infrastructure on the routine basis. further our adversaries are probing critical infrastructure whether chemical plants stock exchanges any type of important infrastructure. and our partner countries that can inflict damage to the global economy as well as exacerbate instability in the security environment. what are your specific recommend ages with arerd to increasing cyber capability and specifically how do we compete with the private sector to get the brightest minds and the best engineers and math met igses to want to serve as cyber warriorsen and hands the cyber defense? have you thought about ways to not only recruit and retrain and retable the best and brightest in the fields but also to perhaps develop resources throughout national guard and other sources. and the panel senator, we

did not go into that level of detail we noted the importance of the area the importance of the investing of both defensive and offensive capabilities urged the department to move forward with modernization and improving cooperation with the private sector so i will give you my personal views on your question. i think that attracting tall sent one of the biggest challenges and there are a couple of ways to go at it. one is to use different incentives and pay schedules for cyber experts than the normal gs schedule. a second is to develop contract relationships and surge capacity with the private sector and a third is as you mentioned actually leveraging some of the strength of our guard and reserves that you know there are a lot of these folks that have the expertise in the commercial sector that are patriots and may want to contribute to

our national defense but they are not going to leave silicon valley to join full-time so finding a way to leverage them on the weekends and you know for their annual training and to be available to be mobilized in the national m

from cutting their hair. and wearing uniforms you know really let them come as they are. and bring their expertise to the table with without having to meet traditional requirement. in your opening remarks ambassador you mentioned five technology areas that you thought we needed to develop more weapons expertise does your report expand on that? or do you just list them? we um don't go into great detail about them. we basically highlight them as areas that we collarly think there needs to be more attention and there hasn't been sufficient attention

directed energy weapons for one and there is as you said. there is a list of them. we will give them about a paragraph treatment in each one. not in any detail. i would love for the record for the further development that have you it. thank you. thank you mr. chairman. senator sessions. thank you mr. chairman. thank you both of you for your leadership and your business.com that you are sharing with us. we do have a problem with defense spending it is causing me a great concern as a member of the budget committee for a couple of years. have i been digging into those numbers and have i felt all along that the one area of our budget that needs to be exam initial with the most care for spending more money, is the defense department and so we have to justify that. and we have to the defense department will tell us what they will spend the money on and how much it is.

but we don't have a lot of money as a matter of fact we do not have enough money to run this government. and the deficits will continue to rise. though we have had a slow slowing of the annual deficits they are going to start to rise again a coring to cbo. they project that by 2019 interest on the debt will exceed the entire defense budget. so this is a grim thing. ambassador ed elman. do you think that um if you're suggesting the defense department needs more money do you think that the increase an of would the bca totals should be matched by the same increases of nondefense discretionary spending? the panel did not take a position on that. so just as a representative of the panel. i want to make sure that it is clear what i am about to say is that my personal opinion not representing i

would suspect any my colleague or other members of the pan. i this i that the issue and the defense is absolutely crucial. and i this i that overall federal spending will need to be under better control. i think that the biggest problem though is frankly not the discretionary part of the budget but the nondiscretionary part the long range budget forecast has made that collar for a time that is the real driver of the long-term debt debt. >> they have to be taken. is your answer yes or no. my answer is that. you know. the defense budget will need to go up i don't think necessarily that the nondiscretion airy. discretionary defense spending will need to go up. well look. the president insist that can it does his budget increases the defense about 34 billion this year over the bca level. and the increase is nondefense discretionary by

the same. i think that senator mccain was correct to suggest that the gates plan would if it were enacted in 12 and we were following it. it would be a hundred billion dollars more this year than the bca level. and a hundred billion dollars more for the defense over a decade is more than a trillion dollars. nondefense if it is matched. that is another trillion dollars. the budgest the united states is um $4 trillion. so they are huge numbers and all of us you don't have the stress every day that we do about every other agency and the department that comes with us and wants more money. i am just saying that is where adult time that we are in. senator may i add another thought on this? i this i that the second west relation will need to be lifted across the board so that secretaries are enable to manage to the priorities for the government and i don't

think that you can solve the nation's budget problems only the back of discretionary spending. the big moving muscles are tax reform and entitlement reform and so that is where i this i that we will need to focus under the budget control act and beginning 2017 for the rest of what 7 years of the budget control act will spend increase to 2 1/2% a year. so this is not these are the tough years we are in the tough years right now in fact the defense department took a heavy damaging demand to reduce spending so rapidly i understand how hard they have had to work and the difficulties that they are working with right now but i don't know that we have got to have these kind of increases and nondefense discretion airy. it will show up yes the growing fastest growing entitlement and we all know that but we will also make a difference with the discretionary spending.

into and ambassador ed elman have you questioned i think the negotiation with iran. and the nuclear program that they have dr. kissinger of animated really when he pressed the concern over negotiating posture that basically allows the iran. as he understands it and public reports suggest could be within months of having a nuclear weapon and our goal has gone from no nuclear program in iran to allowing the nuclear program that would lead them within months of a nuclear weapon causing he says, dr. kissinger other nations in the region and other nations do. planting to have nuclear weapons. how do you evaluate that? senator. i am a little bit concerned about the trajectory of the negotiations when you look at the full sweep of them

going back to 2003 and 2004 when it began as u 3 and a sort of plus one. we started with what was essentially a multilateral negotiation with the objective preventing iran from developing the nuclear capability and we now initial creasingly are in a bilateral negotiation between the united states and iran that is aimed at secretary kerry has said to limit the break out or the sneak out time that iran will do to develop a nuclear weapon to one year that seems to be aven enormous retreat i don't know exactly what the state of the negotiation is. the press reports indicate that can iran may be allowed to keep thousands and thousands of centrifuges without taking them down is very very concerning to me i think that because there is a time limit, that in the negotiation that was agreed

to in the joint plan of action. it will be time limited whatever the date is. whether it is 20 years 3 years. 10 years. at some point the time limit will run out. and aisle of the sanctions are gone iran is treated as a quote normal nation under the npt despite the violations of the npt and then they have got an industrial scale enrichment capability that i think will leave them as a threshold nuclear state. i am very concerned about the way that the negotiations have proceeded. senator? thank you. thank you mr. chair man. i want to thank both of the witnesses for the testimony for commiting today and your out standing services and the success that have you had and the kroorz have you had with the government down in your opening statements you both discussed the problems second west relation has caused in the department. i am concern that had the department is not doing enough to streamline and reduce costs that is my

concern and your panel review of the 2014 qdr you note that had the additional changes would be required to right size civilian defense and contracting workforces. the panel side the pentagon civilians will continue to grow even after active duty forces had been drink slinging and that by 012 the number of contractors working for the dd had grown to approximately 670,000 and services have reduced the number of service members of the military. and i have the hard time with the staff and growth sizes and the staff sizes for example. just in the army headquarters staff grew by 60% to 3639 ifs cal year 13 from 20272 the just ten years earlier. that does not include the contractors because of that i was shocked and not surprised when the go recently reported that the dod had yet to produce the

realistic plan to meet secretary hagel's goal reducing the dod reduszing budgets by 20% through fiscal year 19. we can't come into agreement on that. the go found that the dod headquarters could not determine how many people that they actually need and could not tell what you they need and what position that's they would have. and what they would do senators before this committee have heard time and again about the need to fully funltd service members in the field we are concern about the that readiness and force. when have you a bloat on the other side and taking away from the readiness force. you are not utilizing the national guard you are not utilizing the reservists to the point that any sensible person would say. have i got people willing and ready and able to do the job yet i am hiring high priced contractors and there is no audit that can is going on. we do not know where we stand. we cannot get the with an epps to the front and in time we have got concerns and either of you will address any of that to whatever specifics i would appreciate it this is a

challenging thing to say. i think that all of this has touched on this. we will need more money we understand that. what you are doing with the money that we give you? why you are throwing the money away from this standpoint. spend that can on stuff. where we will make sure that the read net force left side do. what they can do the job for us senator. this is a really important area of focus i yes and i think

that is something that you will need to ask of them. we all need to ask of them.

yes. senator if to make appoint to respond to i think the excellent question that you have asked andal the earlier question that senator sessions posed to us that -- we are coming here saying that the department needs a lot of money but everybody can cite horror stories about procurements that have gone bad and the department of defense. and you all as stewarded of the taxpayers money are right to be asking the department how to justify all of this. one of the things at that we do talk about in the report that which my colleague has been active now. is on the entire reform agenda and there has been a report by the defense board about trying to reap more savings out of the department. this is a priority area and i hope that the chairman and the rest of will you have the defense business board up and talk about that report and to try to push the department and secretary

carter once he has gone to the floor was confirmed as well on these things he has them very much on his mine for the previous service. thank you very much my time is up thank you mr. chair and ambassador ed elman for being here today. i appreciate that very much. ambassador. i appreciate when you said that we have been eating the seed colonel that come home from me. i do about of that we have been degrading the very source of any future strength and readiness and prosperity that we have i do agree we do need to end second west relation. i believe that we will have to restore the the readiness and also aggressive reform within the dod. we will is to do that i understand that. and another component beyond looking internally. they will have to look

externally also any time that the united states is engaging their military forces elsewhere we do rely on other partners and i do believe that we do need to engage other partners in whatever region we are operating in to the fullest extent that we possibly can cancan and over the last 12 years, military cooperation between the united states and turkey has faurlterred i can give specific examples at critical moments. like 20003. my own u.n.ity. the 1168 transportation company. and the fourth infantry division and many of the other units were denied access to turkey as a projection platform into iraq so that is one example we could not use their turkish ports for the operation iraqi freedom. and then just a couple of monthsing a we saw turkey deny our kurdish allies from

heading into syria to break the isis seige of cab knee. and i believe that it lead to many deaths. for those that were trying to defend cab knee. very early on when we were very uncertain whether cab knee was going to fall or not and then turkey has also continuously denied our country the use of the air base which would be close to use for search and rescue missions for those that might have issues if they fall behind enemy lines and just recently we saw "wall street journal" too. that went into further detail how turkey had denied us using their areas for osprey which could be used in the search and rescue missions and providing cover for men and women on the ground so time and time and time again, turkey has

denied use of their facilities. denied use of their grounds. they are a nato ally. a nato ally and they are vin apologetic. whether it comes to denying the resources that we believe is necessary in their region so what i would like to hear from you is that as we are looking at constrained budgets here. the lack of resources and of course reduced readiness we really do need to engage our other partners. specifically turkey. in your opinion, what impact has turkey's actions or in this case a lack of action -- how has that affected other coalition partnerships in that region? what can we do to encouraging turkey to take on more ownership of the issues? in the middle east? senator. as much as i would like to

turn that question over to my colleague, i this i that the former u.s. ambassador of turkey. i this that i i will need to take that on first of all. all of the things that you cited are painfully part of my past experience and there is just no question that turkey under prime minister. now president is become a problematic and difficult ally and there are a lot of reason forbes that. and i this i that turkey has headed.commest like on a dangerous trajectory. and increasing authority. and a lot of degradation of democratic practice in turkey. which i think contributes to some of this and i think that now it will require a lot of attention from senior u.s. leadership in the next few years to try to manage that relationship because i agree with you we partners when we operate overseas.

now i will say in fairness to the turks. a lot of their anger and unhappiness and some of the reasons they have denied us access is because their view of what is going on in syria with which they share a very long border is that president al-assad must go and the u.s. is not doing enough to try to promote the departure of president al-assad and it is their belief that i think that there is merit in it that you cannot just take on the problem of syria by just taking on isil. as long as al-assad is there, he is again rating more recruitment and support for isis with his assault on the syrian people. and use of barrel bombs and chlorine et cetera so i this i that it is a very large part of the it, issue frustration that has led them to deny the use of not cooperate with us on those things and i am not saying that is an excuse by the

way. i think that allies have disagreements that they do not then say that we will not help you rescue your downed pilots but i think that it is not an execution for turkey's behavior in this instance and an explanation. the broader point though. only the allies and partnership that's i think that we will have to wrestle with it is that we are at a junction because of the where we are in our own budget and because of the international border that is fraying so badly. where we will need our allies. treaty allies in asia and in europe. and also our partners that are parts of the special relationships that may not be formal allies and are clearly. partnered with us. in various efforts in the middle east. like israel. and like the kingdom of saud saw. and united arab emirates et cetera. and in most cases however our allies are spending less and less and less on defense themselves and so they have

less and less cape blitsz for us to day on that is sort of a paradox i this i that one . this is a little bit beyond the work of our panel but i think that one of the things that we will need to think about more is actually to be much more forthright with allies over what where we want them to spend money on defense. and to developing capabilities that will come lement. and supplement ours replace the areas that we may have less capability. there is a better division of labor between us and our allies. i think that is true in both europe and east asia. as you will see he did fence spending declining in most of the countries . we will need to do that so, that we will not have you know them waiting wasting money and not being able to be there when we need them. senator? thank you mr. chairman. thank you both for being here so when you look at syria you look at isis what

would be your recommendation as to the next step? for the coalition to take to move isis out of syria? we are making progress in iraq do you wait in syria until iraq is done? do you begin to take action right now to move them out and does that action include al-assad? i can answer this. this is again something that the panel. senator donnelly did not look at i understand this. is also about global strat geechl and the national security. i am just. no. i want to make it clear this. is my personal opinion and that is what i am asking. this will not reflect at members of the panel i have your presence here to take advantage of my view is we should be doing more much earlier again the president has said longing a that al-assad must go. agree with that. i do not think that there is anyway that the problem can be resolved as long as al-assad is there.

what do you think that we do now moving forward? i think that the problem in syria is that we are relying almost totally on the airpower and we have not very good intelligence because we have no presence on the ground and we have to find a kind of surrogate as peshmerga in iraq. and a shia militia in iraq. we have to find a surrogate of syria with whom we will work and that goes to the issue of arming of the moderate syrian opposition and getting them to the information where they can do something. we would have been better off had we been doing this and going back to 2011 rather than having to face this problem right now. bad news will never get better in my experience would i agree. that we will i would wish that we have begun arounding of the moderate opposition when they were far stronger. in greater numbers a while back. but we are with or we are. and i this i that building

up a surrogate for us is key . i think that the air campaign could be used in a more rerobust manner to put more pressure on isis and in some areas of the regime. i meant key is that eventually you will have to put pressure on the al-assad regime if you will expect to come to the table. if we were to do that and to bring a culmination point right now. unfortunately the main benefactor in syria would be isis. they are the strongest force on the ground so. we have go the to focus on building up alternatives to isis and more you know moderate surrogates before we will get to that point. let me ask you another question that is more about national security global strategy. that is vladimir putin what do you think his endgame is if you can go one after the other and you know. what his where his plan end here?

i don't think that president future sin solely interested in the ukraine. i this i that he has abroader agenda. and his agenda is first to destablize the ukraine to the point that he would impose the regime change in kiev. and dominate ukraine and prevent it from associating itself with the european union and moving in the direction of the west i think that he fundamentally rejects the post cold war security order in europe. i this i that it is taken a while for a lot of our friends in europe to recognize this and i this i that some of them are still in a little bit of denial about it they seem to hope that there is away to negotiate you know. a limit with him on ukraine but i think that this is just the beginning after the ukraine. he will be pursuing this in

moldova and we are likely to see the efforts to create problems and drive wedges between the united states and allies and particularly the baltic allies would you agree that if nato will not live up to the obligations in latvia that would be the end of nato? absolutely all right yeah i don't disagree with anything that ambassador eledman said. my sense is that putin may not have a clear strategic endgame. is he a tactical thinker and he is sitting on top of a former great power that is unquestionably in decline demographically economically and plagued with corruption and governance and that doesn't make it less dangerous. i think that he will lash out along the way. and trying to reestablish a influence. do you think that he takes that where he sees a

weakness i do. and i think that is why it is so important that we follow through on the reassurance initiatives for nato and our posture bolstering the posture and unwriting article 5. and you know. my own believe is that we should be doing more to help the ukrainians defend themselves. into thank you thank you mr. chairman. thank you mr. chairman. again. i want to thank panelists appreciate your great service to our country. and the joint statement very helpful when we get those joint statements you know. we have been discussing a lot of the challenges certainly. we have as a country. in terms of the national security. and also we have a lot of strengths and one of the to me the all the ultimate strength that we have is men and women in uniform that will continue to volunteer , raise their right hand post 9/11. so that they know what the

ricks are to serve our country and um you know. have i had the great honor. i will get to spend a lot of time with our troops. and i am sure that it was a great part of both of your jobs and just in the last two weekends i was in the national training center. a couple of week endsing a with thousands of young alaskan soldiers training out there so this past weekend i was with a smaller group of marines and reservists you know. this time with the troops for me. raises a very interesting question. i would like two of you to maybe comment on. you no. what we hear from civilian leaders a lot. the president include is the that we hear that we are at war a war-weary nation. there is a subtle element to that i this i that it is kind of used an excuse in ways that we are not going to be taking any type of action because we are wari

but when you spend time with the troops and they have sacrificed a lot in the last 12 years. we know that but one of the concerns that they raise at least with me and these are just anecdotal. but i am throwing them out there. is that they want to deploy they join the military to serve their country. they do not want to be sitting around is i want for to you help us to think through this conventional with iz.com that somehow we are a war-weary nation and we can't take on global commitments when the truth is that less than 1% of americans have actually been doing this fighting. the ones that i am associated with certainly seem to be ready not necessarily to fight. but to certainly be ready to deploy. how can we think through that? i think that this issue that we are wary has become conventional wisdom in away that nobody seems to challenge it when you talk to the people that are

actually really at the pointy tip of the spear god love them. they are ready to go first of all it is a great question. would i agree that men and women uniform are one of the greatest strength that's we have as a nation. and they are remarkable i think that when the american people when it is ex-mainly today the american people what the nature of threat is why we have to meet it. what it means for the nation. what are the risks of not going after it as president did. recently with regard to ice ill. i think that the american people will rally. they may shed whatever wearness that we have and support the cause when it is well articulated. and explained and the sacrifice and risk is commence rat with the importance of the interest.

so i don't think that we are generally war reary and we have had a lot of blood and treasure that we spent over the last 15 years. and we have that is something that weighs heavily on everybody as it should but i think that when there is an inch rest or clear the objectives are clear and the mission is clear it is well explained people are mobilized. i think that they are very well willing to follow that strong instinct that described to the troops. we have a mission to get it done. so that is the challenge for everybody that is in a leadership public leadership position that will make that case when it is necessary general marshall. i think that once said that he thought that it was difficult if not impossible for the united states to fight the war for more than four years and i think that what it reflects is that americans ten to want to

see. they want to see the divisive conflict. and in conclusive wars and long difficult fights sometimes can be a little bit exhausting to the public. and i think particularly. as my colleagues have suggested they are not being explained properly to the american public and i agree with everything that you said senator sullivan about the incredible comparative advantage that we have with our people. it was inspiring to go to iraq or afghanistan to see our young folks out there. they are initial credable to do incredible things. and i would frequently. when i talk to folks. particularly enlisted do you think that people out here you know. think that they know what you are doing out here? the answer that i would get was no. they think we step on ied's out here. they have no clue what we are doing so i this that i it is important to explain exactly what the stakes are as my colleague.

you know. just said. and i would note one other thing americans are note weary when we are not. if you look at the poll data datadata and how the public felt in the videotapes of the beheadings this summer came out and it was a very different set of numbers from previously. and they feel these things deep scompleechlt assign of disrespect to the nation that they do not appreciate thank you. thank you mr. chairman senator king? mr. chairman just to put into perspective the number that's we were talking about at the judging and looking back on the history. if we have the 2k3w5i9s budget of 20126789 defense budget this year would be 612 gdp. and under the level 492 2.8% of gdp that is about the lowest level of gdp

since world war ii. and it is also. it is the lowest level of federal spending and the lowest percentage of spending for defense since world war ii 4% that is the kind of the post world war ii average that would be 700 billion andal most a hundred billion more. so we are definitely at a very low point in terms of funding of defense at a time of escalating challenge on multiple fronts so putting this on the percentage of the gdp is away to look at it and pushing it into historic perspective and you mentioned about ukrainians that is a developing concensus here in washington that it is something that we ought to do and i understand that. and there we would have

avoided the catastrophe of world war ii. and also i understand the press denl of guns of august. and stumbling in as catastrophic world war and playing chs he with a russian here and think two or three moves ahead and my concern is that a russia has a historic from the west. putin would not mind a managable war in ukraine to take the people's minds off of the domestic problems margaret that much ers approval rating was 23% and two weeks later it was 70% i suspect that putin may not know the numbers but was offend only non and persuade me. that the escalation by arming the ukrainian would not lead to a matching escalation and in fact an

increase. we do not live the static world. we cannot assume that they armed putin says oh. this is tough. going home and is he not responsive to bodies in bags or tightening sanctions and give me your thoughts. my colleague will want to speak to us. as is a signatory paper on the subject that brookings institution of atlantic council. ch i can chick cowell council. foreign affairs has put out your question is a good one. and to be answered. it will be at multiple levels first in some sense that president putin has what we called in the cold war escalation dominance in the ukraine the stakes are

higher for him and the region is closer. he has more force. chips. exactly. and having said that. he also is signatory to his country. is signatory to a number of agreements that make it clear that countries have the right to belong to whatever alliance or multilast the rational organization like the eu they want to associate with. so do you see that. no. we should we should care about it. and the point is that he does haven't allegity mat way to protest that we are helping a legitimate government defend itself against his aggression we have to think about it in terms of the moral obgigs to do, that. and and help them if we can and i think that we will need to raise the fact that

is body bags are coming home. and the protesting rush ago mothers and the capital flight an amount of money and costs costs are hitting a base of support so he would have to responsive to that in some way. so this is important to remember that while they are potentially across the action there. is a serious cost to inaction here the costs could be. catastrophic and they need to understand that if we are willing to provide this type of assistance with whom we have no treaty and legal obligation, that he would think twice then about doing something with a nato member state like the

importance of up scoring our commitment to defend the nato allies in europe if the we do not do that the risk that we will miscalculate in the place like latvia or estonia will go up. and that is something that is in terms of regret that we will feel seriously later on all right. my father would say. there lies job than gray. defending a right of way would i say that one of the things that we have learned since the collapse of the cease-fire. is that they will continue to escalate and causing the regime to change so. is he on the escalation path anyway. and providing ukrainians

with the weapons they need to pose a level of costs on the separatists and the russian backer that's may make him think twice and counter battery radar that's would locate where the rocket fire is coming from. that is casualties in the ukraine. and anti- tank systems to stop harm orred or vehicles from taking further territory. so demonstrating and on the escalating path the question is whether there is anything that we can do to help ukraine imposed costs to make him stop and to actually come to the negotiation seriously. i think that it is worth seeing what happens on wednesday and seeing that by a miracle that an agreement is forged barring that i think that it is very important that we will help

the ukrainians to defend themselves and impose greater costs on separatists and the russians for their aggression. thank you. very helpful and senator i want to thank both of you for being here and secretary i want to ask you about afghanistan i know that last june you were quoted in the "new york times" about the administration's timeline for withdrawal of afghanistan. and one of the things that you said was that if it was the timeline with the strong statement that would be the plan. no plan survived the contact we arality. of course we will adjust based on the conditions on the ground that had no problem in reference to the withdrawal plan. are the afghans on the path that we have planned for? are we not. insurgency. are they factored in what i am hearing out of white house is that a hell or my water this. is what we are going to do.

and i am hope that can have you a different sense this right now. i want to get your thoughts on afghanistan many of us i think who have had the opportunity to visit afghanistan and then this weekend and the tunity here. with the president to really understand their plan right now is as it stands president gianni seemed to be very concern that had we not reduce our forces in 2015 in particular and many of us are very concern that had by the end of 2016 and under current plan it will be a thousand people based in kabul. so i want your perspective. and what we should be doing a great question. thank you for asking. i this that i at this point, we will need to change the frame of discussion on afghanistan and rather than debating the fine points of the final phases of the draw

down. and the ends of the so forth. and we have to stop and say okay. look forward we have an afghan government and pulling it together. and going forward. as a democratically elected coalition government we have continue today develop the capabilities that is in the fight that is taking risk that's is trying to hold their ground and also we will see the continued challenge from an an initialling surge see. able to contest a lot of areas and continued activity and across the border to stop debating whether to the the draw downtime to say. looking forward what kind of posture does the united states need intelligence and military in the region to protect ourselves against

future terrorist threats and prevent afghanistan or the border region from becoming a serious safe haven once again for al-qaeda and associated groups with that fresh sheet of paper. with the intelligence posture. military posture we will need to support that and to continue to have the afghan national forces develop and and my sense that is happen certainly inside of the intelligence committee. that is a conversation that we need to have in the next year could we thinking of our could not state went and the importance of really looking forward there. and frankly in terms of our own interests the importance of the afghanistan. and the intelligence that we may need from afghanistan for protecting our own interests this is the an area that we will need to continue to be able to have a sense of what the remnants

of al-qaeda that remain there and taliban supporters. and the network and eyes and ears. and kabul alone or from bagram alone and inat the against posture here. and military posture and far less is in years. this is the small and continued investment relatively speaking to try to support the afghan government. and continuing on the path of progress and continuing to you know. to hold their country and not allow insurgency to regain afoot hold in temps of actually governing or leading the country. and with the naval fleet. and attack i understand

with the sequester and the path really to reduce the fleet size to 2260 ships or less overall and having work there had. the navy's current fleet sizes is 285 looking on this. is something that we have even greater need for. especially and asia pacific region. so i want your assessment to as we go forward where we are. it looks like a dramatic decline the importance of the attack submarine fleet that is why it is important for us i think that overall the path to too small for what we will need in the future. i agree with you that this is anah of american advantage that we want to do everything in our power to keep and the continued

investment in the attack submarine fleet will also require investment of new technologies such as unmanned under sea vehicles and how we will network unmaned systems to get to leverage the capabilities to have a greater impact so it is an area that is ripe for new thinking and development of new technologies and concepts and and this is something to maintain and we did not have the type of staffing that would enable us to do the real fine grain analysis. he did conclude as you have suggested in your question as my colleague just suggesting an answer that we are on the path to the free the that is much too small and we an out to try to bracket the problem for you and your colleagues by saying that somewhere between the number that secretary gates requested

and the budget that was 320 something to that. and then the number that secretary perry identified in the bottom up review that in the 340s was the place where we ought to be looking to try to get. . >> thank you. senator? thank you mr. chair man. again. thank you for holding the series of broader strategic looks and what is going forward i want to thank you both panelists for being here. for your long service to this country following up first and the i should apologize for missing your statements in the earlier questions that i was in a briefing on iran and those negotiations. but i want to follow up on senator aot's question. i am not sure if she asked directly if we should be

drawing down troops. remeaning troops in after stan as rapidly as we are this year or if it sends a wrong message to the afghans that are trying to make a new start with the new president and address their internal issue as well as the taliban and the other enemies that are fighting them in afghanistan my sense is that the delay and the government formation process that we have seen post elections of afghanistan should put more time on the clock to reexamine that. and fundamentally. i was going to say before is that we will need to rex am initial the pace and scope of the draw down in light of what we will need in the future i don't believe in zero posture in afghanistan this will serve our interest in the long-term. to continued terrorism

threats to the given importance of our support. so instead looking back and drawing down. and looking forward to see what we will need in the next five to ten years. and more noddest that it has been. so to figure out what it looks like and to have that inform. and the pace and the scope of the final decision of the draw down is very important and ambassador did you agree senator, you asked a very good question and i am very concern that had we will go down too low and it is a source of great regress without press end. the consequences are staring us in the face with the rise of isis and the collapse of the security force? i worry that we may be put ourselves on the same path in avenue stand. i hope that we will not do that. well.

thank you both with respect to europe and what is happening in ukraine. how important is um the effort to beef up nato to

>> >> but really it is you create minus because it reaffirms the principles of the agreement is september makes adjustments for the continued aggression of the separatist. we should have no illusions and it is the reason why for the ukrainian government and senator king has raised by the house to respond further escalation and if we do this

we have to do is seriously. the way we have been moderating the opposition for the last three years. if we do that will have the effective provocation of president putin without the benefit of deterrence for the ukraine. >> thank you mr. chairman i would be noted as quoting in person for dr. carter. i appreciate you doting there is the shift in the conversation regarding what we need to do in the intelligence committee that the shift is happening. that will move us forward but also to retain our

seapower and the decreasing size of the fleet for asking that his confirmation how do respond to the threats in the middle east and africa and decreeing - - ukraine to still be committed to the rebalance? then why do believe that it is important to national security? >> but when you look long term looking at greater prosperity and security it is the most important so we have to deal with of crisis

of aggression and europe we want to ensure that we are adequately investing in asia in the foundations of economic growth in the maintenance of the rules of international order with the alliances and partnerships. and then to invest more but also with economic terms and why it is such an important initiative to do signal u.s. state power said the u.s. will remain a critical economic partner going forward. >> the region obviously is

growing in wealth and importance of the world and america's future is tied up. leased the land taken pacific station but the impact of the pacific and will be in the future for some time to come. and so the general direction was the right direction. with some concern in effect for a budget levels talk about the growing of naval and air capability because behalf this is the theater that we operate with the distance and geography over water in there. -- and air. the need is clear it is

important that we move ahead with the rebalance. i concerned what we have done already is fairly limited and cannot say we should not do with but basically 2500 marines with rebalancing of the shrinking fleet. and that is one of the reasons with sequestration. >> other nations are decreasing the amount they put into the military. is that where japan is also? >> and it has done a bit to

increase the defense capabilities. i don't think they have done enough but japan spends 1% of gdp on defense that with that japanese economy is considerable amounts of money and what i said earlier in response to focus on the capabilities to help complement what we're doing. and i think there has been a lot in a more positive direction. >> mr. chairman may i just ask the secretary to respond? >> i would agree japan is moving in the right direction.

the prime minister is seeking to have an internal discussion to allow the military to play a more wholesome role in our lives and the depth of the alliance relationship is unprecedented now and we are deeply engaged with a common understandings of the environment the threats and capabilities that are needed so i think the alliance is on a strong footing moving in the right direction. with the question is the internal debate about the proper rules of military and what the japanese people are comfortable with moving forward. >> i was of proxy now i'm

here for a ride foreign relations. thank you for your testimony especially with respect to the foolishness of the sequestered. with a strategic question i know question mark as morass' to about afghanistan , should activities be based on the calendar or conditions on the ground? but from a strategic standpoint talk about what failure would mean if we would pull up precipitously and the gains we have achieved our lost. what would that mean to u.s. credibility with the people of the afghanistan or to people in the region from a security standpoint? >> if history is any guide it could be dangerous for the afghan government and

society. recall when the soviets ended their aid the government collapsed if they had no mission that international assistance would drive up -- a dry up to see a decline of the government over a territory as whole in the country. so it would be very dangerous but on the opportunities side modest of international support and think the afghan government as an opportunity to keep governing without having government or the overall control being threatened.

given the region's remains a homer to terrorist elements that still harbor our intentions against the united states sometimes you have to make sure to keep those threats that day. also it is very damaging for u.s. credibility to put so much into afghanistan to the point where it is today innocent pulled the carpet out from underneath their feet. also with military relations given the degree of sacrifice that men and women have announced to make create the possibility for afghanistan to succeed then walk away before we complete the job would be very damaging.

>> i agree the reputation low-risk in the homeland risk it would reduce strategic leverage on pakistan and we should not lose sight of a large nuclear weapons that pakistan presides over. >> worry about my police force and economic development you have been doing national security for your whole career. we hear questions of where is the strategy? i am sympathetic as we have a national security strategy like you're not until the soviet union collapsed then we went into a period of at hawk were read debt -- stilts with challenges as they rose and then 9/11 the policy was a war on terror. that is not a great policy

for the country's biggest u.s. and now we recognize we're looking for a a a broader definition. are we back to the ad hoc or as those who have done this as a lifetime, what would you suggest as a big picture strategy? >> of this is the $64,000 question. it is something we have got to rise above the crisis of the day to get back to a strategic framework a sense of purpose to garner bipartisan support i personally believe one of the key elements is to defend the international rules based order after

world war ii but is the basis of stability and for economic growth and security we have a lot riding on that challenge in asia questioning the order is being challenged in the least and the boundaries of nation states and to have the conflict the rise of the terrorist elements and now it is challenged in the heart of europe with aggression across international borders. so sustain that order is something at the heart for any strategic framework we develop. >> i agree with everything my colleagues said is that makes it easier.

there was a turtle that had a provocative title strategy is an illusion and i teach a course at johns hopkins and my a student say it is easy when you have it is an adversary but it is too hard and we said we are dealing with a volley style and a complex security environment and then just say it is too hard to do but my view is as hard as it may be nearing objectives is the essence of good governance and if you don't try it becomes an excuse to take any road to where you want to go without a road map.

there is a lot of merit what kissinger has suggested to be faced with regional challengers the strategies that are interconnected with the over archie global vision and that is the beginning of wisdom on that subject. >> in the reagan doctrine and the words of margaret thatcher may be there are some of us that have different views of history. >> i just have one quick follow-up question that relates to the broader issues we're struggling with and i like your views and your thoughts on the coming

debate on the authorization of the use of military force. and you mentioned a fresh start looking for word, how would you would bias members of congress to look at that year's orchards it would be important and i appreciate your views. >> it is important to have the discretion of the emf of what should the strategy me with counterterrorism of the middle east. as you have that discussion and it is very important to remember something that was said to revere the we are very bad at predicting exactly how complex will unfold or how things will

morphy and change. this though to say no boots on the ground to be over the restrictive could become a problem over time. that centcom it is very important to recognize a lot of realities have moved beyond that and we need to recognize that groups seek to distance themselves from the al qaeda and weighed the to have the authorization and to do with them. the guy would caution against overly protective or specific in restrictions because we don't exactly know how we need to evolve.

>> senator i a agree with that i would just add to the other element there is a lot of interest and a timeline that we frequently talk about this. but to do that is to set up a difficult debate later down the road. things are worked out and do have problems if you have to let the people fighting the war fight the war. and also you don't want to signal a lack of resolve to tell them how long they have to wait some mx thank you. >> can ask one more question? >> i want to follow-up on the senators' questions about strategy.

there has been high profile articles the last few months about the lessons learned in afghanistan and iraq and the dod commissioned report from the rand corporation about the lessons learned. also a to take a look at decision making structures and to get each of you to comment if that is an accurate analysis and how to make those decisions in the future. >> two catalog which lessons we should be exerting there is the desire to get this in the rearview mirror and move on but it is very important to understand what we should

take away. so a year exercises at the inter agency level to go forward looking at different models the new ways they have operated different results over time and history and you can draw conclusions about what works better and what doesn't. in the field those innovations to have all interagency players to share

with operations that is something we don't want to lose. >> but i have to confess to a certain degree of skepticism. and it doesn't ever change by the national security act it is a flexible system. ended is flexible lot of it each president has developed the system that fits them best for better or worse. this system is so presidential centric that unless you want to take over the constitution i am not

sure anything else is more than moving boxes around on the diagram. it is certainly worth looking at lessons learned and i am struck by the fact that the relationship between process said the outcome is not always clear and direct. with the transcripts during the cuban missile crisis i would give it the latter half. no agenda not doing anything their teaching you at the kennedy school of government but he came to the right decisions on how can that is testimony to what i was saying that it is the system that revolves around the

president. and he or she's should not be constrained by efforts to tinker with the machinery. >> your testimony has been very helpful. so to work on a commission with very important area is that needs to be a part of the discussion nor the dialogue we have bumbles sides of the aisle on pennsylvania avenue. contributing a great deal to the thought process and i thank you for it. >> want to express the same feeling for your efforts. thank you very much.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

it's modeled on the national counterterrorism center created after 9/11 to foster sharing of

terrorism related intelligence. white house cybersecurity and counterterror and terrorism adviser lisa monaco discussed the agency at the woodrow wilson center in washington d.c.. this is an hour. >> good afternoon. we have an overflow audience inside this >> afternoon. we have the overflow audience and obviously a lot of cameras are being this event to places far and wide with the overflow room as well and the wilson center is true the honor to host this yvette. welcoming our nearest and dearest supporters. i am jane harman president and ceo of the wilson center. 58 years ago a disgruntled austrian contractor packed a sewage control system in

queensland sold millions of gallons of waste with to public land and public waters. all the ticket was a laptop and radio today infrastructure is increasingly networked with rail switches and water mains and power grids in american lives are more vulnerable than ever to additional disruption. the black market has flourished you can get zero days for a song for the would-be cyberterrorist it is not resources but creativity. craft a secure internet in cyberspace is a huge leadership challenge is is a digital apollo program. here we have invested intellectually in cyber.

they are contacting scholars posting to hear from the administration on cybersecurity issues per grafton's if you want to get the job done right but a woman in charge. let's give a shout out to three. caroline came to us from the basement of the white house to adjust to the fact we had windows with real sunlight. to the head of our cyberinitiative building our capacity enormously and number three is the son of. common security advisor to the president. she has a worse job in

washington. and people pay lip service to the cyberchallenge. before this job the first person who is a woman if she got a start as an interim with the wilson quarterly. is a homecoming as the white house and congress are seeing a significant impact on the enormous cyberchallenge. to correcting to schaede standards to use the bully pulpit between the key

cyberconstituencies for the white house has tried to move forward in the absence of congressional action by issuing executive orders and we are here to announce the new center similar chiru counter terrorism and counter proliferation. factor from income insurance shows how urgent it is enjoying its high-profile hacking victims like sony, a target jpmorgan even the contractor for the department of homeland security. so once again reset is an alumna of homeless security adviser to president obama she's both? it takes a woman to get the job done.

plays welcome piece of monaco cop cop. [applause] >> faq very much for the kind words it is very nice to be back as adjacent mentioned by first job was here at the wilson center when it was a paper quarterly of course, now has gone digital but before i get to my main topic with your permission i like to say a few words with the sad news of this morning and it is deep sadness we have confirmed the death of kayla jean mueller.

our thoughts are with her parents who have shown such grace and dignity over many difficult months. my thoughts are with her brother and the rest of her family because callebs represented the best of us. her generous spirit and selfless works for those did need shed serve as an inspiration to all of us. said thank you again for having me the job that i hold normally keeps me in the basement.

they didn't serve up any windows in their room. every morning and the most significant destructive and threats facing the american people. often times when the bearer of bad news. an interview an increasing share is of cyberthreats. in just the last nine months we have seen growing high-profile targets. sony pictures, a jpmorgan chase, a target and the u.s. postal service to name a few. we're at a transformational moment of the evolution of the cyberthreat. as such as a fail to take

will determine in cyberspace is the great national asset is a strategic liability of national security string gore vulnerability. i was shocked about the threat that we face to draw on counterterrorism lessons learned from the last decade of war. i will start with the fact according to recent assessment their increasing in their frequency and scale and sophistication and the severity of impact. the range directors targeted systems and victims are at an unprecedented clip cyber

inclusions are also substantial with the data reach have increased roughly fivefold and the seriousness is rising causing significant economic damage. no one is immune from health care companies and universities to the tech industry and critical infrastructure. just last week a and though one of the largest health insurance providers announced that hackers had reached a database with the personal information of 80 million customers. incited is states government reno's states and anon state actors terrorist rand criminals are in the net work every day to manipulate

industry data. threats are coming from her in a highly sophisticated cyberprograms and those with less technical capacity of disrupt did intend to propose several nations conduct cyberspi is for the commercial gain of their company. and politically motivated attacks are a growing reality. as for the non state actors threats are increasingly originating from profit motivated criminals and hawkers for higher those to steal the formation to the highest bidder. used as of vector for profit

and the ideologically a motivated to hackers and terrorist gang groups like anonymous that will create disruptions you also have serious electronic army and then there is isil this is recruiting to the hateful message around the world. is also increasingly malicious nature of cyberattacks. as is so with sony entertainment they stole large amounts of data at to render it inoperable thousands of sony's computers and servers.

it was a game changer. because it wasn't about profit or a dictator trying to improve -- impose censorship of the exercise of free expression. it was about conversion which the united states believes is unacceptable and why we took the extraordinary step to publicly identify north korea as responsible for the attack and responded quickly imposing additional sanctions on the regime. the threat becomes more sophisticated and more dangerous and i worry those attacks will increasingly become the norm. to adapt quickly with a comprehensive approach which brings me to the counterterrorism model.

to be sure there are many differences that make it difficult to apply all the lessons learned from the counterterrorism experience to the cyberrome. the private sector plays a more central role to respond than it does in the counterterrorism realm. but having observed the nation's response to terrorism post 9/11 from the government of the fbi and assistant attorney general and department of justice and an hour at the white house i can tell you there are structural structural, organizational and cultural shifts that will remain in the counterterrorism rome we have to develop the same muscle memory with cyberthreats as three have

with terrorist incidents. it has done the hard work to break down wrote -- walls to bring people together to share information and so we get the best possible threat we bring people together to share information to extend the operational reach. this has made the mission more effective and more sustainable. white counterterrorism meeting cyberthreats requires big government approach for all appropriate tools including a global diplomacy, intelligence resources, law-enforcement expertise, competitive technological edge and military capability.

those who would do us harm should know if they can be found that there would be held to account for the with the cybercontext we need to share information more broadly to coordinate action some real work to achieve the same goal and we have to do so consistent with fundamental values in a manner that is appropriate protections for civil liberties. need to respond quickly to our company's and our nation. make no mistake over the last few years we have developed new and better ways to collaborate between all levels of government in for the partners of the private sector including

those and charged with monitoring threats and issuing warnings to share information in protecting our critical infrastructure. at the white house be improved policy response and last summer following a rising number of breaches and intrusions, we created a cyberresponse group or the of crg. is modeled on the very effective for hire the affected them longstanding counterterrorism security group like the terrorism analog it convenes the interagency about ongoing threats to coordinate all elements of the government's response at the highest level.

but it has become clear we can do more is the government to quickly consolidate and analyze with fast-moving threats or separate tax. we will make sure the death integrates intelligence just as we have done to combat terrorism and. i am pleased to announce we will establish a new cyber threat integration center and to the director of national intelligence. currently no single government entity is responsible for the cyberthreat assessments and other elements with the policy makers about the

latest cyberthreats. it is intended to fill the gaps. does the national counterterrorism center does to provide all sorts of analysis to support the work for the cybercenters and law-enforcement communities. in there will not collect intelligence but analyzing and integrate already collected under existing authority is. its intended to enable them to do their jobs effectively and as a result make the federal government more effective basil whole

responded to cyberthreats. to better integrate there expertise to have a collective response. responding to today's threat is only part of it. the of where it is trending and that is why the president's national security strategy identified cyberas a focus area to insure rebels meet the challenges of today to prepare for the threats we will face tomorrow. the president's budget accept this command a $14 billion for critical infrastructure networks and other systems. later this week says stanford university president obama and i will join hundreds of experts and academics and private sector representatives for a first

of the kind whitehouse summit to discuss how we can improve trust and enhance cooperation to strengthen the online consumer protections and separate offense. -- cyberoffense but what has become a vast cyberecosystem we have to work in lockstep with the private sector. it could be and should not rely on the government to solve all cybersecurity problems for at the same time i want to emphasize the federal government will not leave the private sector to fend for itself. partnership is a precondition of success there is no other way to tackle such a complicated problem. requires daily collaboration to identify threats and address over abilities to work together to respond during the.

to the private sector we have made it clear we will work together. , we will not bottle up intelligence if we have the information we will do the utmost to share it and in fact, without an -- within 24 hours of learning of the sony pictures attack u.s. government pushout information to update the site for defense so they could take action we want the flow of the permission to go both ways. the private sector has vital information we don't always get a list they share it in the government has a unique capacity to integrate information to create the best possible picture to secure all the works. accompanies share information with the denial of service attacks they can

respect us to respond quickly we will provide as much permission as possible about the threat to assist companies to protect information. we will coordinate a quick and unified response from government experts including those at the department of homeland security and fbi. we will determine who the actor is and told them to account and as we respond we will bring to bear all tools available with the full range of government resources to disrupt the threat. i want to commend companies that have shown strong leadership by coming forward as soon as they identified preaches so we can work together to address threats more rapidly. is good for the company, is good for the consumer and

the government. across the board we're tearing down silence and increasing the flexibility and agility to the response of cyberthreats of the 21st century just as we have done in the counterterrorism world. moving forward as our lives become more dependent on the internet and the amount of territory we have to defend keeps expanding our strategy will focus on four key elements. first, we need to improve our defense is. in particular actively using the framework announced last year to enable every organization to manage risk more effectively. even basic i asian -- hygiene could stops we have to get the basics right.

we need to improve our ability to disrupt your response and recover from cyberthreats. that means using the full strength of the united states government to raise the cost for bad actors. we made to enhance international cooperation selling criminals anywhere in the world tour the user's online we can hold them accountable just as we did with those who commit crimes in the physical world. and we need to make cyberspace more secure replacing passwords is more secure technology to build a resilient at work to enhance consumer protection online. president obama will drifting within his

authority but executive actions alone will not be enough. we need long-term solutions codified with the of what to serve the nation's cyberdefenses. this is not and should not be a partisan issue. the future security of united states depends on a strong bipartisan consensus the response to a growing national security concern and everyone shares response ability including -- responsibility. including congress. and to clarify a the ability to carry on cybermissions cybermissions, to debris that congress to build -- by passing the package as ever security measures that obama announced last month to encourage greater

information sharing and to provide law-enforcement with updated to wills to combat cybercrime. looking to congress to pass a budget with critical funding for cybersecurity including at the department of homeland's security. the administration is ready to work to pass measures as quickly as possible. cybersecurity will remain a defining challenge with more than 3 billion internet users and the interconnected devices there is no putting the genie back in the bottle. we have to get this right our prosperity and security depend on the internet to be secure, reliable, opened to all who seek to harness the

opportunities and to ensure the free flow of information networks and the nation's. we're at a crossroads and the clock is ticking. the choices we make today will define the environment tomorrow. all of us have a responsibility to act to build greater resilience to bounce back from a tax to improve information sharing as well as integration and analysis of threats to passenger security legislation and ensure we take up comprehensive approach to respond to cyberattacks just as to do another context. it is hard uncomplicated but i am confident working together government, industry advocacy groups and the public and the congress that

our network can be saved her , privacy protected and future more secure for our love for word to tackling these threats with all of your. thank you very much caught up cop cop -- [applause] >> however last you a few questions from this room and the overflow room i hope somebody will give me questions from there. i noticed is a recovering politician the gentle pitch to congress and i hope they are listening and it occurred to me that the terrorist, czech party registration before they blow was up. this is obviously true in

the cyberroma's well with the attacks of all the infrastructure not just the private sector by the postal service did not dent -- target of republicans or democrats so it is one size fits all provide hope people realize there is more to do. more information sharing, through law enforcement and could you explain it to the audience? >> the central feature that president obama lahn -- announced last month going to the heart of the first in the list which is information and sharing his legislation makes it clear and proposes to provide liability protection for

sharing from the private sector with the government to the department of homeland security and in order to incentivize the private sector to provide that critical information. >> why would affirm be liable to share information? >> i am a recovering lawyer as has been noted. [laughter] but we have heard from industry across the board businesses face real choices and concerns about sharing information about breaches or tax or intrusions into the networked. there want to share with what they find out what to do so they are concerned the

information would have consumer information or they could be sued. of the president's proposal says provide liability protection for the purpose of a corporation to provide that cedras' security information to the government after removing private information so the government king get the information and will get it and to compare and analyze with all other sources and return that information to the public or private sector and the holders have 85 percent of the cyberinfrastructure.

>> so if company x thinks it is packed the reason it should tell the government is what? and the information is used how? >> number one. you may have seen exactly that signature or that set that a particular actor uses to do its destructive or denial of service so we've made say we know what this is and who would is in halifax to your system in most important we want to tell the reburial said the company that provided the information to us if it is the power plant owner ray want to get that out to the

rest of the energy sector. >> but when the company comes forward and it is protected in a limited way for doing so it benefits? and it is also being patriotic to help the government or the rest of the internet. >> this is why i talked about the ecosystem. riyal intertwined. one persons vulnerability is everybody's. that is why it is so critical we're working together. >> i don't think there is a lot of push back on congress from the immunity issue. . . protections this ought to be the

kind of thing that we can get behind on a bipartisan basis. >> the other thing i want to draw you out about and again i don't think there is a lot of public understanding of it is the portion of critical infrastructure in the private sector. people should be aware that there is.mil an intersection -- a system for the military.gout system for our government and then there is dot.com. how many people here have some sort of an internet account that ends in.com back? how many of you are clueless? clueless people don't come to the wilson center. lisa can you talk about the percentage, let's start with critical infrastructure and widely being the private sector with inadequate