Sequestration deeply affected the Navy budget in FY 2013 and we have not yet recovered. Stabilized funding in FY 2014 and 2015 provided by the BBA, along with an additional $2.2 billion above Navy's requested budget in FY 2015, provided limited relief from sequestered Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) funding levels and helped Navy's overall posture. However, the cumulative effect of budget shortfalls over these years has forced the Navy to accept significant risk in key mission areas, notably if the military is confronted with a technologically advanced adversary or forced to deny the objective of an opportunistic aggressor in a second region while engaged in a major contingency. By "risk," we mean that some of our platforms will arrive late to the combat zone, and engage in conflict without the benefit of markedly superior combat systems, sensors and networks, or desired levels of munitions inventories. In real terms, this means longer timelines to achieve victory, more military and civilian lives lost, and potentially less credibility to deter adversaries and assure allies in the future. The PB-14 Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) submission was the baseline required by Navy to carry out all ten DSG missions. Over the last three years, however, the Navy funding under sequestration and the BBA was $25B less than the PB-13/14 submissions, shortfalls that manifest in the continued erosion of our warfighting advantages in many areas relative to potential adversaries. PB-16 represents the bare minimum to execute the DSG in the world we face, but still results in high risk in two of the most challenging DSG missions that depend on adequate numbers of modern, responsive forces. Should resources be further reduced below PB- 16 levels, and certainly if sequestered, the DSG will need to be revised.