and efficient. We
live in a competitive world and need to be a competitive organization. If we
don’t lean ourselves out and maintain our fighting weight, we have no business
asking our fellow citizens for more resources.
As I made clear in my confirmation hearing, I cannot suggest
greater support and stability for the defense budget without at the same time
frankly noting that not every defense dollar is always spent as well as it
American taxpayers rightly have trouble comprehending – let
alone supporting – the defense budget when they read of cost overruns,
insufficient accounting and accountability, needless overhead, and the like.
If we’re asking taxpayers to not only give us half a trillion
of their hard-earned dollars, but also give us more than we got last year, we
have to demonstrate that we can be responsible with it.
We must do all we can to spend their money more wisely and
more responsibly. We must reduce overhead, and we must curb wasteful spending
practices wherever they are.
DoD has sought to continuously improve our acquisition processes over the past
five years, and I am proud myself to have been a part of that effort. Today, I
am recommitting the Defense Department to working both with Congress, and on our
own, to find new and more creative ways of stretching our defense dollars to
give our troops the weapons and equipment they need.
The department’s Better Buying Power initiative is now on its
third iteration since I established it in 2010, with Better Buying Power 3.0
focused on achieving dominant capabilities through technical excellence. I know
well and very much appreciate the strong support for acquisition reform
demonstrated by the Senate and House Armed Services Committees, and their
Chairmen, and I share their deep desire to achieve real, lasting results that
benefit both America’s security and taxpayers.
DoD is working closely with committee Members and staff on
ways to eliminate some of the burdensome and duplicative administrative
requirements levied on our program managers. To that end, the President’s FY
2016 budget submission includes a number of legislative proposals designed to
help streamline the program oversight process. We look forward to continuing our
close partnership with Congress to see these measures implemented.
As we sustain our focus on acquisition reform, I believe that
DoD must concurrently undertake a wholesale review of our business practices and
Our goal is to identify where we can further reduce the cost of doing business
to free up funding for readiness and modernization – ensuring that our energy,
focus, and resources are devoted to supporting our frontline operations as much
We intend to work closely with industry partners – who
execute or enable many of our programs, logistics, training, administrative, and
other functions – throughout this process, both to explore how they could help
us accomplish our missions at reduced cost, and because they may have new and
innovative ideas worth considering.
Additionally, the Defense Department is pursuing creative
force structure changes to be more agile and efficient – such as how we’re
modernizing our cruisers and restructuring Army aviation. We’ve established a
new Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency. And four previous rounds of efficiency
and budget reduction initiatives have yielded approximately $78 billion in
projected and actual savings in FY 2016, helping to cushion our defense programs
from successive years of budget cuts.
We’re also working hard to cut unnecessary overhead: from
reducing management headquarters budgets by 20 percent across the department, to
divesting excess bases and infrastructure.
When DoD recently requested a round of domestic Base
Realignment and Closure, Congress asked that we first pursue efficiencies in
Europe. We did. DoD has approved and is pursuing a broad European Infrastructure
Consolidation – which will result in some $500 million in annual recurring
savings. We now need a round of domestic BRAC beginning in Fiscal Year 2017 to
address excess infrastructure here at home.
Simply put, we have more bases in more places than we need.
We estimate DoD has about 25 percent more infrastructure capacity than necessary.
We must be permitted to divest surplus infrastructure as we reduce and renew
force structure. With projected recurring savings from a new BRAC round totaling
some $2 billion a year, it would be irresponsible to cut tooth without also
For base communities in question, it’s important to remember
that BRAC is often an opportunity to be seized. Communities have shown that BRAC
is ultimately what you make of it, and there are plenty of places that have
emerged from it stronger than they were before.
Consider Lawrence, Indiana, which took advantage of Fort
Harrison’s closure in 1996 to create an enterprise zone, community college,
recreational facilities, and commercial sites that in just 7 years not only
replaced 100 percent of the jobs lost when the base closed, but created even
Charleston, South Carolina stepped up when the Charleston
Naval Complex closed in 1993, and now is home to more than 80 new industrial and
federal agency tenants. The former naval base is now producing millions of
dollars’ worth of goods that are exported to Europe, Africa, and the Middle East.
And at former Mather Air Force Base in Sacramento County,
California, the local redevelopment effort has invested $400 million and created
more than 6,500 jobs – over six times the number of jobs lost when the base
closed in 1993. It’s now home to scores of businesses, a mixture of private
companies, government agencies, and non-profit organizations.
These are just a few examples of what can happen when local
leaders, communities, and businesses work together and take advantage of the
opportunities for new jobs and new growth after BRAC.
One more point on accountability: Whether we’re improving
acquisition or closing bases, it is not enough to simply tell taxpayers that
we’re spending their dollars responsibly. We have to also show them, which is
why good cost accounting and financial auditability is so important to me.
DoD has made significant progress over the past five years in
adding more discipline to our business environment, but there is much work left
to be done, and we remain fully committed to our current audit goals.
Today, over 90 percent of DoD’s current year, general fund
budgetary resources are under some form of financial audit, with the military
services all involved and following the model employed by the Marine Corps.
We plan to submit every corner of DoD to this kind of audit
regimen beginning in FY 2016. With this foundation, the department will
progressively expand the scope of these audits until all our organizations,
funds, and financial statements will be under audit in FY 2018, complying with
Congress’s statutory direction to be audit ready by the end of FY 2017.
There’s a reason why auditing is a basic practice as ancient
as the Domesday Book, and it is time that DoD finally lives up to its moral and
legal obligation to be accountable to those who pay its bills. I intend to do
everything we can – including holding people to account – to get this done.
Competitiveness through Attracting
Third, but no less important, DoD must be competitive when it
comes to attracting new generations of talented and dedicated Americans to our
calling of defending the nation.
We know how the attacks of September 11th, 2001 motivated so many Americans to
want to be part of this noble endeavor. Going forward, we must ensure our future
force can continue to recruit the finest young men and women our country has to
offer – military and civilian – like those who serve today.
As we do this, we must be mindful that the next generation
expects jobs that give them purpose, meaning, and dignity. They want to be able
to make real contributions, have their voices heard, and gain valuable and
transferable experience. We must shape the kind of force they want to be in. The
battle for talent will demand enlightened and agile leaders, new training
schemes, new educational opportunities, and new compensation approaches.
DoD is already pursuing several initiatives that will help
ensure the military is a compelling career option. In recent years, we’ve been
expanding pilot programs that facilitate breaks in service that let our people
gain diverse work experience. We’ve tailored our transition assistance program,
Transition GPS, to better prepare servicemembers to enter the civilian workforce
– providing different tracks for those who want to go to college, those who want
skills training, and those who want to be entrepreneurs. And we’ve put a renewed
focus on military ethics and professionalism, as well as making sure our
military health system is held to the same high-quality standards we expect from
the servicemembers and military family members under its care.
Because we know how important it is – both for today’s
servicemembers and the generation that will follow them – we’re also deeply
committed to creating an environment and culture where we live the values we
defend and every servicemember is treated with the dignity and respect they
That’s why we’re continuing to expand combat positions
available to women – because everyone who’s able and willing to serve their
country should have full and equal opportunity to do so.
It’s why we’re striving to eliminate sexual assault from the
military. And it’s why we’ve been making sure gay and lesbian servicemembers can
serve openly, and that their families receive the benefits their loved ones have
But for everything we’re doing, DoD cannot build the force of
the future by ourselves. We need Congress’s help.
What We Need Congress To Do
Since our current defense budget drawdown began several years
ago, I’ve observed something of a phenomenon here in Washington.
Along with our troops, their families, and our defense
civilians, I thank our supporters on Capitol Hill, including most members of
this committee, who have joined with us in trying to do everything possible to
get Congress to prevent more mindless cuts to our defense budget.
Unfortunately, these combined efforts have been unsuccessful
in actually restoring adequate and predictable resources for DoD. We have had to
endure deep cuts to readiness, weather pay freezes and civilian furloughs, and
cut badly needed investments in modernization and critical technologies. At the
same time, Congress has sometimes sought to protect programs that DoD has argued
are no longer needed, or require significant reform.
We have had the worst of both worlds – a double whammy of
mindless sequestration coupled with inability to reform. As many of you know, it
wasn’t always this way.
During the defense drawdown after the Cold War, DoD had much
more flexibility thanks to the help of Congress. For example, we were able to
resize the Army, retire the A-6 Intruder and many other weapons systems, and
implement multiple BRAC rounds, which freed up dollars we re-allocated to keep
our force structure ready, capable, and deployable around the world.
I know some of the changes and reforms we’re proposing may
feel like a significant change from how we currently do business. But if anyone
can understand how the dots connect and how we need Congress’s help to be able
to defend our country, our allies, and our interests in an increasingly
dangerous world, it’s you – the members of this committee.
The fact is, if we’re not able to implement the changes and
reforms we need, we will be forced to make painful tradeoffs, even at the higher
topline the President is requesting. We will lose further ground on
modernization and readiness – leaving tomorrow’s force less capable and leaving
our nation less secure. And we will face significant hurdles to executing our
nation’s defense strategy. That’s why we need your help.
III. The President's Fiscal Year 2016
As we do every year when formulating our budget, this budget
seeks to balance readiness, capability, and size – because we must ensure that,
whatever the size of our force, we have the resources to provide every
servicemember with the right training, the right equipment, the right
compensation, and the right quality of fellow troops. That is the only way we
can ensure our military is fully prepared to accomplish its missions.
Almost two-thirds of DoD’s Fiscal Year 2016 base budget –
$348.4 billion – funds our day-to-day expenses, similar to what a business would
call its operating budget. This covers, among other expenses, the cost of fuel,
spare parts, logistics support, maintenance, service contracts, and
administration. It also includes pay and benefits for military and civilian
personnel, which by themselves comprise nearly half of our total budget.
The remaining third of our base budget – $185.9 billion –
comprises investments in future defense needs, much like a business’ capital
improvement budget. It pays for the research, development, testing, evaluation,
and ultimately acquisition of the weapons, equipment, and facilities that our
Broken down differently, our base budget includes the
Military pay and benefits (including health care and retirement benefits) – $169
billion, or about 32 percent of the base budget.
Civilian pay and benefits – $79 billion, or about 15 percent of the base budget.
Other operating costs – $105 billion, or about 20 percent of the base budget.
Acquisition and other investments (Procurement; research, development, testing,
and evaluation; and new facilities construction) – $181 billion, or about 34
percent of the base budget.
What makes this budget different is the focus it puts, more
so than any other over the last decade, on new funding for modernization. After
years of war, which required the deferral of longer-term modernization
investments, this budget puts renewed emphasis on preparing for future threats –
especially threats that challenge our military’s power projection capabilities.
Threats to Power Projection and our
Being able to project power anywhere across the globe by
rapidly surging aircraft, ships, troops, and supplies lies at the core of our
defense strategy and what the American people have come to expect of their
military. It guarantees that when an acute crisis erupts anywhere in the world,
America can provide aid when disaster strikes, reinforce our allies when they
are threatened, and protect our citizens and interests globally. It also assures
freedom of navigation and overflight, and allows global commerce to flow freely.
For decades, U.S. global power projection has relied on the
ships, planes, submarines, bases, aircraft carriers, satellites, networks, and
other advanced capabilities that comprise our military’s unrivaled technological
edge. But today that superiority is being challenged in unprecedented ways.
Advanced military technologies, from rockets and drones to
chemical and biological capabilities, have found their way into the arsenals of
both non-state actors as well as previously less capable militaries. And other
nations – among them Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea – have been pursuing
long-term, comprehensive military modernization programs to close the technology
gap that has long existed between them and the United States.
These modernization programs are developing and fielding
advanced aircraft, submarines, and both longer-range and more accurate ballistic
and cruise missiles. They’re developing new and advanced anti-ship and anti-air
missiles, as well as new counter-space, cyber, electronic warfare, undersea, and
air attack capabilities. In some areas, we see levels of new weapons development
that we haven’t seen since the mid-1980s, near the peak of the Soviet Union’s
surge in Cold War defense spending.
Targeted Investments in the President’s
One of the reasons we are asking for more money this year
than last year is to reverse recent under-investment in new weapons systems by
making targeted investments to help us stay ahead of emerging threats – adding
substantial funding for space control and launch capabilities, missile defense,
cyber, and advanced sensors, communications, and munitions – all of which are
critical for power projection in contested environments.
The budget also makes significant investments in the
resilience and survivability of our infrastructure and forces, particularly in
the western Pacific, with improved active defenses such as our Patriot and AEGIS
systems, as well as selective hardening of key installations and facilities.
DoD is also addressing the erosion of U.S. technological
superiority with the Defense Innovation Initiative (DII). The DII is an
ambitious department-wide effort to identify and invest in innovative ways to
sustain and advance America’s military dominance for the 21st century.
The DII will identify, develop, and field breakthrough
technologies and systems through a new Long-Range Research & Development
Planning Program, and the President’s budget supports this effort through
specific investments in promising new technologies and capabilities such as
high-speed strike weapons, advanced aeronautics, rail guns, and high energy
lasers. The DII also involves the development of innovative operational concepts
that would help us use our current capabilities in new and creative ways. The
ultimate aim is to help craft ‘offset strategies’ that maximize our strengths
and exploit the weaknesses of potential adversaries.
Our budget is also making focused and sustained investments
in modernization and manning across the nuclear enterprise, even as we reduce
the roles and numbers of nuclear weapons in the U.S. nuclear posture. These
investments are critical for ensuring the continued safety, security, and
effectiveness of our nuclear deterrent, as well as the long-term health of the
force that supports our nuclear triad, particularly after recent troubling
lapses in parts of DoD’s nuclear enterprise. To help fund improvements across
the nuclear enterprise, we are requesting an increase of approximately $1
billion in Fiscal Year 2016, and about $8 billion over the FYDP.
DoD must rebuild and recover after more than 13 years of
uninterrupted war. But our effort to do so has been frustrated by two variables,
both of which are out of our hands – one, the continued high operational tempo
and high demand for our forces, and two, the uncertainty surrounding annual
Only over the last couple of years has readiness begun to
recover from the strains of over a decade of war, exacerbated by sequestration
in 2013. Nevertheless, readiness remains at troubling levels across the force.
While our forward-deployed forces remain ready, our surge
forces at home are not as ready as they need to be. The President’s budget
therefore invests in near-term unit readiness by adjusting service end-strength
ramps to reduce personnel turbulence and stress on the force, while increasing
funding to improve home station training and training-related infrastructure.
This past year has demonstrated that our military must be
ready to fight more than just the last war. We have to be prepared across all
domains – air, land, sea, space, and in cyberspace – to engage in both low- and
high-end missions and conflicts, as well as in the shadowy, so-called ‘hybrid
warfare’ space in between.
While this budget submission’s requested and projected
funding levels will enable the military to continue making steady progress
toward full-spectrum combat readiness, the gains we’ve recently made are
fragile. Sustaining them to provide for ready and capable forces will require
both time and a stable flow of resources, which is why, even under the budget
we’re requesting, the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps won’t all reach their
readiness goals until 2020, and the Air Force won’t do so until 2023.
For Fiscal Year 2016, the Army’s base budget of $126.5
billion supports an end-strength of 1,015,000 soldiers – 475,000 soldiers on
active duty, 342,000 soldiers in the Army National Guard, and 198,000 soldiers
in the Army Reserve – comprising 57 total force brigade combat teams and
associated enablers. The budget also supports 19 brigade-level training
rotations at the Army’s Combat Training Centers, which are critical to the
Army’s efforts to reach full-spectrum combat readiness.
While the Army’s postwar end-strength target remains a force
of approximately 450,000 active-duty soldiers, 335,000 Army National Guard
soldiers and 195,000 Army Reserve soldiers, this year’s budget slows the
drawdown rate. Rather than planning to reduce the active-duty force by 20,000
soldiers and the National Guard by 14,000 soldiers in Fiscal Year 2016, the Army
will instead plan to reduce by 15,000 active-duty soldiers and 8,000 Guardsmen,
while still maintaining its schedule for reducing unit structure. This will help
mitigate personnel turbulence and stress, while also improving unit manning as
the Army approaches its target size.
The Army’s budget for Fiscal Year 2016 also includes $4.5
billion for Army helicopter modernization. Specifically:
UH-60M Black Hawk: We are requesting $1.6 billion to support buying 94
multi-mission helicopters in FY 2016, and $6.1 billion for 301 helicopters over
AH-64E Apache: We are requesting $1.4 billion to support development and
purchase of 64 attack helicopters in FY 2016, and $6.2 billion for 303
helicopters over the FYDP.
CH-47F Chinook: We are requesting $1.1 billion to support development and
purchase of 39 cargo helicopters in FY 2016, and $3.2 billion for 95 helicopters
over the FYDP.
UH-72 Lakota: We are requesting $187 million in FY 2016 to support the final buy
of 28 light utility helicopters.
These investments require difficult trade-offs given today’s
constrained fiscal environment. That is why the Army is resubmitting the Army’s
Aviation Restructure Initiative, which makes the most efficient use of taxpayer
dollars by retiring outdated airframes and streamlining the Army’s helicopter
fleet so that platforms can be modernized and allocated where they are needed
As you know, I am committed to reviewing the Army’s Aviation
Restructure Initiative. However, the Army believes that fully implementing the
Aviation Restructure Initiative (ARI), which includes shifting National Guard
Apaches to active-duty units while providing Guard units with Black Hawks, is
prudent for several reasons.
For one, Apaches are in high demand at high levels of
readiness that would require Guard units manning them to mobilize at
unprecedentedly high rates; or alternatively, for the Army to spend a total of
approximately $4.4 billion to fully equip the Guard’s Apache battalions, and
then $350 million per year to maintain them at those high levels of readiness.
Meanwhile, Black Hawks are more suitable for Guard missions here at home.
Whether homeland defense, disaster relief, support to civil authorities, or
complementing our active-duty military, these missions tend to demand transport
and medical capabilities more than the attack capabilities of Apaches. In sum,
the initiative avoids approximately $12 billion in costs through Fiscal Year
2035 and saves over $1 billion annually starting in Fiscal Year 2020.
Considering these figures, implementing the Aviation Restructure Initiative is
not only in the best warfighting interest of the Army, but also in the interest
of the taxpayers who fund it.
I know this is a contentious issue. However, we believe the
ARI is the least cost, best solution for the Army’s aviation enterprise. DoD
looks forward to making its case to the National Commission on the Future of the
Army established by the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act.
Navy & Marine Corps:
The Navy and Marine Corps are allocated $161 billion for
Fiscal Year 2016, supporting a 282-ship fleet in 2016 and a 304-ship fleet by
Fiscal Year 2020 with a return to 11 aircraft carriers, 386,600 active-duty and
Reserve sailors, and 222,900 active-duty and Reserve Marines.
The President’s budget invests $16.6 billion in shipbuilding
for Fiscal Year 2016, and $95.9 billion over the FYDP. The budget protects
critical Navy and Marine Corps investments in undersea, surface, amphibious, and
airborne capabilities – all of which are critical for addressing emerging
Submarines: We are requesting
$5.7 billion for FY 2016, and $30.9 billion over the FYDP, to support buying two
Virginia-class attack submarines a year through FY 2020. We are also requesting
$1.4 billion in FY 2016, and $10.5 billion over the FYDP, to support the
replacement for the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine.
DDG-51 Guided Missile Destroyers:
We are requesting $3.4 billion for FY 2016, and $18.5 billion over the FYDP, to
support the continued development and procurement of two DDG-51 destroyers a
year through FY 2020.
Aircraft Carriers: The
President’s budget plan enables us to support 11 carrier strike groups. We are
requesting $678 million in FY 2016, and $3.9 billion over the FYDP, to support
the refueling and overhaul of the U.S.S. George Washington. We are also
requesting $2.8 billion in FY 2016, and $12.5 billion over the FYDP, to support
completion of the Gerald Ford, fourth-year construction of the John F. Kennedy,
and long-lead items for CVN-80, Enterprise.
Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) and Small
Surface Combatants: We are requesting $1.8 billion in FY 2016, and $9.4
billion over the FYDP, to support development and procurement of 14 littoral
combat ships over the FYDP – including three LCS in FY 2016. We are also
requesting $55 million in FY 2016, and $762.8 million over the FYDP, to support
capability improvements to the survivability and lethality of the LCS required
for the Navy to modify it into a small surface combatant.
Fleet Replenishment Oiler: We
are requesting $674 million to support buying one new fleet replenishment oiler,
the TAO(X), in FY 2016 – part of a $2.4 billion request to buy four of them over
Amphibious Transport Docks: We
are requesting $668 million in FY 2016 to finish buying one San Antonio-class
amphibious transport dock.
F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter:
The Department of the Navy is procuring two F-35 variants, the Navy
carrier-based F-35C and the Marine Corps short-take-off-and-vertical-landing
F-35B. The Navy and Marine Corps are requesting $3.1 billion in FY 2016 to
support procurement of 13 aircraft – nine F-35Bs and four F-35Cs – and aircraft
modifications and initial spares, and $20.9 billion over the FYDP to support
procurement of 121 aircraft and aircraft modifications and initial spares.
Patrol and Airborne Early Warning
Aircraft: We are requesting $3.4 billion in FY 2016, and $10.1 billion
over the FYDP, to support continued development and procurement of 47 P-8A
Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft through FY 2020. We are also requesting $1.3
billion in FY 2016, and $6.1 billion over the FYDP, to support buying 24 E-2D
Hawkeye airborne early warning aircraft through FY 2020.
Making these investments while also abiding by fiscal
prudence, we had to make more difficult trade-offs. For that reason, we are
resubmitting our request to place some of the Navy’s cruisers and an amphibious
landing ship – 12 ships in total, including 11 cruisers – into a phased
modernization program that will provide them with enhanced capability and a
longer lifespan. Given that our cruisers are the most capable ships for
controlling the air defenses of a carrier strike group, and in light of anti-ship
missile capabilities being pursued by other nations, this modernization program
will, over the next decade and a half, be a baseline requirement for sustaining
both our cruiser fleet and 11 carrier strike groups through 2045.
I acknowledge and appreciate the plan put forward in the
omnibus Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, which
helps us get to our goal, and which we have begun to implement. However, this
plan is more expensive, and results in shorter ship life. Considering that our
plan is critical for our power projection capabilities, we believe it should be
implemented in full, and look forward to working with the Congress as we move
The Air Force is allocated a base budget of $152.9 billion
for Fiscal Year 2016, supporting a force of 491,700 active-duty, Guard, and
Reserve airmen, 49 tactical fighter squadrons, 96 operational bombers out of a
total 154-aircraft bomber fleet, and a safe, secure, and effective nuclear
deterrent that includes 450 intercontinental ballistic missiles.
The Air Force’s budget reflects DoD’s decision to protect
modernization funding for advanced capabilities and platforms most relevant to
both present and emerging threats – in this case, fifth-generation fighters,
long-range bombers, and mid-air refueling aircraft to assure our air superiority
and global reach; both manned and remotely-piloted aircraft to help meet
Combatant Commanders’ needs for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR);
and research and development to ensure continued and competitive space launch
F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter:
We are requesting $6 billion to support buying 44 aircraft, aircraft
modifications, and initial spares in FY 2016, and $33.5 billion to support
buying 272 aircraft, modifications, and spares over the FYDP.
KC-46A Pegasus Refueling Tanker:
We are requesting $2.4 billion to buy 12 aircraft in FY 2016, and $14.6 billion
to buy 72 aircraft over the FYDP.
Long-Range Strike Bomber: We are
requesting $1.2 billion for research and development in FY 2016, and $13.9
billion over the FYDP.
Remotely-Piloted Aircraft: We
are requesting $904 million to support buying 29 MQ-9A Reapers in FY 2016, and
$4.8 billion to support buying 77 of them over the FYDP. This investment is
critical to ensuring the Air Force has enough around-the-clock permissive ISR
combat air patrols – in this case, allowing us to increase from 55 to 60 – to
meet increased battlefield demands.
Competitive Space Launch: This
budget supports year-over-year increases in competitive space launches – going
up from two in FY 2015 to three in FY 2016, and further increasing to four
competitive launches in FY 2017. The budget also supports investments to
mitigate DoD reliance on the RD-180 space engine that powers the Atlas V Evolved
Expendable Launch Vehicle rockets.
Combat Rescue Helicopter:
We are requesting $156 million in FY 2016 for the Air Force’s next-generation
combat rescue helicopter – part of a total $1.6 billion request over the FYDP
for research, development, testing, and evaluation – and requesting $717 million
over the FYDP for procurement.
In light of high demand coupled with Congressional
consultations, the Air Force budget reflects DoD’s decision to slow the
retirement timelines for three key ISR and battle management platforms.
We chose to defer the retirement of the U-2 Dragon Lady
reconnaissance aircraft until Fiscal Year 2019, when planned sensor upgrades to
the RQ-4 Global Hawk will combine with other capabilities to mitigate the loss
of the U-2. We chose to delay the previously planned retirement of seven E-3
Sentry AWACS until Fiscal Year 2019, so they can support air operations over
Iraq and Syria. And we chose to delay retirement of any E-8 JSTARS through
Fiscal Year 2020, pending final approval of the Air Force’s acquisition strategy
for its replacement.
The Air Force budget also supports a timeline that would
phase out and retire the A-10 in Fiscal Year 2019. With the gradual retirement
of the A-10 that we’re proposing, the Air Force will better support legacy fleet
readiness and the planned schedule for standing up the F-35A by filling in some
of the overall fighter maintenance personnel shortfalls with trained and
qualified personnel from the retiring A-10 squadrons.
As you know, F-35 maintainer demand has already required the
Air Force to use the authority Congress provided last year to move some A-10s
into back-up aircraft inventory status. I should note that the Air Force is
doing so only to the extent that it absolutely must, and so far intends to move
far fewer A-10s into this status than what Congress has authorized. I know this
is an important issue, and DoD looks forward to working with you on it.
The remaining share of our base budget – about $94 billion –
is allocated across the Department of Defense. This includes funding for cyber,
U.S. Special Operations Command, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency,
the Defense Health Agency, the Joint Staff, the Office of the Secretary of
Defense, and missile defense.
For Fiscal Year 2016, a $9.6 billion total investment in
missile defense helps protect the U.S. homeland, deployed forces, and our allies
and partners. This includes $8.1 billion for the Missile Defense Agency, $1.6
billion of which will help ensure the reliability of U.S. ground-based
interceptors, which are currently sited at Fort Greely, Alaska and Vandenberg
Air Force Base, California. The budget also continues to support the President’s
timeline for implementing the European Phased Adaptive Approach.
Overseas Contingency Operations:
Separate from DoD’s base budget, we are also requesting $50.9
billion in Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding for Fiscal Year 2016.
This represents a 21 percent decrease from last year’s $64.2 billion in OCO
funding, continuing OCO’s decline since 2010, while also reflecting continued
operational demands on U.S. forces around the world. OCO comprises funding for:
Afghanistan and Other Operations:
We are requesting $42.5 billion to support Operation Freedom’s Sentinel and
other missions. This includes $7.8 billion for reset and retrograde of U.S.
equipment from Afghanistan, as well as $3.8 billion for training and equipping
the Afghan National Security Forces through our ongoing train-advise-and-assist
Counter-ISIL Operations: We are
requesting $5.3 billion to support Operation Inherent Resolve. This includes
$1.3 billion for training and equipping Iraqi forces, including Kurdish forces,
and the vetted moderate Syrian opposition.
Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund:
Reflecting the vital role that our allies and partners play in countering
terrorism that could threaten U.S. citizens, we are requesting $2.1 billion for
the Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund that President Obama established last
NATO Reassurance: We are
requesting $789 million for the European Reassurance Initiative, which the
President created last year to help reassure our NATO allies and reinforce our
Article V commitment in light of Russia’s violations of Ukrainian sovereignty.
The conclusion of major combat operations in Afghanistan and
Iraq has resulted in a 73 percent drop in DoD’s OCO costs from their
$187-billion peak in Fiscal Year 2008.
We are continuing to use OCO as appropriate to finance our
military’s response to unforeseen crises, but we must also account for those
enduring priorities that we do not envision going away – such as supporting our
Afghan partners, countering terrorism, maintaining a strong forward presence in
the Middle East, and ensuring our military is ready to respond to a wide range
of potential crises.
The Administration intends to transition OCO’s enduring costs
to the base budget between Fiscal Years 2017 and 2020. We will do this over
time, and in a way that protects our defense strategy – including DoD’s
abilities to deter aggression, maintain crisis-ready forces, and project power
across the globe. This transition, however, will not be possible unless the
threat of sequestration has been removed.
Having financed the costs of key military activities – such
as counterterrorism operations and our Middle East posture – outside the base
budget for 14 years, and knowing that the security situation in the Middle East
remains volatile, it will take time to determine which OCO costs are most likely
to be enduring, and which are not. But we will release a plan later this year,
which will also address how we will budget for uncertainty surrounding
unforeseen future crises, and implications for DoD’s budget.
The choices we face about military compensation are vexing,
critically important, and closely followed, so I want to be direct and upfront
When our troops go into battle – risking their lives – we owe
to them, and their families, not only adequate pay and compensation, but also
the right investments – in the right people, the right training, and the right
weapons and equipment – so that they can accomplish their missions and come home
To meet all of these obligations at once, we have to balance
how we allocate our dollars. It would be irresponsible to prioritize
compensation, force size, equipment, or training in isolation, only to put our
servicemembers’ lives at unacceptable risk in battle.
For the President’s Fiscal Year 2016 budget, the Defense
Department considered its compensation proposals very carefully, as well as
those approved by Congress in the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act.
Accordingly, this budget again proposes modest adjustments to shift funds from
compensation into readiness, capability, and force structure, so that our people
can continue executing their missions with continued excellence.
As you know, the Congressionally-commissioned Military
Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission has recently released its
own compensation proposals. Their work, which DoD is continuing to analyze,
shows thoughtfulness and good intent, which we deeply appreciate.
Given that this hearing is being held before the department
has submitted its recommendations on the commission’s report to President Obama,
it would not be appropriate for me to discuss them at this time. Many of these
proposals would significantly affect our servicemembers and their families, and
DoD owes them, the President, and the country our utmost diligence and most
However, I can say that the department agrees with the
overarching goals of the commission, especially providing servicemembers and
beneficiaries more options – whether in preparing for retirement or in making
health care choices.
I can also say that the commission’s proposals are
complicated, and do not lend themselves to binary answers. Therefore, when we
provide the President with our recommendations on each proposal, DoD will
clarify not simply whether we support each proposal, but also where we recommend
specific modifications to improve or enable us to fully support a given proposal.
We believe there is something positive in almost every one of
the commission’s recommendations, and that they present a great opportunity to
ensure we honor our servicemembers past, present, and future. I look forward to
Congress’s support and partnership as we work hard to take advantage of it.
V. Impact of Sequestration
At the end of 2013, policymakers came together on a
bipartisan basis to partially reverse sequestration and pay for higher
discretionary funding levels with long-term reforms. We’ve seen how that
bipartisan agreement has allowed us to invest in areas ranging from research and
manufacturing to strengthening our military. We’ve also seen the positive impact
on our economy, with a more responsible and orderly budget process helping
contribute to the fastest job growth since the late 1990s.
The President’s budget builds on this progress by reversing
sequestration, paid for with a balanced mix of commonsense spending cuts and tax
loophole closures, while also proposing additional deficit reduction that would
put debt on a downward path as a share of the economy. The President has also
made clear that he will not accept a budget that locks in sequestration going
As the Joint Chiefs and others have outlined, and as I will
detail in this testimony, sequestration would damage our national security,
ultimately resulting in a military that is too small and insufficiently equipped
to fully implement our defense strategy. This would reflect poorly on America’s
global leadership, which has been the one critical but defining constant in a
turbulent and dangerous world. In fact, even the threat of sequestration has had
You don’t need me to tell you that the President has said he
will not accept a budget that severs the vital link between our national and
economic security. Why? Because the strength of our nation depends on the
strength of our economy, and a strong military depends on a strong educational
system, thriving private-sector businesses, and innovative research. And because
that principle – matching defense increases with non-defense increases
dollar-for-dollar – was a basic condition of the bipartisan agreement we got in
2013. The President sees no reason why we shouldn’t uphold those same principles
in any agreement now.
The only way we’re going to get out of the wilderness of
sequestration is if we work together. I therefore appeal to members of Congress,
from both parties, to start looking for ways to find a truly bipartisan
compromise. I hope they can make clear to their colleagues that sequestration
would also damage America’s long-term strength, preventing our country from
making pro-growth investments in areas ranging from basic research to early
childhood education – investments that, in the past, have helped make our
military the finest fighting force the world has ever known.
Sequestration is set to return in just over 200 days. Letting
that happen would be unwise and unsafe for our national defense, over both the
short and long term.
DoD has had to live with uncertain budgets for the last three
years, continuous and sudden downward revisions of our budget plans, and even a
government closure. To continue meeting all of our mission requirements, we’ve
done our best to manage through these circumstances, underfunding significant
parts of our force and its support systems. Put bluntly, we have survived, but
not thrived. Our military has made painful choices and tradeoffs among the size,
capabilities, and readiness of our joint force, and we’ve amassed a number of
bills that are now coming due.
That’s why the department has been counting on and planning
for a budget increase of roughly $35 billion above sequestration-level caps in
Fiscal Year 2016. If it looks like DoD will be operating at sequestration levels
in 2016, on October 1 we will have to swiftly begin making cuts so that we don’t
end up $35 billion short as we approach year’s end.
A return to sequestration in Fiscal Year 2016 would affect
all aspects of the department, but not all equally.
More than one-third of the Fiscal Year 2016 cuts would come
have to come from Operations and Maintenance accounts, with unavoidable
reductions in readiness and our ability to shape world events in America’s
interest. Let me put this more plainly: allowing sequestration to return would
deprive our troops of what they need to accomplish their missions.
Approximately half of the cuts would have to come from the
department’s modernization accounts, undermining our efforts to secure
technological superiority for U.S. forces in future conflicts. Because there are
bills that DoD absolutely must pay – such as the salaries of our troops – many
capabilities being developed to counter known threats from highly capable
adversaries would be delayed or cancelled, deepening our nation’s
vulnerabilities at a time when the world is growing more dangerous, not less.
Sequestration would put a hold on critical programs like our Aerospace
Innovation Initiative, the Next Generation Adaptive Engine, the Ground-Based
Interceptor missile defense kill vehicle redesign, and several space control
Deferring these investments is bad policy and makes the
Defense Department less competitive for the future. What’s more, it breaks faith
with the troops of today and the troops of tomorrow. And it undermines the
defense industrial base that is a critical foundation for our national security.
If sequestration were to persist over time, the long-term
consequences would be harder hitting. We would ultimately have a military that
looks fundamentally different, and that performs much differently, from what our
nation is accustomed to.
If we are forced to sequestration-level budgets, I do not
believe that we can continue to make incremental cuts and maintain the same
general set of objectives as we’ve had in our defense strategy. I will insist
that new cuts be accompanied by a frank reassessment of our strategic approach
to addressing the threats we face around the world – what we are asking the
Armed Forces to do and to be prepared to do.
I cannot tell you right now exactly what that means – DoD is
not resigned to the return of sequestration – but I can tell you that I will
direct the department to look at all aspects of the defense budget to determine
how best to absorb these cuts. No portion of our budget can remain inviolate.
What I will not do is let DoD continue mortgaging our future
readiness and capability. I will not send our troops into a fight with outdated
equipment, inadequate readiness, and ineffective doctrine.
Everything else is on the table.
What does that mean? We could be forced to consider pay cuts,
not just cuts in the growth of compensation. We could be forced to consider all
means of shedding excess infrastructure, not just working within the
Congressional BRAC process. We could be forced to look at significant force
structure cuts, not just trimming around the edges. We could be forced to ask
our military to do – and be prepared to do – significantly less than what we
have traditionally expected, and required of it.
I am not afraid to ask these difficult questions, but if we
are stuck with sequestration’s budget cuts over the long term, our entire nation
will have to live with the answers.
A prolonged period of depressed defense budgets will almost
certainly mean a smaller, less capable, and less ready military. No one can
fully predict the impact on the future. But it could translate into future
conflicts that last longer, and are more costly in both lives and dollars.
That may sound severe to some, but it is a fact, and history
should be our guide when we think about the true cost of sequestration.
The Case for Repealing Sequestration
I know I’m preaching to the choir here. If sequestration
could have been reversed by just this committee and its counterpart in the
Senate, it probably would have happened years ago. So I offer the following to
Members of the Committee about what you can remind your colleagues when you ask
for their vote to repeal sequestration:
Remind them that even after the increase we’re asking for,
DoD’s budget as a share of total federal spending will still be at a
near-historic low – a quarter of what it was during the Korean War, a third of
what it was during the Vietnam War, and half of what it was during the Reagan
Remind them that the increased funding is for modernization that’s critical to
keeping our military’s technological edge and staying ahead of potential
Remind them that DoD has hands-on leadership from the very top – me – devoted to
using taxpayer dollars better than they’ve been used in the past. You have my
personal commitment to greater accountability, greater efficiency, and running
this department better and leaner than before.
Remind them that sequestration’s cuts to long-term investments will likely make
those investments more costly down the line. All who bemoan unnecessary Pentagon
program delays and the associated cost overruns should know that sequestration
will only make these problems worse. I can easily sympathize with my non-defense
counterparts in this regard; knowing how wasteful and inefficient sequestration
would be at DoD, I have no doubt the same is true at other departments and
agencies as well.
Remind them that sequestration’s impact on our domestic budget will cause
further long-term damage to our defense – because the strength of our nation
depends on the strength of our economy, and a strong military needs strong
schools to provide the best people, strong businesses to provide the best
weapons and equipment, and strong science and research sectors to provide the
best new innovations and technologies.
Remind them that we can’t keep kicking this can down the road. The more we
prolong tough decisions, the more difficult and more costly they will be later
The men and women of the Department of Defense are counting
on Congress to help assure the strength of our military and American global
leadership at a time of great change in the world.
We must reverse the decline in defense budgets to execute our
strategy and fund a modern, ready, leaner force in a balanced way. We must seize
the opportunity to enact necessary reforms in how we do business. And we must
bring an end to the threat sequestration poses to the future of our force and
American credibility around the world.
As you evaluate the President’s budget submission, I
encourage you and your colleagues to keep it in perspective.
In the years since the President’s Fiscal Year 2012 budget
request – the benchmark for cuts prescribed under the 2011 Budget Control Act –
DoD’s 10-year budget projections have absorbed more than $750 billion in cuts,
or more than three-quarters of the trillion-dollar cuts that would be required
should sequestration be allowed to run its course. And while some claim this is
our biggest budget ever, the fact is, as a share of total federal spending,
DoD’s Fiscal Year 2016 budget is at a near-historic low – representing about 14
percent of total federal discretionary and non-discretionary outlays. DoD’s
total budget remains more than $100 billion below what it was at the height of
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I think we can all agree that the world in 2014 was even more
complicated than we could have foreseen. Given today’s security environment –
which has over 200,000 American servicemembers stationed in over 130 countries
conducting nearly 60 named operations – our proposed increase in defense
spending over last year’s budget is a responsible, prudent approach.
Some of you may recall how, in 1991, after America’s Cold War
victory and amid doubts about America’s engagement with the world and calls for
a bigger domestic peace dividend, a bipartisan group in Congress stepped forward
to help shape America’ global leadership and make long-term decisions from which
we continue to benefit.
Senators Sam Nunn and Dick Lugar helped craft, pass, and pay
for the small Cooperative Threat Reduction Program that allowed the United
States and DoD to provide the funding and expertise to help former Soviet states
decommission their nuclear, biological, and chemical weapon stockpiles.
The Nunn-Lugar program was initially opposed abroad, and
there were also doubts at the Pentagon about whether we could implement it
without losing track of funding. I know. I helped lead the program in its early
years. But with slow and diligent effort by American defense officials, the
Congress, and our foreign partners, it worked.
It helped prevent weapons of mass destruction from falling
into the wrong hands. It helped establish a pattern of international cooperation
and global norms in the post-Cold War international order. And, in the light of
the current instability in Ukraine, it might have staved off several variants of
But it also set an important precedent for our work on this
budget and in the years ahead. It shows what Congressional conviction –
especially when it is bipartisan – can accomplish in foreign policy. It shows
the value of foresight and planning for an uncertain future. And it shows how
spending a relatively few dollars today can generate huge value down the line.
As the new Secretary of Defense, I hope it will be possible
to again unite behind what our great nation should do to protect our people and
make a better world, and provide our magnificent men and women of the Department
of Defense – who make up the greatest fighting force the world has ever known –
what they deserve.