>> i remain concerned about whether the administration's priorities are when we weaken our presence in the region of such huge strategic importance to our national security. let me ask you, will our removal of an aircraft carrier from the persian gulf affect our ability to deter iranian action in the gulf? or elsewhere in the region?

>> obviously, it is more difficult for us to reassure our friends and to deter iran, but i believe that a strong statement of political will and the forces i have their right now would cause iran to take pause before they decide to try to take advantage of what is not really an opportunity. icann by the time because they're out of with the combat power i have out there right now in the gulf. >> you think will be okay with the time you can buy one order to get that out there? >> yes, sir ideal. >> i thank you very much, general and mr. chairman,. >> thank you. senator lee? senator shaheen. >> thank you both for your service and thank you for being here this morning. general mattis, as all of my colleagues have said, we will certainly miss you and very much appreciate your years of service to this country.

i want to start by following up on some of the syrian issues that senator lee was raising. when you were here for your posture hearing last year, general mattis, one of the things we discussed was a chemical weapons in syria. and secretary panetta was quoted as saying that the situation in syria is 100 times worse than what we saw in libya with the proliferation of weapons. and it's been described as a nightmare scenario by a number of officials. i assume that it's safe to say that your concern since that hearing last year have not diminished and you continue to be very concerned about the presence of the stockpiles of chemical weapons in syria? >> yes, senator, absolutely. >> and there's been discussion about the red line that has been

drawn should syria attempt to use those chemical weapons, either on their own people or on others in the region. and a suggestion that the international community is also concerned, equally concerned about that, but what happens should the try to transfer those weapons to hezbollah, and they didn't get transferred throughout the region? has there been planning for how to address that and how to prevent that from happening? >> yes, ma'am. that would be a policy decision by the president. i have military ops, if he wants to prevent, if he wants to disrupt that. it would be very difficult to prevent it at the beginning, either use or transfer. but ss as we picked it up we

could disrupt it, and we may be able to prevent further transfer. >> and has a nato and other countries that are concerned about what's happening in the region, having also been involved in those contingency plans? >> yes, ma'am. >> is there any reason that we should have less concerned about what's happening there, rather than more concerned? and how can we affect what happens with those chemical weapons? what can you share with us about the contingency planning that should either make us be more concerned or less about what's happening there? >> senator, in the chaos and what trade has greater with his handling of his people dissatisfaction and the civil war that grown out of it, i believe we have increase in

vulnerable chemical sites their as this fighting swings back and forth, as weapons get transferred from vulnerable sites to one they think is morgan -- certainly the material aspects of their leadership can cause them to do things that cause us to keep a very, very goes on on them. our planning is taking this into account to the degree that it can, and i'll just tell you that we have options prepared. >> and have any of the opposition groups that we are talking to been involved in any of those discussions, or any of those plans? >> no, ma'am. >> thank you. >> i should say, not by u.s. central command. we have not engaged with the opposition groups on this. >> okay, thank you.

i want to switch from syria to pakistan because obviously that's when the other parts of the central command where there are serious concerns about the impact on our actions in afghanistan. and i wonder if you could talk about what the current status is of our relationship with the military and pakistan, and have a trilateral engagement on the border there between afghanistan, between isaf and pakistan, is working or is not working today? >> senator, i don't want to overstate it, but our -- military to military relationship with pakistan has been improving and this is not reason. this goes back over the last year, even in the aftermath of the soleil the incident when we

accidentally killed 24 of their frontier corps troops. the board still the collaboration along the border, the trilateral collaboration is actually much improved over a year ago or two years ago. it's not everything we need it to be but it is improving, and with that other efforts going on including tracked to efforts under former secretary of defense dr. perry, former secretary scholz out of palo alto. that will shift to -- were we have retired officers working to find ways to continue this improved elaboration and help set the conditions for longer-term prosperity peace in that region. spent and so how will that work once isaf pulls out with the afghan and pakistani forces

there along the border? do you expect that collaboration to continue? senator levin and i had the opportunity a year and a half ago, two years ago this summer, to see firsthand the attempted collaboration at a time when it had really broken down and they were talking about the potential effectiveness of that. and, obviously, that's going to be critical as we withdraw in terms of maintaining some stability in the region. so what kinds of plans are in place to help address that once isaf withdraws? >> it's a great question, senator, because we identified this as a key part of our transitiotransitio n a year ago. and sends them we no longer need as nato-isaf with pakistan military. is always nato-isaf and the afghan security forces, and we meet in these trilateral's as you referenced them. and we're going to have to

continue to mature it. but right now, center, it's at least going in the right direction, and day by day we build a little bit more trust, a little cooperation, a little more collaboration along that border. >> thank you very much. my time is expired. >> senator fischer. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, general and admiral for your service, and for the the service of those you represent as well. admiral, earlier i believe you stated that with a sequester and the c.r., we were looking at creating a readiness problem. what are you doing now that is absolutely essential and that we need to keep on doing with special ops? >> yes, ma'am. thank you. i'm, our first and foremost mission is to take care of the warfighters requirements. to the other combatant commanders, to me, our number

one for fighting priority, operational priority. the problem with the c.r. and the sequestration is that it is beginning to affect my readiness back to those forces. so as i have to kind of prioritize the training, i'm prioritizing it forward but they'll come at the expense of the next generation of forces that begins to ploy downrange. my ability to manage that budget and continue to provide the very best special operations forward is exactly what i intend to do. having said that committee to go look at our flying answers -- flying hours as an example, with about 60% of our training base flying hours. that bathtub if you will will continue from this fiscal year to the next fiscal year, it will get smaller but it will continue. just take time to catch up what you kind of stand down training. so we take look at the flying hours and then i'm cutting some of my recruiting base, cutting some of my other training, that

readiness bathtub that we refer to will remove throughout until we eventually hopefully catch back up several years from now to stem the lack of readiness. but we take of our operational priorities first, but we are mortgaging a little bit of our readiness. >> the troops that you represent, do you believe that you're putting them at risk, whether they're going to have to be in rotation longer since the readiness is not there, the training is not there, so that they can benefit from some rest when they're off duty? do you see that as a major risk? if so, i'd like to hear why. if not, what do you see as the major risk that you're facing due to these cats that we are looking at? >> yes, ma'am. we work very hard with, i've got subordinate service components that work for me.

one of my biggest concerns of the pressure on the force and making sure that the personal tempo of the force is appropriate to meet the demands of the combatant commanders. we've taken a number of pretty dramatic and important steps to ensure that those forces have arrested they need when you're back in the continental united states before we sidle them again forward. i don't want to mislead you. the our high demand low-density military operational special because, some the intelligence requirements we have, some informational officers, those sorts of high demand but our intelligence of the required them to rotate a little bit more quickly forward. so again i'm working hard as they come back to the united states not to impress upon them additional training and give them a little bit more time in the rear. >> under the current command structure that you face, do you see any limitations being

imposed on our special ops forces? >> no, ma'am. i'm very pleased with the kind of command relationships i have and the command authorities that i have. so right now i am a support team committed to the combatant commanders like general mattis and general ham and others. and that is a great relationship i provide in the forces. they fight the forces or their the operational command and control and i'm perfectly comparable. >> you don't think any changes need to be made with regard to that? >> not in regards to the command relationships with the combatant commanders in terms of the forces that are under their operational control. no, ma'am. i do not. >> you think there needs to be any additional legal authority for our soldiers in order for them to train with our partners? >> that's certainly an area that we're taking a look at. right now one of the amendments that present some problems for us is the leahy amendment. as we have to bet the units to

make sure that there are no human rights violations, and we are absolute in favor and we understand the value and importance of making sure we could claim human rights. unfortunately, at a time sometimes when those units need of our partnership and our relationship so they understand what right looks like, that the time in which we find ourselves more constrained than ever, if there's a human rights violation, frankly i would offer them more than ever we need to get engaged and make sure that they do what is right. so that's an area that we are exploring, both with the cjc us and with the osd. >> and you discussed that with the regional commanders i would assume? >> i have. >> and their reaction? >> i think they'll have similar issues. the special operation forces that i provide them find themselves constrained it and circumstances, not all circumstances but in certain circumstances and units were

dealing with. so yes, ma'am. it's a concern and again i think we're working through the appropriate process is now. >> thank you very much. general, do you think it is working well together? do you have any concerns on decisions being made? >> ma'am, we have got the best working relationship between conventional and special forces that i've enjoyed in 40 years of service. there is no longer any lines between us. the collaboration is intense. it's been learned the hard way, frankly, in the toughest school we could've had. and right now the degree of confidence in each other and the use of each other's capabilities i think is what at the top of its game but we are not complacent. we don't want to lose it as the wars grind down. so we have to work hard to maintain it. >> thank you, sir. and thank you for your many, many years of service. you have a sterling reputation. thank you.

>> thank you, senator. senator hagan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i, too, want to echo everybody's thoughts to both of you. you have given so many years of service to our country, and we admire, we we spent, we really do appreciate all of your commitment to our military into the national security of our country, so thank you very much. admiral mcraven, i want to ask a question on women in combat. now the former secretary panetta and general dempsey announced the end of the direct ground combat exclusion rule for female service members. you know, i know that you publicly highlighted the contributions that women have made your special operations missions, including the cultural support team. the military information support team, the civil military support element, and other roles. and i understand the departments the decision for women -- this

will open up thousands of new positions for women, and including many in the special operations. i want to just get your overall thoughts on how this is going to be carried out. you know, how have women contributed to our special operations missions in recent years and then what contributions, additional contributions to you see that will be possible given this policy change? and how it is so, when to respond to this -- socom maintain this. and with the exceptions so that you, exceptions or waivers to keep any of the units all mail? just sort of a series of thought speak with yes, ma'am. thank you. first as you mentioned, the women that have served in special operations have been

actually magnificent and heroic job. we have them with a cultural support teams and for the broader forum here, they are partnered with our rangers and our seals and our special forces element downrange. they go on target in very hostile environments, and they have proven themselves again and again. those are in small numbers but have been very valuable. the policy right now from the secretary of defense, we are required to provide him a brief back on the 15th of may that will tell how we're going to implement the new policy, what it will require me to do over the course of come on going to build the plan before 15th of may, to brief the sector how we will get the. will take us some time to do the assessments to determine whether or not we need to adjust the standards, whether we're going to do that, how they will fit into the training pipeline,

critical mass of female trainees and students we might need in order to create the appropriate pipeline for the various military operational specialties. so we will go through all of that analysis here in the next year or so. and then if we find that there are areas where we just cannot meet the requirements without lowering the standards, without unduly affecting the cohesion of the small units, then we will come forward to the secretary for an exception to policy. having said that, my going in imposition is where going to find a way to make this work. and so my staff, and we're working very closely with the services. as you know the services all have equities in this in terms of the special operations, mos's that we have the. but i'm in agreement with the service chiefs. i will be looking at those special operations unique mos's to the special forces, the 18 series, the green berets, navy seals, the ranges,

et cetera, i'm going to have an opportunity to provide my input directly to the service chiefs. >> a key point was not to lower the standard. so when you said assess the standards, i don't think anybody is saying lower the standards. >> applet enough. in fact, i was asked at a press conference a couple of weeks back about the concept of a general -- gender-neutral standard and i said we have never had gender to standard because we haven't had to other gendered, so we have a standard. that is the standard. it's been a standard without around for a very long time. that doesn't mean we don't need to assess that standard to make sure that it is, in fact, appropriate. but there is absolutely positively no intent to lower the standard equivalent to provide the nation the very finest special operations we can irrespective of gender. >> that's good and i also think some of the women i've talked to, they have been attached to a number of units but they had been assigned. so they didn't get the credit

for their career ladder, and that certain has harmed many, many individuals, women. and i think many of them saw the writing on the wall and decided not to make this a continued career. it's a good step and i think it's a very beneficial step for our military, to. >> you spent. >> general mattis, i know senator mccaskill asked questions on the a sexual assault but i want to follow-up on one area, too. i know that some research that i've seen said that from the department of veterans affairs suggest that about half of the women who deployed to iraq or afghanistan reported being sexually harassed. 25% sailor sexually assaulted. you know, i've been to afghanistan three times. iraq, pakistan, traveled, and women do tend to talk to other women, and i was really shocked that one of the fobs in some of the other bases in incidents where individuals shared with me that they were literally

concerned about the amount of what they were drinking after you because they found it dangerous to go to the latrines at night. and what i think about an issue, how that would impact somebody was fighting for our country to be concerned about their safety, it makes you wonder, we got to take this seriously and do something about it. so my question is, what's the current state of this problem? what specific is being done to address the issue of sexual assault while deployment, with a drawdown in afghanistan present any unique challenges? >> senator, i do believe the drawdown will present unique challenges. the environment in the unit is the environment, whether they're in built up, drawdown, combat, fob. it really comes down to the alertness of the chain of command. it comes down to the command

climate. it comes down to the commanders intent this -- ability to regard what is clearly acceptable behavior, and the authority of commanders to do with unacceptable behavior that is given to them by the u.s. congress is more than sufficient to maintain the discipline. but i can assure you that we take this usually. we took it seriously a long time ago. it's not new. i'm very much, i am keenly aware of the disappointing statistics, and some of the anecdotal work that we get come and we take that for action is what i would say. and again, we have the authority to deal with people who think that it's an option. it's not an option to not act like a jerk or in a criminal manner. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. and once again, thanks to both you for what you do for country.

>> senator graham. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you both. general, what are you going to do when you retire? >> i have no idea right now but it's going to be a lot of fun spent i would hire you but we don't have any money. sorry about that. syria, do both of you agree or disagree with the statement that we should be arming at least a portion of the rebels in syria to bring this thing to an end sooner rather than later? >> we as the military, i do not believe that i have a situational awareness to do it if given the mission, could i do it? absolutely. >> we could absolutely to but again i think it's, as general mattis mentioned a couple times, a very confusing situation and i'm not sure where in a position to do that right now speak so are you against arming the rebels or you just don't have enough information? >> in my case, sender, they are being armed right now by --

>> but not by us. >> that's correct come yes, sir. >> you have enough information as to whether or not we should as americans aren't a portion of the rebels? >> is a policy decision. i think that if we know the weapons are going to, it's sort an option that would complicate assad's stay in power. >> iran, do you believe that 2013 is the rid of reckoning when it comes to iran's? >> senator, every year i seem to have a year of reckoning. i consider 2013 a year of reckoning. >> when it comes to iran you said that the sanctions you believe were not working and the ultimate goal of deterring them, is that correct a? >> that's correct. and their nuclear industry continues. >> what is the likelihood that they would work in the future, in your view? >> i believe this regime knowing he can't win the affections of its own people, i think they are

very concerned that the economic sanctions could turn the people against them, in which case i think they would be willing to give up even the nuclear efforts to stay in power. >> you think that's the most likely scenario if we continue sanctions? >> i think we have to continue sanctions, but have other options ready. >> do you believe the israelis would attack iran if they believed it had reached a critical point in terms of nuclear capability? >> the israelis have said so. i take them at their word. >> if they did attack iran would they need our help militarily? >> they could conduct a strike without our help. >> would it be in out answers to help them come in your view? >> that would depend on what the objective of the strike is. is it to stop them quite is it to delay them?

how long do you want to delay them? is there a broader effort to? >> if we had to use military force against the iranian nuclear program, would you recommend a limited strike? or should we go after their navy, air force and the revolutionary guard? >> sender, i think that is advice that it all confident she only to the president on, but i could meet you separately and answer that question fully? speak if the iranians develop nuclear capability of how certain are you think the other nations in the region would require nuclear capability? >> at least one of the nation is told me they would do that at a leadership level but they've assured me they would not stay without a nuclear weapon if iran did speak was that a sunni arab states speak with yes, sir speaks the likelihood of sunni arab states requiring --

acquiring nuclear capability is great, which are not a great? >> i agree. and also other non-sunni arab states in the general region. >> let's talk about the budget. admiral mcraven, you say that your budget is being reduced by 23% when you look at the c.r. as well as sequestration. over a 10 year window, is sequestration is fully implemented, what does it do to your command? >> sir, over a tenur 10 year wht will cut us by about $10 billion. sequestration right now, sequestration alone is 900 million, thereabouts, over 1aten-year period. >> what does that mean to your ability to help defend this nation's? >> sequestration alone is about a 10% cut to my budget, so i could get into each but essentially you think about a 10% reduction and readiness and in capability.

>> would we have a hollow force if we implemented sequestration? >> i think i can manage -- i'm confident i can manage the special operations community so we would not have a hollow special operations force as a result of sequestration alone. >> what about you, general mattis? what about the marine corps? >> i can't speak for them incorporate our mobile outside of the right now since i run center commend. i can tell you with sequestration, bottom line, we will do less with the military in the future. our goal is to not do it less well. in other words, keep essential purpose, keep them at the top of the game with training and good equipment. it would be a smaller force. we would do less with the. >> when people like myself go around the country and say that if you employ sequestration and what it's designed for two-thirds of the budget is not affected, only one-third, and 50% of that, of what's left

comes at a beauty on top of what we've done, and personnel is exempt. that w we'd be doing great damae to our national security am i overstating that? >> no, sir, you're not overstating the and i would come if i can, can continue on with the soft side of this because what is unappreciated sometimes is while i will take about $900 million a year in cuts, i get a lot of my support from the services. so the service cuts that they take compound the problem of special operations support. so to clarify my earlier comments, i can manage the special operations force, those that are special operations, officers and ncos. but i get it commits amount of my support from the various services. that will absolutely a fact the special operations capability of this nation. >> am i correct in my statements to my fellow constituents, my

constituents back home, my colleagues, that sequestration would do a lot of damage to our military? general mattis. >> yes, sir it would spend maybe will have a second round pick very quickly, at the end of the ten-year sequestration, we will be at 2.4 to 1% of gdp in terms of military spending. and 1940 we were at 1.6 it on 9/11 we were at three. it's hard for the committee to be understand we will be at incredibly low number. and in 1962, 49% of spending was on the military. 30% on entitlement. today, 61-point night% of the federal budget is spent on entitlements. 18 points seven on the military if we don't deal with entitlement, which is going to become greece and i think that's the challenge of the congress. i have a couple of the question but i will read for a second round if that's possible.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you both for your service to our nation. we think every member of the armed services have come before us and many who do not when we encounter them. but you both really exemplify the strength and courage that we seek from our military, and your records, sir, are extraordinary. so a special thanks to each of you and your staff for the great work that you have done for our country. i want to follow some of the questions that senator graham has been asking. because i think the american people should be really deeply troubled that our special operation forces are going to be cut, not increased pick after all, the president's strategy, his vision for the future of our

military readiness is for special operations to play a greater role and to be supported more, not less, in resources and budget. my question, admiral mcraven, is how do you make these kinds of cuts consistent with that approach that emphasizes special operations as the centerpiece, as the tip of the spear of our nation's readiness going forward? you know, i don't know how i can go back to people of connecticut and say, you know, everything is fine, but were having special operations like 10%. so i put that question to you. i think it's a difficult

question for us as elected officials, and i'm hoping that now and going into the future you will have an answer. >> make no mistake about it, the sequestration and then on top of that the continuing resolution will have a dramatic impact on special operations now and into the future. the president and the secretary charged me to manage it the best force icann to provide combat capable special operations forces to the combatant commanders. i would absolutely the best i can to ensure that i am providing those forces. having said that, as i said we can do have to mortgage a little bit of the future. so it will not be apparent i don't think to the combatant commanders or to the american people the effect that these cuts are having a special operations for several years. as we begin to cut back on our flying programs, as we begin to cut back on our recruiting base, as we begin to cut back on some of the modifications were going

to do on our helicopters, as would begin to cut back on the deployments. before long there is an effect, a global affected frankly with the reduction and capability of the special operations forces. i can't tell you when that line is going to come. we were going to hit that mark, we are now, the forces are deployed or not the quality forces i think the american people expect. but make no mistake about it as we move forward with the sequestration cuts and if the c.r. stays in effect, we will hit that line sooner than later. >> so we have some time, and i'm not going to ask you for how much, but the sooner the better that we refer to these cuts so as to avoid the lasting damage to our national security? >> server, the problems our current so i don't want to lead you to believe that the cuts that we are accepting out are not affecting the force now. they are.

i've got some of my diplomas by about 20% in some cases. in some cases 60% for some of my less forward units. so the effect is it is having an effect now. at that effect will be magnified as we go forward in the future. >> thank you. do either of you differ with a statement which i happen to think is true, that iran continues to be determined to develop a nuclear capability? >> senator, they are enriching uranium beyond any plausible, peaceful purpose. >> and do you share that view, admiral mcraven? >> i do, sir. speaks to whether there's been a slow down, a pause, however the intelligence community may refer to a, that basic ambition is still there? you would agree with that? >> i would.

and by their own public announcements, they've brought centrifuges online. they are refusing the iaea access to sites. they're continuing their program. >> thank you. i'm going to jump to another topic and i apologize that there seems to be little continuity between the subject, but that's nature of this questioning process, as i'm sure you know. on sexual assault, an area that has concerned me, as a prosecutor for a good part of my professional career, as was now a member of this committee, one of the current weaknesses in our system of deterring, as well as punishing sexual assault in the military, seems to me the nature of the reporting complaints, but also the prosecutorial decisions as to whether someone is held

criminally responsible. in other words, the decision within the command structure is, in fact, within that command made by generally someone to whom both the complainant and the potential defendant report. and that system is somewhat unique because of the nature of the military. there has to be a command structure. i imposing to you the question, whether if the decision-making function, whether to prosecute, whether to hold a predator criminal responsible is taken away from the commander, whether that would severely undermine the capability of that commander to effectively command, whether it's, at the regiment or

whatever level the decision is made? >> it would severely undermine his command authority. anytime a command is no longer responsible for good order and discipline, you have set the groundwork for the best of reason, or best of intentions to leave the command in a more circumscribed situation. and that is not something that is good in something from a force that is put together for violent action. he must be seen, she must be seen as the ultimate arbiter of good order and discipline in that you know, or your solving perhaps addressing one issue and creating a pandora's box of other issues that history will tell you will not work out well. >> would you agree, admiral mcraven? >> i would. and also while i want -- i don't

want to get too far away from expertise here, i will tell you in cases where the are felony charges against an individual, those felony charges are generally resolved but a courts-martial as opposed to an individual commander. they're taken out of commanders hands if their are felony charges in some cases. in some cases they are prosecuted in a civilian court. so the characterization that the commanding officer at the battalion level can come to his own decision on a felony charge of rape i think is a mischaracterization of the ucmj. again, i will defer to the military lawyers who have that expertise, but in my many years of exercising the ucmj, i found one. it is absolutely positively critical to maintaining good order and discipline in a unit. those cases that are beyond the commander's purview, by law, are

referred to a professional lawyer, a judge, a military judge, and a courts-martial much like we have in the civilian system. so the earlier characterization of the ucmj as an arbitrary decision by the commander to take care of one of his buddies, i think it's a mischaracterization of the ucmj. >> thank you. my time has expired but i really want to thank you for your helpful and forthright responses come and again for your services. >> senator donnelly. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and general mattis and admiral mcraven, thank you for your service to the nation. and general mattis, thank you so much for an extraordinary career devoted to the men and women of our services and to our country. thank you so very, very much. general mattis, in regards to pakistan, what would you say is the state of what our relationship is right now, compared to some of the peaks

and valleys that we've had in the past? and where we are at the present time, as you see it. >> senator, we are and and and curving trajectory but it's been improving for probably the last year, maybe eight months. and we have, we have some valid reasons i think tca continued to improve in the near future as we try to get our two countries to find common ground, wherever possible. >> what do you see as we come home from afghanistan? how d.c. pakistan's reaction in relation to afghanistan regarding that? >> well, in pakistan as well as central asia, senator donnelly, there's a lot concerned about what's going to be there after the nato forces come out. i think that the afghan city forces, which are performing better, will give a certain amount of credence to the idea that the success we've achieved

today, not transient. in fact, it can be sustained, and i think the more we can get the current trilateral effort of nato, afghan and pakistanis to work together, the more we will build confidence for the afghans and pakistanis to take control of the border region at a higher level than they've enjoyed before. >> and as a big part of this also, as we move forward, is the afghan-pakistan relationship. what is your best estimate of that relationship right now and one that seems to be having? >> pakistan as you know has lost more troops in this fight than nader combined. and as they go through this fight, in an area of their country where they have never had a lot of control, they're going to have to exercise the degree of control that not been able to exercise, always in the

past. there are a number of areas where there actually improving their control right now, but it is militarily the most difficult terrain i've ever operate in a long that border region. so this is not easy. the enemy is well done again. they are hard to get at. the pakistan military is moving against them, and we will just have to try to keep the collaboration along the border, continuing on the trajectory it's on now if we're going to have success. >> are the afghans and pakistanis, are they cooperating more, or is it still a trust but verify type relationship? >> there's dissatisfaction that has been articulated by the afghans about the havens on the pakistan side of the board but, of course, some of these terrorists who use the afghan side of the border to attack

pakistan. so they both recognize that work together to its in perfect right now -- imperfect right now. are concerned i don't want to wish away or dismiss but at least it's going in the right direction from ethnic nato is a big facilitate to why it's going in the right direction right now, getting the pakistan and afghanistan officers to work together. >> there's a report this morning and i know it's not in your particular area, but in some ways it may come back to that, that north korea is again ratcheting up and have said that on march 11 they are looking at possible surgical strike actions. what do you see as the relationship between iran and north korea? and how much of the technology that iran is developing is coming from that direction? and is that going to be a substantial force for iran's information in further

developing what they have? and that would be for either of you. >> it's a great question, senator donnelly. i would like to get back to you with a more complete answer, but your instincts, your thoughts are on target. there is a connection, and the degree to which that connection provides real progress for iran i cannot say in open hearing. but i will get back to you, senator. >> thank you, general. and admiral, one of the strongest parts of our state, my state, indiana, assistance to the united states armed forces is creating naval warfare. i know one of the areas they work on, this is without getting into too much technical detail, is developing technology for special operation forces. i want you to we consider that a privilege. but then also in terms are

special ops, is there going to be a continuing emphasis on the technical improvements as we move forward? >> they absolutely well. and crane indiana is one of our creaky postwar supporting special operations, sir agenda. i visited crane a number of times. magnificent dod civilians there, and contractors and military officers and enlisted that are supporting our efforts. sir, that will continue spent thank you. general, one of the areas in regards to the scene conflict that we here is what will happen if the rebels are successful the non-muslim faith communities? will there be a cleansing? will they be a purge? i'm when it's been in discussions with the cards to

those forces as to their intentions up in that area? >> the kind of extremists we are most concerned about, not the opposition, not the people that are trying to unseat assad, and we understand where they're coming from and where they want to take their country, but these extremists who are taking advantage of the current situation and the iranian inspired and supported, what i would call malicious, that they're going to have ready in the event assad falls, so they've still got some influence, they have a pretty medieval philosophy. and i would anticipate the worst from them. but they don't represent the opposition either. >> do you know if there any plans being made by either ourselves or the rebels who, in some cases, you see the rebels, that these extremist groups are working right next door to them.

are the rebels aware of the potential of this danger? >> i believe in many cases they are, and they are uncomfortable with those folks working next door to them. at the same time they are locked in a pretty rough fight and i think they're willing to let bygones be bygones at this time and noted to try to win this fight and then deal with the issue once they've gotten rid of assad. but, of course, that always brings its own dangers, senator. >> general mattis, thank you again for everything you've done, transfer, for your continued service. and mr. chairman, thank you. >> senator hirono. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman pitt and i would like to join my colleagues in thanking general mattis and admiral mcraven for your service to our country. and also thank the men and women in your respective commands for the hard work that they do on behalf of all of us. of course, general mattis him

with 41 years of service, my congratulations to you upon your retirement. my very best wishes go with you. i know that some of my colleagues have focused on sexual assault prevention in the military. so i share the concerns and i'm looking forward to the personnel subcommittee searing that will focus on these issues. i won't go into that, but just want to let you know that i share those concerns. general mattis, in your testimony you talked about the most serious strategic risk to the u.s. national security in the central region. and one of these areas was, and she said perhaps the greatest risk to u.s. interest in this area is a perceived lack of u.s. commitment, particularly with regard to what happens in afghanistan, middle east peace, syria. and then you know that if we seek to influence events, we

must listen to partner concerns and continued to demonstrate our support to tangible actions. can you give me examples of what you find as tangible actions to make sure that people in this region understand we have a continuing commitment? >> yes, ma'am. on the military side, i provide options to the president and that manifests itself at u.s. forces that work within the framework of u.s. foreign policy to reassure our friends and make certain our enemies know that we are there, we're going to stand by our friends and work with them. it involves bringing officers from various militaries overseas to our schools here in the united states so that we create relationships with them and create a degree of interoperability. it means that we have our special forces and conventional forces training alongside their forces. nothing builds the personal relationships faster than probably the education and

training efforts. it also means that we're going to be selling equipment, high tech american equipment, to countries that share our security interests as we make certain that we can operate alongside him and they will be equipped with some of the best equipment in the world, should we have to fight together. and taken together, that serves as a deterrent so hopefully we never have to go into that fight. but those would be some of the tangible things that we can gi give. >> and, obviously, we need to continue those efforts. it's a long-term kind of relationship building that we need, we're going to need to engage in in this highly volatile unstable area of this world. >> absolutely, senator. >> when senator hagel's confirmation hearing occurred, now he is the secretary of defense, i have some questions about the rebounds to the pacific. and so that is not your command but i'm just wondering, you know, do support the rebounds to

the pacific in light of the realities that we are facing in that area of the world? >> senator hirono, i completely support it. we do have three anchors in the middle east. one of them is our friends and partners there that must not face the future on without the reassurance that we are with them. one is of course foiled the fuels of the global economy, global economy that we are intimately connected to we the american economy. and a third are the violent extremists that come out of this region threatening civilization everywhere. whether it be india or indonesia, you know, united kingdom or north africa. this is a problem we all have to work with. so we have three anchors that would keep us firmly committed in the middle east, but i completely support the president declared shift to the pacific. >> thank you.

admiral mcraven, following our move out of iraq and leaving afghanistan also on the horizon, as you look forward do you see the roles of our special operators changing or moving to a different primary mission? and what would be the factors that you would consider in making any kind of a change for our special ops program? >> ninety senator. -- thank you, senator. as we draw down and afghanistan, that was certain to provide me more capacity and special operation forces that i can then provide to the combatant commanders. you talk about the rebalancing in the pacific, i was out with admiral lochner a little over a month ago, have an opportunity to spend a fair amount of time in the pacific. i can screw up in the pacific if you will, and as you know, we, the special operations community, have at one of her relationship in the pacific for

many, many many decades from korea down to australia and every country in between. so we very much value our relationship in the pacific. i will tell you as a look at special operation before we always need to maintain our ability to rescue americans and to capture or eliminate the various threats. so that kind of kinetic, that direct action approach is an important part of what we can special operationoperation s do. but i will tell you, the current and future aspect of special operations that i think is equally if not more important is how to go about building our partners capacity, how we allow them to do with their own security problems. so part of the strategy of u.s. special operations command, building off defense strategic guidance put in place in 22 by secretary panetta is to work with them that command can work with the chiefs of mission and work with host nations and figure out where can we apply our special operations resources to best help the nations that are inclined to help themselves and deal with these problems. >> i don't know this is a

setting in which you can mention, some of those countries in which you are working very closely to enable them to enhance their own capacity to engage in special ops. >> yes, ma'am. one of the great success stories with that is working with our filipino partners. of course, we, special operations, and i can tell you in my time as a seal we've been in the philippines as i said for decades and a great relationship with the philippine armed forces. but really since 9/11 as the filipinos aggressively filipino government aggressively went after them, they requested and we supported them in building the special operations capability ask. i had an opportunity, again in my trip out to take him a little over a month ago to visit, and i will tell you this success is remarkable. the degree of stability, the

people see the filipino army as a credible, reliable, important partner. maybe not completely gone but they're on the ropes. and i gave a tremendous credit to the government of filipinos come and our support in dealing with that problem. but the philippines is one example. we've been partnered with our south korean brothers for a long time, and i can go from south korea to singapore to australia spent any country in the middle east -- central command speak with yes, ma'am. we are part of with general mattis and most of our allies in this under command as well. >> so general mattis, what he is doing very much is in line with our showing the continuing commitment that we have that addresses your issue that you talk about? >> yes, ma'am. as we draw down in afghanistan, as we draw down on some of our

forces, you saw that the harry s. truman battle group will not deploy right now. we just have to make sure that's not misinterpreted as a full bath, that we stay fully engaged. there's a number of ways to do so, not just military. that's the area that i'm concerned with, and admiral mcraven is concerned with. but there's a number of ways to do it. not all of them costs a lot of money but it's critical that we do it. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator hirono. thank you for the test by today and for your service to each of you. i intend to make my questions have refocused on budget i think you've done a very good job of covering the sequestered, c.r. effects. i went to the pentagon yesterday on my way into town to stop and visit with secretary hagel, deputy secretary corder and general or you know. i went to the lunchroom and talk to active guard reserve and dod civilians, and contractors who were there. and the message i came away with a loud and clear, surely something that you've underlined

today, the need for us to provide some certainty so that you can do the best with the resources you have. i think the optimal situation would be for our national security strategy to drive our budget. a distant second before i budget strategy to drive our national security. but we are sort of in the far distant third, which is budgetary indecision drive a national secret decisions. and that's very dangerous, and i think your testimony encourages us to try to do some of our best work. you are at risk tolerance but you run the risk. the risk that you shouldn't have to tolerate is a wavering political commitment or political indecision in terms of providing you what you need to let me talk just a second about iran. good discussion today. one of the questions that i have is, as we are evaluating what are the right options for our country to make sure that iran does not obtain nuclear capacity or nuclear weapons, one of the

keys to that is the confidence level that would have about our own intelligence regarding iranian activity. and that intelligence is both our own but also credible intelligence that we are able to receive from alice. without going into classic material, i would be kind of curious as to each year confidence level in our intel surrounding the current status of a reigning activities regarding their nuclear plans. >> senator, first i will just tell you that in 40 odd years u.s. military, i have never enjoyed the level of intelligence and the anticipation i'm able to achieve as i do today in this job your it is phenomenal. and it allows me insights that i know that nobody else had in terms of outside the u.s. government. >> and general, is that both the intelligence that we generate,

but also the incredible intelligence that we are able to share appropriate with allies? >> absolutely, sir. and that they share with us, i might add, which is invaluable. but i would also tell you that this program, inside a closed country that's virtually a police state, its ability to conduct denial and deception operations means that i stay in a very watchful mode, as does our intelligence community, and i think we have to assume that in some cases we would not know something, a decision made in a very small cohort of people, and perhaps other hidden sites like the one revealed by our president a couple years ago. ..

>> i would echo his sentiments that the intelligence community both within the u.s. and the external communities that provide us that insight is truly incredible. >> admiral mcraven, we have such a special forces footprint in the commonwealth, and in senator levin's opening comments, he referred to the work you've done in stress on force studies and recommendations to follow, and i would just like you to take -- talk a bit about that. what are some of the things you're doing within special forces to deal with the effect upon our warriors and their families? >> thanks, senator. i appreciate the question. my predecessor, admirable eric

olson, did a wonderful job of identifying the problem early on, and he put together a pressure on the force task force. and they went out and interviewed about 7,000 service members, about a thousand spouses, they had 440 different meetings, and it was about a ten month assessment to determine the pressure on the special operations force. about the time that i took command back in the summer of 2011, that report just a couple days after i took command landed on my desk. it was very apparent that as admiral olson had said, the force was frayed at the time. candidly, in the last 18 months, the force has continued to fray, and i'm committed to making sure that the force that i leave my successor and his successor is healthy and capable of doing the mission the nation expects us to do. as a result of that, i took the pressure on force, and we've kind of changed the name a little bit and the focus, and it is now preserving the force and the families. we have spent time working with capitol hill, working with the

services who provide us a lot of our support to make sure that we have the right programs in place for not only our members which we do pretty well, but also for their families. and i have made a point of stating that the readiness of the is -- of the member is directly related to the readiness of the family. so there are a lot of programs that allow us to take good careful of our members but not such good care of our families in some areas. so we're working with capitol hill and osd and others to figure out how can we find the appropriate programs where we can take care of our families so, frankly, the service members will be ready to do the job and, frankly, it is absolutely the right thing to do, take care of those families that have been supporting this nation along with their service member for so very long. so i'm pleased, i have a full-time task force that does nothing but work with my component commanders and their service components to make sure that we're taking care of the tactical and the headquarters elements as well.

so it's pretty aggressive, but as i said, i want to make sure the force is healthy for years to come, sir. >> thank you, admirable. appreciate hearing that status report. one last question, general mattis, for you. kind of a big picture question to take advantage of your lengthy experience. when i was elected lieutenant governor of virginia, we had a virginia guard, as all states did, that was a reserve force. twelve years later as i'm now a junior senator, we have a virginia guard that has had significant operational experience, scar tissue, training, wisdom, lives lost, folks injured in battle. but it's a or very different kind of a guard or force than it was 10 or 11 years ago. i'd like for you just to talk in your experience since 2001 the changing nature of the guard and how critical the guard and reserve have been to your activities in centcom or, more broadly, other activities during the war on terror.

>> shanks, senator kaine. -- thanks, senator kaine. i appreciate the opportunity to recognize that. they have been magnificent in serving as an operational and even strategic shock absorber for us so that we could conduct this war and not lose the all-volunteer force which i think would have been the cost had we not had the ability to bring these ready portions full of patriots who look past any hot political relate concern -- rhetoric swirling around this war. come in and deploy not once, not twice but in many cases multiple times. and i bring this up because we did have a contract with the guard and reserve which said you would come in to take some pressure off the others. they've become more of an operational force now, and we have to make sure we don't break that fundamental contract that allows them to be citizen-soldiers. in other words, continue with their civilian career and still give us the reserve, the shock

absorber we need. there comes a point where they're reserve only in name. they're, in fact, becoming regulars. so i think we have to look at the kind of force we compose at this point and make sure we keep faith with the reserves and the guard. but at the same time, not, not dismiss the very real capability they give this country when the call comes. >> thank you, general. we'll have a second round of questions for three minutes, and i'll go to senator graham. >> thank you both. afghanistan, general mattis, the last card to play really is the residual force in 2014. do you agree with that? >> i do, sir. >> and we could have a very good outcome in afghanistan if we play that card well, do you agree with that? >> it will be critical to the good outcome. >> okay. 13-6 was the recommendation in terms of u.s. force presence. 352 in terms of afghan security forces and some nato. that's the configuration, right?

>> 13-6 was my personal -- >> right. >> yes, sir. >> let's say the president, he's the commander in chief, we all respect that. my concern is at the end here we're going to drop the ball, and i don't want to do that. let's say you announce 10,000 u.s. forces, not 13,6, and you say publicly we will reliefs that force 2,000 a year until we get down to 2,000, you know, four years later. what kind of effect would a statement like that have on our success or potential success in afghanistan? >> senator graham, i think we have to send a message of commitment. we work with a lot of unpredictability, senator, and if the afghan security forces continue to mature the way they have been and we hold them at that full strength into 2018, there may be more reductions we can take. >> but you wouldn't announce on day one we're going to withdraw

2,000 here no matter what. >> i think a military perspective, senator, because of the unapplicant bl nature of war -- >> the enemy would look at the last number, not the first number. >> they will, yes, sir. >> that's fine. one last thing about iran. we've got two choices here; bring them to their senses which is to stop developing a nuclear weapon capability or bring them to their knees so they can't develop a nuclear weapon capability. aren't those are two options? >> yes, sir. >> as to the second option, do we have the capability to bring them to their knees? >> well, absolutely, senator. i would still say on bring to their senses between economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation and encouragement of behavior

that does not cost them such a degree of political support that they end up losing power, there may yet be a way to bring them to their senses on a purely cost benefit ratio. >> and i hope you're right. but if that doesn't, the only option left is to bring them to their knees, do you agree? >> yes, sir. the means, there are a number of means to do that, perhaps even short of open conflict. but certainly that's one of the options that i have to have prepared for the president. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator graham. general mattis, one more follow up on this guard and reserve question. so if they were sort of a traditional reserve and then we built the guard and reserve up to have this operational capacity and strategic shock absorber as you indicate and now

we're wrestling with, you know, not wanting them to be frayed, you don't recommend that we take them back to a pure, the old reserve model? there's training and expertise that we ought to now be taking advantage of, so some scale back to not wear 'em out and maintain 'em is appropriate. but wouldn't you suggest that a future role for the guard and reserve going forward should try to take advantage of this operational and strategic shock absorber capacity that they've developed over the last ten years? >> i believe it'd be wise to, senator kaine, and also i think that we have to in height of the situation we face fiscally in the department right now. >> let me thank each of you very much. as you've noticed, people have been departing because there's a vote on right now, and i'm going to depart stage right very promptly, but thank you so much for your service and your testimony today. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> today house budget committee chairman paul ryan releases his

2014 federal budget proposal. we'll be live for the news briefing starting at 10:30 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> president obama is on capitol hill this week for meetings with members of the house and senate. tuesday the president meets with senate democrats, wednesday with house republicans and thursday with senate republicans. friday he's talking about energy and climate change during a visit to the energy department's largest lab for scientific research near or chicago. visit our web site, c-span.org, for more events from capitol hill and the white house. >> george washington enjoyed a long 50-year relationship with alexandria. from the time alexandria was founded in 1749 when he was 17 until he died in 1799 at the age of 67. he participated in the political

life of the city, he was a trustee of alexandria, and he was a justice of the peace of fairfax county. he represented alexandria in the house of the burgesses at the virginia legislature. even when he was president, he made sure that when they chose the new, this area to be the new site of the nation's capitol that alexandria was included in the original district of columbia. we're in right now the ballroom of the tavern, and george washington loved to dance. and all the ladies really wanted to dance with him, to dance with the most famous person in the united states was a big thrill. and they had balls here for george washington in 1798 and 199, and he and martha came here for birthday balls. he died in 1799, but they've had birthday balls every year since then except they didn't have one in 1800 because that was too close to his death, and they didn't have one in world war ii.

the george washington national memorial towers over the city, and alexandria has the largest george washington's birthday parade in the nation. alexandria likes to say that this is george washington's hometown. >> next weekend, more from al sand drink ya, virginia, as booktv, american history tv and c-span's local content vehicles look behind the scenes at the history and literary life of al alexandria, virginia. >> michigan senator carl levin announced last week that he will not seek re-election when his term expires in 2014. monday senate majority leader harry reid paid tribute to senator levin who will retire after six terms. >> mr. president, for some public servants the political

fire is lit by their first trip to washington or by moving a memorable, being moved by a memorable party convention speech. for others it's military service which leads to a career in public service. for still others a single issue such as a proposed freeway through a vibrant community propels them into politics. but for senator carl levin, serving michigan families is something of a family business. senator levin's father, his uncle theodore was chief judge for the district court in the eastern district of maryland -- i'm sorry, michigan, for many, many years. i was was elected to congress in 982, the same year that senator levin's brother, sander, was elected to the house of representatives. he has been ranking member of the house ways and means committee, the distinguishing member of the house of representatives having served that body for going on 31 years.

mr. president, the first time i met carl levin was over here. i was going to run for the -- i was in the house, going to run for the senate. we met in his office. and the first thing i said is i came to washington a few years ago with your brother. we were elected in the same class. he said, yes, he's my brother but also my best friend. i mean, mr. president, how about that? that's something i have never, ever forgotten. these two brothers, natives of detroit, have done much for the state of michigan. carl levin is true listen an outstanding senator and even a better man. the senior senate from michigan is the longest-serving senator in its state's history. he has dedicated his life serving michigan families long before he was elected to the senate. he served as general counsel to the michigan civil rights commission. he served two terms in the detroit city council, one of them as president of the city

council. as a senator, senator levin has consistently advocated for michigan families where that meant supporting the auto industry, protecting lake michigan, holding credit card companies accountable or securing funding for our sons and daughters serving in the military. as chairman of the armed services committee, carl levin is the nation's most respected voice on national security and the most powerful advocate for men and women in the united states armed forces. and as chairman of the senate permanent committee on investigations, he has sought the truth on behalf of american families time and time again. he has led investigations, the 2008 financial crisis, abusive credit practices and abusive credit card practices and a long, extensive, extremely enlightening bit of work on the enron collapse. his dedication to the senate is matched only by his dedication to his own family.

he and his lovely wife barbara have been married for more than 50 years. they have three daughters and six grandchildren. i'm confident carl's looking forward to spending more time with his grandchildren and taking long walks through his and sandy's tree farm. it's a wonderful place they do go. they don't harvest anything, it's just a bunch of trees, and they love that tree farm. i so admire senator levin. clearly, when he retires in two years, the united states senate will lose this powerful voice for military families and investigating things that need to be investigated by this body. michigan is a much better place because of carl levin. our country, the united states, is a much better place because of carl levin's service. >> when it comes to the secretary of state and the people around her, i think that what i, what i found striking is her ability to stay focused at all times as much as possible on

what is happening. she doesn't get distracted by the details if they're not important. details often matter, but she has an ability to stay focused on the big picture. how is what is happening in afghanistan impacting what they might be doing in the middle east? how is what is happening in the middle east impacting what they're trying to do in asia? i think she had a good sense of what is the big picture, what is the strategy here? and, of course, she's surrounded by people who are helping her. i have to carry my own suitcase, but she has staff, and that allows her -- and i talk about that a little bit -- that allows her to stay focused on what really matters. she doesn't have to worry about whether or not lunch will be served or not. she'll have it while she's thinking about the bigger picture. >> kim ghattas looks at hillary clinton's tenure as secretary of state sunday at 9, part of booktv this weekend on c-span2.

[inaudible conversations] knox next. [inaudible conversations] >> good morning. the, we have -- let's see, we have one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine senators, we can -- i think, senator grassley, we can get going.

first off, i want to thank senator paul for having a filibuster which kept everybody still in town so we could have a quorum to talk about guns. that may not have been his number one reason for doing it, but we take ancillary benefits wherever they come from. now, last week we all had the opportunity to talk about legislation for the committee regarding gun violence in america. we gave our speeches, and i hope we can make significant process -- progress. earlier this week i was joined by senator collins, senator durbin, senator gill brand and senator kirk in the introduction of revised legislation to combat the straw purchasing and trafficking of firearms. others have joined us in that bill including senator

klobuchar, senator blumenthal and senator king. and i will offer a substitute requiring the provisions with the text of the leahy-collins bill. i've reached out to other senators, those discussions bore fruit. pending bill's provisions -- [inaudible] creation of a specific crime for straw purchasing. it's designed to prevent criminals from using straw purchasers who can pass a background check and then hand those firearms to the criminals. straw purchasers circumvent the purpose of the background check system, and we have found many, everything from drug gangs to others who have used guns that the gang members could not have bought, but the straw purchaser has. straw purchasing is done only to get a gun into the hands of

somebody who is prohibited from having one. i think we need a meaningful solution to this problem. our substitute includes suggestions, senator gillibrand, to require those who traffic in firearms by wrongfully obtaining two or more firearms, and we'll give law enforcement more effective tools. substitute also incorporates the numb of changes that result from suggestions from senator grass grassley and his staff. we've been working on this, of course, since january, have tried to be responsive to the ranking member's concerns and suggestions. and i've reached across the aisle to ore senators. -- other senators. there was an atf whistleblowers, and senator grassley's been the lead in whistleblower legislation. there was an atf whistleblower

who testified last congress that the existing firearm laws are toothless, and they can't help law enforcement -- [inaudible] that's why law enforcement has consistently called for a firearms trafficking statute that can be effective and go after straw purchasers. what we need now is to create better law enforcement tools. and i think in this will, if senators can join together on, will lose a very dangerous loophole in the law that mexican cartels and gangs and other criminals have exploited for long. for too long. the illegal trafficking firearms act is important, and, you know, this week "usa today" ran a front-page story about a study that estimates gun violence costs americans $12 billion, $12 billion a year.

i don't care whether it's 12 billion or 10 billion or 2 billion, we ought to do what we can in this committee to mitigate those unnecessary costs. and i want to yield to senator grassley and then we will take first, i think we have four -- >> thank you. >> -- five nominees prepared to go forward. senator grassley. >> yeah. i would like to suggest three steps here. one would be to take care of the nominations. the other one, i have an issue that i'd like to just make a statement on. and then i have a general statement on the, on this whole issue of the four different bills, and i would like to have any of my members that want to make statements just before you bring up the legislation and then have debates on the legislation. >> well, you know, obviously i'll give time.

i mean, i think that we tried last week to get as many of those statements, including mine and yours, out of the way. but naturally, i'll yield to people who wish to make statements. also, some are going down for the bill signing, and others i do not want to lose a quorum. but go ahead. >> well, as you can see from the absence on my side except for maybe three of the newer members, we all have people that have responsibilities in other committees. that's why i bring that up. let me say that we're able to, i think, unless one of my members want a vote on alejandro's, i think we can do all the nominations by voice vote. why don't we do that first? >> and you want a roll call on alejandro's? >> no. we do not need a roll call.

i've been informed by that one member. >> okay. then why don't we do -- i appreciate your cooperation in that. i would ask consent then that we consider sherry chapelle, michael j. mcshane, nitza alejandro, and jeffrey shmell. we consider them en banc. without objection, they'll be considered en banc. all of those in favor signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> opposed? the ayes appear to be unanimous, and chapelle, mcshane, alejandro, ishmael will be reported to the floor. >> yeah. and then following up on that, i'd like to just bring up something that you brought up yesterday at a hearing that i very much appreciate your bringing up, and that is at the

oversight hearing with general holder there was a significant discussion about the olc memoranda regarding targeted killings of americans abroad. chairman leahy and i wrote to president obama on february the 7th, one month ago, asking that he instruct the attorney general to provide these memoranda to the judiciary committee. i don't think he -- at least i haven't, and i don't think the chairman's received a response, so i wanted to highlight a statement that chairman leahy made to general holder yesterday regarding the possibility that this committee subpoena the documents. i want everybody, both republican and democrat, to know that i fully support the chairman in this everett and -- in this effort and would urge that we move forward with a vote on subpoena for these memoranda in the near future. and then i'll go to my statement. and i'm not asking you to comment, but at least you know

how i feel about it. but i think you feel strongly about it, or you wouldn't have brought it -- >> well, and i also spoke again with the attorney general. without going into private conversation, i think that he's, he would like us to be able to see that, and i think the decision remains within the white house. and i'm or sorry that they haven't even responded to our letter, but we will subpoena because it is it is a matter -- and we are going to have, for those of you who weren't there at the hearing when we talked about this, we are going to have a hearing on domestic use of drones in this committee. it'll be helpful to have that. helpfulful but not necessary to have that prior to that time, but we are going to have many of you on both sides of the aisle have raised concerns about the domestic use of drones, and we

will have a significant hearing on that. thank you. >> yeah. the committee and the subcommittee have held three hearings on legislation related to our purpose of voting bills out today. while i believe that addressing violent, violence requires examining more than guns, guns were the near exclusive focus of those hearings and will be the near exclusive focus of the bills the committee sees fit to mark up. all of us were strongly affected by what happened in newtown. all of us want to take effective action to prevent future tragedies. but we have different deeply-held approaches to do so. what we're talking about today is freedom, freedom not only guaranteed by the constitution, but what the supreme court recognized as a pre-existing right of self-defense. individuals do not need the government's permission to defend themselves.

today gun violence rates are at the lowest level in 50 years. this is a tremendous accomplishment. there are many reasons for it including longer incarceration of dangerous criminals, abolition of parole and police practices. this drop in gun violence has occurred even as there are more guns in the country than ever before. it has occurred after the supreme court has found the second amendment to be a fundamental right and after many states have increased the ability of law-abiding citizens to own guns. the drop has also occurred despite any new federal gun control enactment in almost 20 years. but a majority of the committee seems determined to impose more gun restrictions on law-abiding citizens. consider the assault weapon ban. this bill represents the biggest gun ban proposal in our history. a similar ban was enacted in 1994, and the jus he's

department -- justice department's own studies failed to show that the pan had any effect. some of my colleagues speak like donald rumsfeld on this point, and i want to quote him. absent of evidence isn't evidence of absence. but the assault weapon bandied not work. and just this year the deputy directorrer of the national institute of justice wrote that, quote, an assault weapons ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. but rather than trying something different, the first bill on the agenda is an assault weapons ban. it is based on how guns look, not the damage that they do. an ar-15 is prohibited while a mini 14 is exempt because one has a wooden stock and the other a plastic one. other guns that are more powerful than prohibited guns are exempted. the gun that, the guns that it bans are not ones that are used

in the military as they are semiautomatic. they are in common use, and banning large capacity magazines also fails to rational basis scrutiny when the bill exempts a class of shotguns that can be continuously reloaded. the bill is not passing a law that criminalizes speeding. it is like banning the manufacturer of cars with hood ornaments from having the capacity of exceeding 65 miles per hour while exempting trucks from the same requirement. at the hearings the justice department did not endorse a specific ban but said that nonetheless that a ban could be constitutional. they did not suggest what level of scrutiny courts would apply to a bill with second amendment implications. they also said that they would develop an analysis of the bill's constitutionality, but it

speaks volumes when we're about to mark up such a bill and that analysis is not forthcoming. i think it is necessary to point out that had this bill been law at the time, sandy hook still would have happened. it would not have stopped a mentally disturbed person while stealing a gun that this bill would not have banned from his mother and then shooting unarmed children for several minutes before police arrived. on background checks without notice, we were given an entirely new bill late yesterday. i know the sponsor says that he does not intend to create a national gun registry, and i accept that as his intent. i would just say that the deputy director of nij can be enforced only if there is gun registration. i note that at the hearings some stated that criminals are foiled

from buying guns because they do not go to gun stores to buy guns. they recognize that prohibited persons do not now submit to pkd checks although they on talk about guns which is why they want to expand checks. but they fail to recognize that criminals won't be any more likely to submit to expanded background checks than they are currently. they will go around supposedly universal checks to steal guns or buy them on the black market. when the universal background checks don't work, then registration will be proposed to enforce them. and when that doesn't work because criminals won't register their guns, we may be looking at confiscation. there is a refusal to consider that gun control of law-abiding citizens does not work. if gun control worked, we would expect to see that places with stricter gun laws would have less crime than those where it was easier for law-abiding citizens to have a gun.

instead, law-abiding citizens to pay the laws, and criminals don't. and those areas with gun control often have more crime. under federalism, state and localities are laboratories of experimentation. results of different approaches come in, and then the federal government learns which laws work were better than others ast considers national legislation. but that is not what is argued for gun control. we're asked to adopt nationally the policies that have not worked at the state and local level. we're told that poor results in places with gun control are due to more lenient gun with rules elsewhere in the vicinity. but if that were true, one would expect more crimes in the suburbs than in cities where they are not and in the states where guns are not easily able to be purchased than in states where they are not.

however, this is not the case. restrictions on gun rights of law-abiding citizens do not work. again, rather than trying to approach a different approach, supporters of gun control not only want to double down on failed strategy, they want to impose on the nation as a whole despite the second amendment. i do think that action can be taken on gun trafficking and straw purchasing, but because those are actions by criminals and occur across state lines, i'm glad that we have a bill on that subject on the agenda. i appreciate the efforts of the chairman and other senators to be reeventive to changes -- receptive to changes to the original legislation. and when that bill comes up, i'll speak that. the final bill on the agenda is school safety bill. that bill originally had an enormous cost at time when we were having a sequester. however, senator boxer and senator warner, the bill's sponsors, have shown flexibility on spending amounts and other

issues. and so i want them to know that i appreciate those efforts. mr. chairman, republicans will make sure that we get to finality on these bills and not meaning any criticism, they were not ready to consider, to be considered last week. we will raise a fairly small number of amendments which is how the committee process works. we're not standing in the way of any of these bills from being voted in a timely fashion. a number of members on the democrat side made statements about these bills last week, and i know that members on my side would like to at this point. >> well -- >> thank you very much. >> thank you. and i appreciate the cooperation before us i'll bring up s. 54, the trafficking bill, stop illegal trafficking in firearms act. and following our normal

procedure, i will amend it with my substitute which is based on the text of leahy-collins bill. i assume there is no objection to the substitute. the bill with, without objection, the bill as amended by the institute, of course, is now open for further discussion. >> okay. >> and amendment. >> if i could, i would start the discussion. before i make a statement, i think -- i have not talked to senator sessions. i've talked to senator cornyn. do you folks want to make statements overall, or are you ready to go to the straw purchasing bill? it's on the agenda now, so the chairman has the right to bring it up. or do you want to go right to this -- >> i have statements on both, but i'd be happy to address the

straw purchasing bill first. >> okay. how about you, senator sessions? >> i'll stay with the amendment process. >> okay. then we're ready to go on your bill. can i speak now? >> sure. go ahead. >> okay. i greatly appreciate the substitute amendment. i have offered an amendment to the bill which i will discuss separately. federal legislation needed on subjects of straw purchasing and gun trafficking will strengthen efforts to combat illicit firearms. when i conducted my oversight of the justice department failed operations fast and furious, i was told by whistleblowers that there were gaps in federal laws concerning straw purchasers which should be addressed, and this is our opportunity to do it. mr. chairman, you have worked with me on your bill making many changes at my request. they have made the bill better and reduced the negative side effects of previous versions. i trust you think so as well because you have included the

changes in the new bill. the new bill in your substitute amendment also included a revised bill by senators gillibrand and kirk on the subject of gun traffickingment those revisions also reflect changes that i asked senator gillibrand to make, and i think it would be worthwhile to outline all the changes that have been made to the bill since they were first introduced. i think they demonstrate good faith of the chairman and senator gillibrand. so, for instance, senator gillibrand's bill originally would have made it a federal crime to transfer two or more guns if that person knew that result would be a violation of state or local law. that would have given states and localities a one-way incentive to address new gun control measures and force the cost of prosecution and incarceration on the federal government. it also would have created for the first time a situation in which violation of state criminal law was an element of federal offense. she took that provision out at

my request. i raised similar concerns about the language in the chairman's bill, and you also removed that language. senator gillibrand also accepted major and minor drafting suggestions including clarifying what intent was necessary to commit a crime, harmonizing penalties, changing the gift exception, altering the directive for sense, for the sentencing commission and others. the chairman has also made changes to his bill at my request compared to when s. s. 4 was originally introduced. it is now directed only at straw purchasers, not at all transfers on behalf of another. this allows people to buy -- for people as part of a legitimate business, it preserves private sales. now the bill goes to actual straw purchasers, those who purchase a gun on behalf of a prohibited person.

like senator gillibrand, you harm noised -- harmonized penalties at my request and removed references to violation of state or local law. you made changes regarding sales to persons who do not reside in the state. you took language, took out language concerning materiality of false statements on the forms, separated the rules for purchase from licensed dealers from those of private sales and also limiting the bill to engaging indirectly in the conduct that is already illegal. you have protected the right of law-abiding citizens as i have outlined in ways that i believe were not protected in either the original straw purchasing bill or the original trafficking bill. as a result of the changes to each bill and to their combination in the substitute, the bill now covers only criminals and law-abiding -- and not law-abiding citizens. and since you have made good, shown good faith, i will now

demonstrate mine as well. some on my side believe the bill needs more work to resolve outstanding issues between now and when the bill goes to the floor. that is something that i hope will happen with the chairman's help. with that understanding and if my amendment is adopted, i will vote to report your bill out today, and i thank you for what you have done so far, mr. chairman. >> well, thank you. i appreciate that. you and i have worked closely on this as we have on a number of things. i mean, our bill is tough on criminals. it's drafted so it won't sweep in private seller and buyer of firearms. but it's done in a way that we can deter those who would abuse the trust of a firearms dealer by engaging in straw purchasing. and you noted a lot of your concerns are reflected in my substitute amendment. i understand the intent behind

the amendment that you are raising. i am concerned the amendment could unduly hamper other law enforcement operations that are properly supervised including terrorism and drug investigations. we all agree, we all agree that the government should never permit guns to be transferred to dangerous criminals as happened in fast and furious, but sometimes to combat straw purchasing the government has to be given latitude to act on a tip and arrest a straw purchaser upon or immediately after a sale. ..

changes don't harm the holding the department of justice accountable for gun operations where weapons could walk. "fast and furious" was a debacle that will haunt the department of justice for decades, but these operations and oversight and accountability. and from that point on the oversight and accountability, i think that's an area where i have to draw the line, if you take that into consideration after the bill gets to the floor. >> without objection, the bill

is amended by the amendment of the senator from iowa. are there other amendments? >> mr. chairman? >> senator cornyn. >> mr. chairman, i believe that stopping illegal trafficking firearms act of 2013 which would create several new criminal penalties and unmanned statutory authorities, target weapon -- >> excuse me. at the center will hold just the second. senator hatch has a statement he wanted to include in the record. without objection. the amendment we just accepted of senator grassley is -- [inaudible] >> my concern is that this bill is a solution in search of a problem. straw purchasing for purpose of directing guns to people who

cannot illegally obtained and is already a crime. and so we double down and say this time we really mean it. when, in fact, the real problem i think, in many instances, is the lack of prosecution of existing crimes i the department of justice. as i said earlier and i will say again, i have a hard time explaining to my constituents back home how passing more laws that will go unforced make them any safer. and so while i understand the desire to act, the two seem like we're doing something, i worry about the disconnect between the action and any solution to the problems that we all are concerned about. so, and i also worry, mr. chairman, that this legislation which has been shared with my staff, i understand about the

last 36 hours, we haven't had an adequate opportunity to try to vet it and to understand what its ramifications might be, and my hope would be that they would be some additional time offered that we could try to work with your staff and work on a bipartisan basis to address the concerns we have. for example, speedy you're talking about the amendment that was introduced and circulated on monday? today is thursday. >> my staff advises it was circulated yesterday. >> it was introduced on monday. >> my staff tells me we got it yesterday. well, the point is, let me give you an example. for instance, the bill would make it a crime punishable by up to 20 years in prison for a person who attempt or tries to buy a firearm as a gift or raffle item, if the person and

negligently knows that -- purchasing a firearm. in other words, this bill would make it a serious felony for an american legion employee negligently transfer a rapid firearm to a veteran who, unknown to the transfer or, suffers from ptsd. that example, and i'm sure there are others, causes me concern that we're getting ready to vote on a piece of legislation when we really don't know what the scope or the consequences of a legislation or. which to me councils, taking our time in making sure that we understand what the impact will be, rather than passing legislation that will have unintended consequences that none of us would endorse, but which in our haste to try to show that we're doing something, we end up creating that unintended consequence.

>> you're talking about your amendment -- is that correct? >> i'm talking about s. 54, stop illegal trafficking -- >> i understand, what are you aren't introducing -- >> i have not offered an imminent -- i have not offered an amendment today. >> if there are no amendments, then the clerk will call the roll on s. 54 as amended. >> well, i want to say something on that. thank you i do express concern about the penalties in this legislation is difficult to write. i know the chair has worked hard on. i have some concerns about it. in general i support the concept of what you are doing. i think the department of justice had said that are areas in which they are not able to

effectively enforce these laws, and they need better legislation. and i'm inclined to think that that's so. although i would note to my colleague that you provide the gun to someone that's intending to use it in a drug crime or robbery or a murder, year and a beta and a better which makes you charged with the murder, or a part of a conspiracy. to do that come and your chargeable in that way. that's what is normally prosecuted today. so if you go into a gun dealer and you certify 4473 form, and i have prosecute these cases, that you rely on that form, subject to the false statement and the penalties are in the code set forth. i suppose if the person leaves the country, like in the situation we had at the border where the guns go into another

country, it's difficult, all yoga let's make is a violation of the paperwork regulation. that may not be sufficient to properly punish a person come or it may lead you -- leave you difficulty. so fundamentally i think you have some valuable legislation here. but i'm a bit troubled by the size of the penalty. i know the chair wants it to be tough on this but same time we want to be consistent with other penalties. sharing a firearm during a drug offense is five years. if you brandished it, threaten somebody, it's 10 years. mandatory minimum. so you've got 15 years in this offense for providing a gun to somebody who may use it illegally, which would be, i'm

not sure that that's coherence with -- >> are you saying i am being too tough? >> maybe, really. of course, some of us will be decided by the -- >> most of the people i've prosecuted think i was too tough, too. >> i've always been aggressive in prosecuting this case. all i will say to you, i would just share my concern about that issue, and think we could fix it and probably solve some problems. >> okay. the clerk will then call the roll spent mr. chairman, can i just ask one last question? >> of course. >> is it the intent of the authors of the bill to make it a crime punishable by up to 20 years for a person who attempts or plan to buy a firearm or as a gift or a raffle item, the person goes to know --

>> no, in fact -- >> an american legion employee -- [talking over each other] >> suffers from ptsd. is that the intent of the authors of the legislation? >> no. >> that is the result of this legislation, which i suggest we need to take our time to make sure we understand what we are doing here. and the problem is, senator grassley's amendment was offered just a few moments ago, which you accepted and i appreciate the fact that you all are able to work together so well, and this committee should be working together. but to jim to legislation that we don't know what the consequences are, which would criminalize this american legion employee, i think is not our intention, but that is the result of the legislation of everyone who votes in favor of this bill as currently written. that can't be our purpose. >> and that is not the way the legislation is written. you and i have a different view of that, but it's not the way the legislation is written, not

the way the legislation is intended. we have plenty of time before the center comes on the floor, if you convince me that you are right and i'm wrong on this, i would be happy to consider it, amendment for further clarification. we've been very careful to make sure we don't sweep innocent transfers from private seller and buyer of the nature you are talking about. >> mr. chairman? >> the other senator from texas. >> mr. chairman, i wanted to thank the chairman for his good and hard work on this bill. i think this bill has the potential for providing some real bipartisan agreement. i think from the beginning, members of this committee on both sides of the aisle have agreed that efforts to focus on violent criminals should be the primary area of focus for

preventing violent gun crime. and i think this bill takes steps in the churc duration. i agree with the senior senator from texas that i have concerns that certain language, particularly the language in 932 could potentialpotential ly sweep too broadly and could potentially sweep in innocent purchasers rather than those knowingly participating in, in violent crime, and knowingly aiding those who would participate in violent crime from acquiring firearms. but i do think there is potential before this bill is voted on on the floor of the senate to reach some bipartisan agreement that could end up having wide agreement. so i thank the chairman for that, and i think the language can be narrowed so that we can be sure not to sweet and innocent conduct. i think we could find wide agreement and the underlying framework. >> i come from a state with a kind of innocence back and forth

you talked about, often happen. as you know i'm a gun owner. i spent a lot of time with my fellow gun owners on -- i don't know if i'm the only person, but i'm probably one of the few that has a pistol range in my backyard, which is use except when the have two feet of snow. so i'll be happy to sit down -- i'm wondering, we have a lot ahead of us, if we have the clerk call the roll. >> let me say one thing. >> fifteen seconds. >> you know, what the senators, two senators from texas have brought up are concerns that i've had, and that's what i've been trying to work for. obviously, i haven't satisfied these two senators, but i just want you to know, those were the things that we've been trying to

solve your, and hopefully we have solved them. but i will have to try to convince you of that. but i will still work to help you get changes made if you think they ought to be made. >> mr. chairman? >> senator sessions, you wish to be heard again? >> i believe the language you used was reason will cause to believe that they might be unable to receive a firearm, which is pretty close to what senator cornyn said negligence. so you've got some cause to believe your brother-in-law may have had, been convicted of a felony or may have, be dealing, selling a little drugs. if you sell him a gun and if he uses the country the drug offense he gets five years, but if you sell the country and, you can get 15.