Rob Wittman

I just want to close by thanking all of our witnesses today. Thank you so much.

I believe that there is a lack of understanding of what risk entails.

We are moving toward a military that is challenged to execute the most basic strategic requirement.

Our readiness is in peril.

What can we do to fix and reform the acquisition and procurement process?

We all know the devastating effects of sequestration.

The Secretary of the Navy established energy goals that far exceed the requirements for the other military services, including 50% alternative energy ashore by 2020.

The fiscal year 2016 military construction budget for the Department of the Navy includes a number of investments in energy-related construction projects on Navy and Marine Corps installations.

The Air Force has again proposed to defer investments in facilities sustainment, budgeting across the services at 80% of the model, on average, versus the recommended 90%.

The Navy has again proposed to defer investments in facilities sustainment, budgeting across the services at 84% of the model, on average, versus the recommended 90%.

The term 'energy security' is defined by the QDR as having 'assured access to reliable supplies of energy and the ability to protect and deliver sufficient energy to meet operational needs.'

The Army has again proposed to defer investments in facilities sustainment, budgeting across the services at 80% of the model, on average, versus the recommended 90%.

The infrastructure investment accounts have taken a large portion of risk the last several years under constrained budgets.

Any time that you are looking at the idea of installation capacity you want to make sure that as you are looking at that, alignment takes a front stage.

But asserting, like Ms. Hammack did, that somehow that tomorrow our men and women in uniform are going to get that training because we are going to start to close bases I think is a bridge too far.

Under constrained resources, the Department is balancing risk among force structure, modernization, and readiness to meet defense strategic requirements.

I think that is a great point.

I think that is part of the discussion that has to take place.

Today we find ourselves in a threat scenario that is probably more complex than it has been at any time in our history.

The difference between requirements and resources equals risk.

We will call to order the Subcommittee on Readiness for the House Armed Services Committee.

According to the EIC report, implementing EIC actions will not reduce the operational force structure or military capabilities in Europe, only excess infrastructure.

According to the Department's report, implementing EIC actions will not reduce the operational force structure or military capabilities in Europe, only excess infrastructure.

I understand Congress' concern about the risk that we would accept. And I welcome ideas about how to constrain the authorities that Congress would provide so that you feel more comfortable with the authority you are giving.

As we look at this in context, obviously we are coming out of conflicts, Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom; coming into a realm of a more dangerous world; coming into a time of reset.