Given the budget shortfalls, is the Navy committed to purchasing only the most economical fuel for operations that meet mission requirements over the next 5 years?

the January 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance (DSG) was written in response to the administration's decision to slash $487 billion from defense spending over the next 10 years.

DOD has been unfortunately dealing with CRs for many years because Congress can't seem to pass a budget.

Secretary Carter, more than most people, you understand the necessity to maintain the safety, security, and reliability of our nuclear weapons and to modernize the nuclear weapons complex.

this committee expects our Nation's military leaders to be able to provide us with honest and complete testimony without political interference.

The Navy will be unable to execute all of the naval force requirements of the combatant commanders under sequestration and a year-long continuing resolution.

The combined impacts of the sequester and a full-year Continuing Resolution (CR) would significantly weaken Army Aviation.

I have consistently heard leadership in DOD refer to the proposed reduction of defense budgets by $487 billion over the next 10 years as being 'mandated' by the Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011.

The Army's ability to support the NMS will be greatly hindered if we reduce force structure at a faster pace than currently planned.

The F-35 Lightning program is the most critical major weapon acquisition being currently managed by DOD.

Sequestration will squeeze our ability to follow through on the rebalance while maintaining other commitments around the world.

Sequestration will significantly degrade the National Guard's ability to maintain a truly operational force.