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 tools exposes

all of us? >> you know like most statistics they are all over the place but by any measure there are references to 85% of critical infrastructure and the backbone on which we ride whether you are power plant, a financial company, whether you are a shopping center. all of that the vast majority that resides in the private sector. and local government or privately-owned. that means that the dot gout piece or the dot.mil that is controlling united states government is a small portion and so we are incredibly reliant for all the services we rely on that are critical in many instances to our life and sustenance whether it's a

hospital or financial bank account you are vulnerable if you are hooked up to the internet. >> in my brilliant introduction i referred to rails, water mains and power grids. what percentage of this is in the private sector? >> all of it. >> did everyone hear that? >> privately-owned. it's not the federal government responsibility. it doesn't come under the control of the federal government and in any event if you are hooked up to the internet you are vulnerable. my former boss and somebody you know well jane former director of the fbi robert mueller said it has been quoted often there are only two types of company owners those who have been hacked and those who will be hacked. >> the wilson center has been hacked and we are pretty careful about things. we are taking precautions every day. has anybody here ever had an experience being hacked or has

anybody here not know someone who has been hacked? all right yes one person. we are going to call on you later and so you can explain how you are so lucky. moving along something we brag about at the wilson center is how good our people are and that is of course we are in this think tank in new york. my question is about how good are the people the government can hire to work on cyber issues and i ask this because i'm well aware and i know everyone here is that the private sector pays much richer salaries. >> we have the same i should say greater recruiting and retaining challenges that the private sector has. now we can offer something jane that the private sector not all the private sector can and that

is obviously a tremendous sense of mission but we have got to do more to be able to hire top-notch cyber talent. we have got tremendously talented people working in the nsa, the fbi and the department of homeland security and in the defense defense department. these folks are top notch but they also can be hired away for vast sums. >> so what do we have to do to get these people to come and stay and by the way is that the nsa recently been briefed on some aspects of our programs and they said really good kids coming out of college are turning down much bigger salaries because they are patriotic and they want to protect our country. >> we have a sense of mission that we can offer and that is a huge recruiting tool but we need the funds and the authorities and the flexibility and particularly the department of homeland security to be able to do that extra hiring.

this is the wave of the future. >> is another obstacle to hiring some of these kids are clearance system? >> well look there are always ways we can do better to streamline the security clearance system. as the president's counterterrorism and homeland security adviser you are never going to hear me say anything that would seem like we are scrimping on security but there is more that we can do to streamline that process and to get people in who are patriotic, who have huge skill sets in who we can put to work. >> obviously we are not encouraging any more edward snowden's to apply, we all got that message but what about a kid that incorrectly downloaded music for free which is not okay okay on one of his systems?

>> not having recently gone through my security clearance although i've had many, i didn't have that question but look what i would encourage those who are patriotic the first thing is to be honest on your security clearance form but something that is a crime is something we have to talk about. >> the last question for me and we will have 20 minutes for audience questions is about the only criticism i have heard since news you have heard here that was printed in the newspaper this morning. that's okay, as long as you came here to deliver the speech we are very happy that the criticism is that you are building in a necessary prerequisite with cttic. what is your answer to that? >> my answer to that is look, if they laid out in the speech this is filling a critical gap.

the and ctc, the national terrorism -- counterterrorism center did nothing to take away the mission role or responsibility of cia's counterterrorism center of fbi's joint terrorism task forces or siop which is its operational hub. those are operational arms and centers that have clear responsibilities into their mission. what we need and the gap that cttic fills is critical coordinated intelligence to seek those operations. i think what we have seen with and ctc in the terrorism realm is operators and policymakers are very well served in facing an evolving threat by having a source of rapid integrated intelligence at their disposal. >> expressing my personal opinion i was there when the

terrorist threat integration center was set up by president bush and that it was renamed and ctc and then congress codified and ctc as part of the 2004 intelligence reform law and i think and ctc is terrific. a shout-out to the people who work there. if you're building something comparable to that is going to work as well is that my own view is you are on the right track. >> will thank you we think so. >> all right folks 18 minutes and 40 seconds. please identify yourself and ask a question. do not give a speech. right here. where is the microphone? >> thank you. pete with energy wire. can you elaborate on the second of your core action points? how can the government use all of its capabilities more effectively to disrupt serious threats to critical infrastructure before they occur?

>> is a very good question. what i meant by that and the reference of the speeches using all of our tools. again the terrorism model is instructive. we get around, literally get around this situation. our diplomats are intelligence community are military or law enforcement officials and we discussed what is the best way to deter this to determine how to adjust the threat. you see us using all of those tools, diplomacy in trying to work with other governments to establish cyber norms and behavior on the military side on the intelligence side and the law enforcement side. as last spring the department of justice, the national security division something i know a little something about, brought

an indictment against five members of the people's liberation army in china for conducting cyber economic espionage in this country. that is an effort to say we will take account of these actions and determine who has committed cyber actions and go after them. we see that in a response to the action in north korea. the idea is you are going to look at all of your cyber tools and look at all of your tools including your cyber tools in determining which is the best one. >> it's your policy not to do economic espionage. could you explain the basis for that? >> sure in the president has been quite clear about this. we are not conducting and will not conduct economic espionage for the benefit of our company full stop. that is what the president said

and that is what the intelligence community is going to do. >> a question on the side. >> day from politico. can you discuss where the personnel for the center are coming from? is a coming from existing agencies or are you simply cannibalize and federal authorities for federal capabilities? >> the answer to that is no to the cannibalization. >> the government doesn't cannibalize. >> the idea here is as jane referenced we have got authorities and this is the reference in the parallel to the and ctc. the director of national intelligence has authorities under the terrorism reform intervention act that was passed after 9/11 to create intelligent

centers specifically for this mission to integrate and bring all sources of intelligence together. so yes as and ctc does cttic withdrawn expertise in intelligence and analysts from other centers and from other government agencies who have the national security responsibility in the cyber responsibility. >> we actually promoted that idea is part of intelligence reform because it brings people broader experience and they are able instead of being a silo where they don't see the whole picture and to do a more whole of government response which is something i would assume you are trying to achieve. >> that's exactly right it's a really good point. in the intelligence community and analyst someone who serves in the intelligence community to get promoted you have to have done something called joint duty.

this is tremendously smart innovation. you have to serve another agencies and see what your partners in the intelligence community do and this can be part of that. >> by the way is also a strategy for the military. goldwater-nichols was passed in the 1980s created the joint structure we have with the chairman of the joint chiefs and the whole notion is pulling people together you have a better chance of bringing the best capabilities together. rightup here in the third row. >> claire casey. i designed to comment on the december attack. is this the beginning of a new beginning of the new arab cyber attack which is causing damage to particular people and does that change the game and do we have the right tools for that. >> you are onto something and i spoke critically to in my speech speech. the north korea attack on sony entertainment was a game-changer

because it was both destructive and coercive. we saw in 2012 and attack, a destructive attack on saudi aramco a large oil facility. 30,000 computers turned into bricks basically. this is incredibly destructive. obviously and it has a huge impact on an economy's bottom line. that is the thing as i said in my speech that is probably the most concerning to me, that and what i would say is another element of destructive cyberbehavior. it manipulates leaving an impact that makes us question the integrity of data when you don't know what is has really happened so you lose trust in saving the data that is fair. >> right in the center here.

>> as you mentioned the -- for an international corporation. are there any plans at the white house has? >> is a great question and president obama has spoken to this when he talked about the sony pictures attack trade we have got to do more work quite frankly on galvanizing international cyber norms, things like getting the international community to sign on to the fact that we are not going to commit a cyber attack on critical infrastructure another country state's critical infrastructure. this is something we can sign onto. >> this site on the aisle. >> steve come independent consultant. he said the fourth pillar was making the internet more intrinsically secure yet on the

counterterror side law enforcement reaction to the default encryption from apple and google as well as secure messaging platforms for law enforcement here in the u.k. has been less than enthusiastic so how far does that pillar extend for intrinsically secure? >> you use the word default encryption. please explain that other other people. >> with their latest release from google and apple on the iphone platform they have implemented strong encryption by default so that if the phone is compromised physically nobody can obtain data so your data is inherently secure and apple has no easy way or law enforcement has no easy way to recover it so that would support intrinsic security of our information interaction to law enforcement

not having a backdoor into the security system has been very negative. >> erased two very important issues and i will take the consumer protection peace second because it's something we will be talking about later this week in stanford. on the first issue you raise referring to comments that director comey and others have have made and that president obama spoke about this recently in his press conference with prime minister cameron. there's an incredible value from strong encryption, enhancing privacy protections that we all want. by the same token there is a real concern if we cannot have a legal effect to court orders that would allow law enforcement to have access to information or evidence that stopped a terrorist attack that stopped a malicious cyberattack that stops crying. we have got to have a dialogue

about this. we have got to have an informed discussion. that is what director comey has called for and that is what the president has called for so i think you raise an important point about a dialogue that we do need to have. on the consumer protection peace which are quite obviously related these are one of the things we are talking about in tampa in a few days. talking specifically about consumer protection on line. what are the new and next generations of payment systems that would move us past the password to multifactor authentication. other secure forms of payment whether it biometrics or using additional things that move us beyond the password until we get to more inherently secure payment system.

>> let's go in the middle. your hand is still up sir and by the way of their questions from the overflow room someone needs to hand them to me in the near future. >> christian vector from the center for homeland security at georgetown university. you mentioned the key between the role of the cyprus not as a collector or analyst of cybermax threads how are you envisioning cttic been different in terms of how it's organized and staffed and so on? >> the distinction i was trying to draw is obviously in the terrorism realm and the homeland security space we have this ethos, see something, say something which is tremendously important and that is geared at the public sector. it goes to the issue which is

because so much of our critical infrastructure and are the structure is in private-sector hands we are relying in large measure, in significant measure on about vulnerabilities and attacks that happen in the private sector. so that has a state at least under a proposal that the president announced last month which is to say if you are a company and you find that you have been hacked or there has been a breach provide information to the department of homeland security to its national communication cybersecurity center, the nccic who is set up to be a network defender and to engage physically with the private sector, get that information. that will then be shared appropriately with the rest of the federal government cybersecurity apparatus to include the new system.

cttic can compare their private-sector information along with codified intelligence and other information that we in the government uniquely have so the idea is to get a two-way street going where the private sector brings in information, we use it and put it back out. >> i assume you will as soon as you have thing up communicate how to be in touch with it. what safeguards do you have against people putting this information to the system? >> this is the type of thing we are talking about in the proposal that the president announced last month which was to say you are private corporation we wanted to provide that information. we want you to take reasonable steps to ensure that you are not a giving the government private personally identifying information and you are not providing malicious information.

so there is a responsibility also to take those privacy enhancing steps. >> i get that. you work for target and you're trying to indicate the right information. what if you don't work for target and you pretend you do and you are communicating information? >> that is why we want that information to come into the department of homeland security to set up to ensure that we are not going to be propagating malware or malicious code so we don't have a vicious cycle. >> and one more question while we are on the subject. the black market for malware is growing. please do not tell us precisely what you are doing about it because people will work around that but can you ensure is that you were doing all the right things in finding and getting rid of the exploits in the malware that is available for sale for cheap on the black-market? >> as you said this is something we are very focused on. this hacker for higher approach

are the criminal networks that can and are behind a lot of this malicious cyber activity is something we are very focused on and it's not something people should be addressing. >> we will take to last questions together together because we are out of time. one is back there, the blue shirt. stand up. >> thanks. forbes.com today as saying its web site was hacked by apparently chinese hackers who are targeting financial services firm of forbes.com as well as u.s. defense contractors. what can you tell us about that particular event in the mite of done it in the technique of hitting third-party web sites with an eye towards capturing the eyeballs of going to that web site. >> hold that thought.

>> my name is tender with the european parliament liaison office and i continue to hear about the need for international cooperation but i have yet to hear a realistic framework. what is the response or how can you detail at? >> this issue of having norms and garnering international support is something something the president and prime minister cameron talked about in terms of enacting a cyberworking group to address particularly hacks and breaches into the financial sector so those types of partnerships and garnering international support for a set of norms is something that i think it's something we really do need to focus on. with respect to the gentleman's question in the back i can't tell you anything about the breach of which you refer. i would say though it sounds like not having been briefed yet on that it, it sounds like

exactly the type of thing that we are going to continue to be concerned about and we are going to see more and more of which is exactly why we need c. -- something like cttic to bring in that information. rapidly and say saves the something we have seen before and get that information back out for the benefit of the private sector as well as united states government. ..

and again, thank you for the analysis. >> thank you for your service. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

all those who worked with kim.. she somebody dedicated her life to serving others. not just serving other people, but serving those who were in crisis situations faced dire circumstances and were relying on the generosity and kindness of fellow human beings and i also was personal and their governments. she saw god in the eyes of people were dealing with terrible crisis. that is a particularly profound statement from such a young woman. but i think it does go to the character and generosity of spirit that she embodied. over the weekend her parents

received a private message from her captors with additional information about her death. that that information was shared with the intelligence community. they conducted a review and analysis and after that analysis was completed they concluded that kayla has, in fact, died and the information that they reviewed did not allow them to arrive at a conclusion about her precise cause of death but it did allow them to conclude that she had, in fact, died. >> any information about when she died? >> it is -- i -- that's a good question. i do not believe they were able to arrive at a conclusion about the timing timing, the precise timing of her death. >> do you no if they were able to rule out whether she was killed in a jordanian prison?

>> of seen those claims. again, the intelligence community did not have a specific assessment about the cause of death. there are some things i i can share with you about this airstrike that i know has been referenced which is something military officials have indicated as well. the airstrike that was carried out by the royal jordanian air force on february 6 was against my sil weapons compound that the group maintained your syria. this was a facility that have been struck on previous occasions, and it is not unusual for targets like this to be hit more than once. in previous strikes this facility have been damaged, but it is not unusual for strikes like this to be carried out once again. the information that we have is that -- and we have this information because this was coordinated with the united states military.

there is no evidence of civilians in the target area prior to the coalition strike taking place. and that certainly would call into question the claims were made. it's not possible to call into question that regardless of cause of death i sil is responsible for it. this was the organization that was holding her against her will and means there responsible for the safety and well-being. >> that house speaker issued a statement saying in part the tragic death underscores the nature of the enemy we face in my sil, a group of terrorist ties that has brought medieval savagery of the 21st century. the senators from her home state of arizona also spoke about her killing. heroes comments from senators jeff flake and john mccain. mr. flake: mr. president, i want to take this opportunity to

express sorrow both mine and that of the people of arizona at the news that one of our own kayla mueller prescott has died at the hands of isil. kayla's entire adult life cut short at the tender age of6, ha dedated t her entire adult life was cut short at the tender age of 26 and has been dedicated to the service of others and in ending that suffering. when she was taken hostage in 2,013 she was leaving the doctors without borders hospital in syria had been in the region working with syrian refugees. she once said that what inspired her work was that she found god in the eyes -- guarding the suffering eyes reflected. if this is how you are revealed to me this is how i will forever seeking. regardless of the exact circumstances surrounding her death, the fact remains

that have militants not kidnapped the sparkling young woman she would still be with us today. her death can and should be laid squarely at their feet and is yet another example of this group's mindless alarming savagery. the best thing congress can now do is to authorize the mission and to let our allies and adversaries know that we mean business and that we are united in our result. we should remember not for her death of her life and for her devotion to the highs: what dedication to the service of others from our deepest heartfelt condolences go to the family and her loved ones around the state and country >> i rise today to mourn the tragic death of a 26 -year-old humanitarian aid worker who have been held by

terrorists in syria since august of 2,013. we and i am heartbroken for the family at the loss of their beautiful beloved tale the thoughts and prayers of the people of her home state of arizona, the arizona our country, and the civilized world are with the family at this terrible our. i want to take the time today to share a bit of her story. this wonderful young woman represented the best of us had a remarkable impact on the lives of so many people who never had the honor of meeting her commander story will forever be an inspiration to us. she attended high school at tri-city college prep and president of arizona where she was recognized as a

nationally only five national leader and receive the pres.'s award for academic excellence in 2,007. the by county community foundation philanthropist of the year award in 2,005 and the gold presidential volunteer award in 2,007 for her volunteer efforts with youth americorps, america's farmers, open open and the troubled youth of big brothers big sisters and other organizations. after graduating after graduating from northern arizona university in flagstaff and 2,009 kayla committed her life to helping people in need around the world. first in india, then israel the palestinian territories and back home where she volunteered at the hiv-aids clinic and the woman's shelter. but it was the conflict in syria that your greatest interest and against particular desire to help those in need. and the youtube videos she made in october 2011 as the

syrian civil war was just beginning to live in solidarity with the syrian people. i reject the brutality and the killing of the syrian authorities against the syrian people. the silence is participation in this current. i declare my participation in the syrian sitting on youtube. december 2012 kayla traveled to the turkish syrian border where she worked for months helping the thousands of syrian refugees whose lives or torn apart by the humanitarian catastrophe created by bishara al-assad and the syrians will. according to her family she found this work heartbreaking but compelling she was extremely devoted to the people of syria and the struggle. she explained her family her call to service.

she. she said, i find god in the suffering eyes reflected in my. if this is how you are revealed to me this is how i will forever seeking. i will always seek out. some people find go to church, some people find god in nature some people find god and love. i find guide suffering. i have known for sometime that some time that my life's work computers using my hands as tools to relieve suffering. when she traveled back home to visit her family in arizona in may 2013 she spoke about her experiences at the club where her father was a member. after recalling helping a syrian man his wife had been murdered to reunite with a six-year-old relative he was desperately searching for

after their refugee camp was bombed she said the story is not learned. this is a reality. with a hear i am an american they asked him where is the world? all i can do is cry with them because i don't. after spending time with the refugees kayla told the club she was totally drawn in and that she can't do enough to help. she recalled stories of children being heard by unexploded bombs women forced into early marriages from elementary schools targeted for bombing by the syrian regime people living in caves to escape the bombing. she went on the syrians are dying by the thousands and the fighting just to talk about the rights we have.

for as long as i live i will not let the suffering people. i will not let this be something we just accept. it it is important to stop and realize what we have why, why we have it and how privileged we are made from that place start caring and get a lot done. she described part of her work helping the syrian children in the refugee camps including drawing painting, playing with the children many of whom were badly scarred physically and psychologically for. she. she said we give and get joy from playing with these children. have of the one half million refugees the un has registered children. in the chaos of waking up in the middle of the night and being shelled they're hearing of more children being separated from their families by accident.

asked asked by members what her recommendations for addressing the conflict a a no-fly zone over refugee camps would be number one. she also believed that if the terrible reality of the conflict were better known to americans our nation would be more heavily engaged. the people of the united states would see that something needs to be done. today the mueller family released a letter written to them by kayla in the spring of 2014. i want to read a bit of it to get a sense of the sample her deep faith in god her profound love for family and her remarkable strength in the face of grave danger. she wrote, i remember remember mom always telling me that all in all in the end the only one you really have is. i have come to a place and

experience where in every sense of the word i have i have surrendered myself to our creator because literally there was no one else and by god and by your prayers i have felt tenderly cradled. i have been shown in darkness light and have learned that even in person want to be free. i am grateful. i have i have come to see that there is good in every situation. sometimes we just have to look for it. i pray each day that if nothing else you we will have felt a certain closeness and surrender to god and form a bond of love and support amongst one another. i miss you more more as if it had been dedicated for suppression. she closed with these words. the thought of your pain is the source of my cannot simultaneously the hope of a reunion is the source of my strength. please be patient. give your pain began.

i know you want me to remain strong. that is exactly what i'm doing. do not here from me. continue to pray pray as will i buy guns will we we will be together soon. all my everything, kayla. in a statement today the family reflected on her life and their commitment to work every day to honor the legacy. compassionate and devoted humanitarian and dedicated the whole of her young life to helping those in need of freedom justice and peace drawn to help those displaced by the syrian civil war. first traveled to turkey in december 2012 to provide humanitarian aid the syrian refugees. she told us of the great joy she took in helping syrian children and families. we are so proud of the person she was in the work

that she did while she was here with us. she lived with purpose, and we will work every day to honor her legacy. our hearts are breaking for only daughter will continue on in piece dignity and love for. on behalf of the people of arizona in the united states congress want to express the deepest condolences. kayla devoted her young life to helping people in need around the world to healing the sick and bringing life to some of the darkest and most desperate places on earth. she will never be forgotten. i ask unanimous consent that

a letter written by kayla from her imprisonment to her family be included as part of the record. >> without objection. >> objection. >> tomorrow intelligence and counterterrorism officials testify about the threat to the hearing of the house homeland security committee.

>> i asked i asked the community to consider the nomination of dr. ashton b carter to be secretary of defense. a full roll call's request and be glad to have one. if not is there a motion to find anyone who would like a rollcall vote? you want a rollcall vote? >> i don't know we needed. >> we don't need it.

>> over like to be recorded. >> the clerk we will call the roll. [roll call] . [inaudible conversations] [roll call] [roll call]

>> twenty-five yes to one no instrucon >> the motion will be reported favorably. hopefully we can get a vote perhaps even as early as tomorrow. >> we believe that open for senator sullivan to make his wishes now. the armed services committee meets today to receive testimony of our nation's defense budget priorities

from the bipartisan national defense panel. this group of former military leaders, members of congress and pentagon officials who served under republican and democratic presidents released a unanimous recommendations and report our nation's defense strategy last year. we have with us to distinguish members of the national defense panel each serving as undersecretary of defense for policy and among the most respected defense experts on both sides of the aisle. we are grateful for you to appear before us today. i would i would also like to thank the panel's cochairman gen. for their as well as panels members and staff. the the national defense panel bipartisan consensus report is a compelling statement of the daunting strategic realities of america faces in the 21st century. the rules-based national water that is further global

prosperity and security is not self-sustaining and as challenges multiply around the world there is no substitute for robust american engagement to ensure its preservation. though america has many effective tools global imports including diplomacy and economic engagement the panel reminds us that all of these are critical and intertwined with an dependent upon the perceived strength, presents command commitment of the us armed forces. yet through a combination of self-inflicted wounds and dangerous geopolitical and technological trends america's military strength strategic foundation undergirding will believe as the report terms it is. $487 billion in cuts billion dollars in cuts to the national defense budget control act and billions

more in the sequestration constitute a strategic and serious misstep. these deep cuts have sharply reduced military readiness, lead to dangerous investment shortfalls and present and future capabilities and prompted our allies and adversaries alike ?-question-mark commitment and resolve. these cuts are not the product of any strategic assessment of the threats we face at the time of global people. china's rapid military modernization is tilting the balance of power in the asia-pacific. russia's aggression threatens your regional security .__north korea continue to pursue the development of tactical weapons and violent islamic extremists are destabilizing large swaths of the middle east and north africa while plotting attacks against the united states and our allies in addition regional threats for structural trends like the diffusion of certain advanced military technologies pose new challenges to america's forces.

in the security environment of the future panels report predicts conflicts are likely to unfold more rapidly, battlefields will be more lethal operational sanctuary for us forces will be scarce and often fleeting asymmetric conflict we will be the norm. the panel echoes secretary hagel was adamant in such an arab american dominance on seas, in the skies, and in space can no longer be taken for granted. the panel's report recommends the budget control pack's immediate repeal and returned to at least the funding baseline proposed in secretary gates fiscal year 2012 defense budget. that budget, the budget, the panel concluded represents the last time the department is permitted to

engage in the standard process of analyzing threats, estimating needs and proposing a resource baseline that would permit it to carry out the national military strategy. if we have followed the budget path laid out by sec. gates which he believed was the minimum to keep the country safe the fiscal year 16 budget for the department of defense excluding war funding would be $611 billion. that is 77 billion more than the president's fiscal year 16 budget request and a hundred and 12 billion more than the budget caps on bca. it is also worth remembering secretary gates suggested this minimum level before russia's invasion of ukraine posed to renew threat to european security, before the rise of prices and the further spread of violent extremism across north africa and the middle east for china's coercive behavior in the east and south china seas have become dangerous commonplace. it is

unacceptable to continue to ask the men and women over military to put their lives are based around the world will cut back on training and equipping the settlement must pull scores. therefore, the overriding priority of this committee and the congress must be to return to a strategy driven budget and i will forward to the testimony of our witnesses today has to what that budget like. >> thank you, you, mr. chairman. i want to welcome our witnesses. thank you for your service in and out of government. over the years and especially since the initiation of hostilities in 2001 the defense review, like any strategy has had to contend with the challenge of an unpredictable and constantly shifting nature of the world and threats that we face. we have seldom predicted with great accuracy where will when the next crisis might occur.

however, the department of defense can function military defense and planning means assumptions must be made, objective threat assessments done and guidance provided to our military leaders that prioritize national security interest. each qtr has had to make strategical resource trade-offs. the work of the current national defense panel in his review of the 2014 qtr provides an independent consideration of the department assess the security environment, his defense strategy and priorities and identification of the capabilities necessary to manage a strategic risk. in essence the panel found that 2014 quadrennial defense review and defense strategy makes a reasonable strategic assessment. the panel wasn't echoes the qtr strategic assessment and highlights the challenges nation faces with emphasis

on china russia, ukraine, proliferation and north korea, iran, insurgency in iraq civil war in syria iraq, civil war in syria and stability throughout the middle east and africa. the panel also acknowledges that the qtr caused the capabilities and capacities to address the many challenges we face today into the future. however, the panel notes those capabilities and capacities clearly exceed budget resources available and therefore undermine the strategy very accurately made. it is no surprise that the panel's overarching were finding and recommendation is the budget control act endangers national security and calls for its repeal. the panel argues for increasing defense fund 2012 levels radiant personnel costs and one budget. the building. in addition to the risk of sequestration would be interested to here the witnesses assessment of other risks as well as risks to our military and their families. finally i note that after nearly 20 20 years of qtr recurring questions about

the value last year's national defense authorization act modified requirement for this. defense review now called the defense strategy review. these changes include the development of a national defense strategy that addresses a security interest across the near commanded, and far terms and focuses and streamlines the elements of the strategy congress considers essential i would be interested to no the witnesses views and the prospects for a more timely relevant, and useful national defense strategy process. >> welcomes the witnesses. >> if i make. >> mr. chairman, senator thank you for giving my calling and i an opportunity to come before you talk about the work of the national defense panel to review the quadrennial defense review.

the two of us have a prepared statement we have submitted in the hope that it we will be printed for the record. >> without objection. >> i will just makes in general introductory comments and in turn the floor over. when we began our work as a a panel in august 2131 of our cochairman said that as we started our liberation believed the nation was running what he called accumulating strategic risk. i think all the members of the panel presented to that judgment. as you pointed out in your opening statement that was before president had invaded and annex annexed crimea and destabilizes to bring him with the collapse of the iraqi security forces and the seizure of most of the

anbar province. as we went to the liberations panel became more and more convinced that the accumulating strategic risk that the general was describing at the outset was accumulating at a faster and faster pace. as as you have heard as a community from previous witnesses and other hearings and the sec. schultz my boss, secretary kissinger, secretary albright the united states probably faces the most volatile and complex security environment that we have faced as a nation in a very long time and have had this truck is is a panel that given those growing challenges to stay on the path of the budget control act and sequestration made no sense.

i had the experience of having previous independent panel to review the 2010 qtr, and in that report looking at the budget trajectory, the cuts that were already being taken out of defense in 2010 the growing cost of keeping servicemen and women in the field of the time and the growing healthcare and retirement costs that were built in to into the budget predicted that the nation is facing a train wreck that was before the budget control act passed before the apartment had to cope with sequestration. one of the things that i think we were very focused on and i want to trust it to is the charge that sec. hegel gave

us as a panel at the outset of the operations. he said that as we discussed future capabilities because many of these challenges that he is a panel were talking about the rise of china and it's very rare for a military power will want to face with islamic extremism the rise of new nuclear powers like north korea and iran all of these things are challenges that as president eisenhower said for the long haul. we have to think now about how we're going to deal with these challenges 20 years out. that is one of the mandates of the qtr process itself. it is supposed to be a 20 a 20 year outlook nation's defense. and so secretary hagel raised the issue of the concern that the program of record as of the program we

will need 20 years down the road? are we starting now to produce the weapons 20 years from now we we will be in the media is mindful of the fact that over the last decade we have been essentially the seed corn that was laid out in the current reagan defense bill the of the late 1970s and early 80's. we need to need to be thinking now what capabilities we can provide servicemen and women become part in the future. future. and so i wanted to mention a specific areas that as a panel in keeping with the sec.'s charge that we concluded beyond to get down the road for the future. i hope, mr. chairman, sen. hope, mr. chairman, senator, you and the members of the community will be bearing some of those things in mind as you consider the program budget review. armed intelligence

surveillance and reconnaissance space because of her critical dependence, cyberspace, maintenance of air superiority, joint and coalition command and control because of the partnerships we have an effective and will be fighting with other people long-range strike and electric and directed energy weapons. these are areas that we felt that not been given sufficient attention by the department and need further works. i'll stop they're. >> mr. chairman sen., i would like to say how pleased that i to discuss the findings and recommendations. this hearing this hearing really could not come the more critical time for all the reasons you describe the international security environment. it is only going to get more challenging in the future.

it is a time when continued us and engagement globally to protect our national interest to sustain the rules-based international order, stability and prosperity depend constantly the international community to address the most pressing challenges that are. us leaders could not be at work. right now. it is also time that requires investment to ensure that we retain a strong a strong and agile military to shape the international environment to determine to feed a version must, to reassure allies and partners and to ensure that this president and future presidents have the options that they need for an increasingly dangerous. yet we see a time when defense budget cuts and sequestration are undermining the department's department's ability to maintain a robust security force her to attend the best and brightest people and to

invest in the capabilities that are necessary to keep our technological edge in the more challenging future. in this context i want to emphasize our number one appeal to this committee and the congress want broccoli is to work to repeal the bca and in sequestration. this is absolutely imperative. we cannot restore readiness and invest in the technological edge unless we do so. sequestration that only sets budget levels too low but denies the secretary of defense the ability to protect resources with the highest priorities putting dod in a constant state of budget uncertainty that prevents more strategic planning, investment for the future. deficit reduction and getting our fiscal house in order are essential to us national security is sequestration is the wrong

way to go about it. recommend restoring defense spending to fy 2012 levels and funding the president's budget request is at least a 1st step in that direction. second, we would urge the congress to take immediate steps to restore readiness. the service chiefs have testified before the committee as to growing readiness problems. only half of of the marine corps substation units are acceptable. less than half of the combat units in the air force are fully ready. navy departments have been canceled and only one 3rd of the navy's contingency navy's contingency force is ready to deploy within the required 30 days. these readiness and back to real. the ndp recommended that the congress should make immediate and special appropriation above and beyond the current budget levels to correct these readiness shortfalls. third as the ambassador emphasized the ndp calls

were protecting investment in future capabilities that we will be critical to maintaining us freedom of action and our military superiority in the coming decades. a technological edge has long been an advantage but is not a given. in the world in which technology is proliferating much of the cutting-edge technology is one off the shelf. a smart a smart and determined investment strategy to maintain its edge. i personally upon the purpose efforts like the opposite opposite strategy, the defense innovation initiative, but we have to have the investment dollars to pursue those initiatives. ambassador you have laid out a number of key areas the ndp recommended should be a focus. lastly, the ndp also argues that we need to pursue an aggressive reform agenda inside the building. we can and should reduce the cost of doing business. we know compensation reform

and the plot of the work of the compensation committee. many of these issues need to be addressed some need to be fundamentally reframed and i'll give you an example. rather than debating whether we should reduce benefits benefits of increased co-pays we need to be debating how we get better health outcomes for service is and their families and reduced costs by applying better business practices. the the ndp emphasizes the need for further acquisition reform. for another background to take down the 20% excess infrastructure that the dod is carrying and to the right size the civilian workforce contractor, career and so forth so that we can have the workforce we need for the future. let me just concluded by saying i think this report lays out a very clear agenda

for action that has strong bipartisan and civil military support across the panel. there are some heaviness involved but the risks of not pursuing this course are simply unacceptable. so i would look to this committee and applaud your lead in this area, working with your colleagues to try to convince them that the time to act on these recommendations is now. >> i think both of the witnesses and would.out to my colleagues that both witnesses have worked for both republican and democrat administrations were holding holding positions of responsibility in both. there certainly is a total nonpartisanship in your reports. in my view that makes you even more credible because of your many years of outstanding and dedicated service. my colleagues i won't take much time except to.out that

one of the problems that we are trying to highlight of this committee is as you just mentioned, on acquisition reform. we simply cannot afford these cost overruns of billions of dollars canceled or delayed programs. it harms our credibility and is going to be one of the highest priorities of this committee to try and address that issue. it has been tried many times in the past. i am not confident as to the degree of success, but we have to work on it. i only have one additional question. why did you use secretary gates fiscal year 2012 budget level as a baseline for your recommendation. >> mr. chairman, as i mentioned in the 2010 panel

we spoke to secretary gates about what the department needed to recapitalize after ten years of. he told us that he believed he needed about one half to two and a half percent real growth in the budget. at the 2010 panel that was amenable that it might actually be a higher number. we met as a panel tried to reverse this and have a smaller panel only to members and staff we will be concluded that the kind to secretary gates's top line made sense because it was the last time i been trying to find its needs of the places something approaching a strategy as opposed to being given an arbitrary number by either owing the

war because of the budget control act's. there were differences of view among us on the panel that there was consensus that the gates level, the one and a a half two and a half percent real growth is the minimum. all of us can agree on the. >> and unless we do something such as you are recommending the nation's security is at risk? quex• oh and i think all of the members of the event. >> and we talked about the force being a substantial risk in substantial risk of the near term if sequestration was not lifted entire budget levels next. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman ambassador madame secretary for your thoughtful testimony for the work of your colleagues.

you were obviously tasked with focusing on the needs and responsibilities of the department of defense. military forces to operate alone in a a part of the spectrum of national security of. if their is not a sufficient state department persons and capacity building and local communities and military efforts to pick when we change should responsible. so can so can i assume -- i will assume, but i will just just as you talk about you have to be conscious every agency of the government that isn't to protect the security of the united states. >> senator, that is certainly fair.

although we really were more focused on the department specifically for men the 2010 we have a chapter about and better: every much along the lines were discussing it is your right. just solving is crucial. i would say it is a necessary condition for almost everything else. power that we don't want to see withering on the vine without adequate funding. >> comments. >> i would agree. in just about every operation we conduct, every problem we try to solve there has to be an integrated balance interagency approach. one

instrument is well-funded and the other is on life-support it does not work. our intention was to talk about the instruments of national security more broadly. >> let me shift to another topic that you talked about, cyber operations. it just from afar looking at some of the recent operations the russians, the crimea, etc., cyber seems cyber seems to be the 1st act of any sort of military operation today. the line between cyber and a military operation your comments generally. in this touches the whole spectrum. everything is days. >> sen., i am at at something of a disadvantage because i have trouble booting up my computer. i am very reliant upon my younger sons to get me out of trouble. but the reality is a reliant

military forces extensively on cyber and not only encrypted systems but on the opennet. that is a huge problem for us whenever we are involved in operation of any kind and i think i think we're all painfully aware of the vulnerabilities. we do site cyber is one of the capabilities that needs further attention and a lot more work. my colleague may have more recent experience with this. here d relies on the open internet and yet it does not really have responsibility for defending it. the whole of government has to be involved particularly for dod.

>> the expertise needed within the government, government, figuring out how we will organize ourselves beyond across the whole of government given the different agencies have different authorities. how we will work with the private sector which now holds so much of our critical infrastructure and the legislative framework that deals with questions of liability and others that would enable the public-private partnership needed to be effective. >> thank you for your great work. >> thank you. when you are my age you we will be depending on your grandchildren's advice not just to children. in the 20 years i've been on this committee warheads 30

40 years old may be 50 years old and then the icbms in the nuclear submarines. we talked we talked about this for a long time. i'm looking at the new situation, the knew threat that you have talked about as well as our panel now in light of the knew threat should more attention be given to this that we have in the past? the areas that have not been given proper attention.

>> senator, as undersecretary i was very concerned throughout my tenure about the state of our aging. we have not built a nuclear weapon as 1990 there are lots of ways we maintain the safety and surety of the stockpile, but as time goes on and particularly not only as inevitable corrosion and degradation of components goes on but also the loss of human capital because we are not able to get the best and brightest minds in the field the way we used to be able to, to, it is a matter of really increasing concern.

they already have north korea testing nuclear weapons. iran is moving very close to being a nuclear threshold state. hopefully there we will be in agreement to constrain that. that. if their is not or if iran maintains near breakout capacity as a a prospect that may get others to the growing stockpile in pakistan and india, china's stockpile is going in terms of weapons, although more slowly. and russia is modernizing its nuclear force. i do applaud the administration for the good work it has done, the b 61

modernization one modernization effort, but i think there is much more that needs to be done. >> ambassador, that gets into what i was going to talk about. ever since our unclassified intelligence came out in 2,007 talking about when they would have the capabilities which is where we are right now and i'm concerned about the activities. barak, syria, lebanon. i don't think we can assume that our concern should be strictly with iran and this is my concern me about for a long time. serious problems and when you look at countries like saudi arabia and turkey and

others, if they see what our capabilities are then you know i would assume there going to be involved and we we will have another arms race coming. does that concern the two of you? >> i think our strategic nuclear forces have been one of our huge strategic comparative advantages since 1945. i think we cannot afford to let that advantage go by the wayside. extended deterrence of our allies in asia europe and now increasingly in the middle east has always been a difficult proposition the stockpile an inventory of nuclear weapons to make our willingness to use those weapons in defense of our allies, a very difficult proposition to convince people of. it's still going to be a

difficult a difficult proposition to convince people about. .. >>

>> thank you for your testimony today and what this committee is focused on to consider the recommendations with regard to cyber. reports say they come from a diverse range of countries organizations to pose a significant risk to u.s. national interest. by gaining unauthorized access with infrastructure on a routine basis. whether the potential adversaries are going after chemical plants toward the stock exchange or any type of important infrastructure with a partner countries that give damage to the global economy. what are the specific recommendations to increase

cybercapability in specifically how do we compete with the private sector to get the of brightest minds in mathematicians and engineers to enhance our cyberdefense? have you thought about ways natalie to recruit and retain the best in the field but also to develop resources to the national guard? >> we did not go into balance lovell of detail that we noted the importance of investing in both the defensive and offensive capabilities and urged the department to move forward with modernization to improve cooperation with the private sector. i will give you my personal views. attracting talent is one of the biggest challenges to

the couple ways to go at it. one is used for incentives or pay schedules and was to develop a contract relationships in and one-third is with the garden reserves to have this expertise in the commercial sector are patriots and may want to contribute to national defense but they will not lead silicon valley to join full time. sova to leverage on weekends for annual training is to be available to be mobilized with the national urgency we need to think creatively about those arrangements. there maybe some pilot programs but the human capital to mention.

>> i am aware of efforts in the private sector that is a terrific idea to tray wounded four is -- wounded warriors to become cyberwarriors they would like to get back into the field but they cannot but this is a way for them to continue to fight with training. >> what would you recommend the cyberdefenders? they might be the best behind a computer and not behind the gun but train specifically for their requirements? that would be the first for the military. >> at least one of the pilots one of the things they have done is exempt people from their requirements from cutting hair or a uniform but, as

they are bringing expertise to the table. >> did your opening remarks you mentioned the five technology areas we need to develop more. does your report to expand on that? or do you just list them? >> go into great detail senator but the highlight as areas we clearly think there needs to be more attention been directed energy weapons , but there is a list. we give about a paragraph. not any details to america above the further development spending thank you to both of you for your leadership in in your wisdom

we do have a problem with defense spending causing me direct concern as a member of the budget committee looking at those numbers i have felt all along the one area of our budget the needs to be examined with the most care is the defense department. you have to justify that they'll tell us what they will spend the money on and how much it is. we don't have a lot of money in fact, we don't have enough in the deficits will continue to rise even with the slowing of the annual deficits they'll start rising again according to the cbo in by 2019 interest will exceed the entire defense budget. and ambassador, do you think

as you suggested if the defense department makes more money easing those rules should be matched by this team increase of nine discretionary? >> the panel did not take a position on that. i want to make sure it is my personal opinion and and not representing my colleague rather members. i think this issue is crucial and overall federal spending needs to be under better control. the biggest problem frankly is not the discretionary part but the non discretionary part the cbo long-range budget forecast has made that clear for some time that is the real driver of the long term debt.

>> yes or no? >> the defense budget needs to go up. i don't think discretionary nondefense spending needs to go up. >> the president is insisting that it does in his budget increases by about 34 billion other share in non-defense discretionary by the same and i think the senator mccain was correct that if the gates plan enacted in 12 then we would have $100 billion more in over a decade is where the $1 trillion. and if matched that is another trillion dollars.

so these are huge numbers we don't have the strength every day with every of the agency that comes to us to want more money. i angela saying it is a difficult time that we are in. >> sequestration needs to be lifted across the board so that secretaries are able to manage priorities for the government but i don't thank you can solve the nation's budget problems on the back of discretionary spending. the key is taxing an entitlement reform. >> under the budget control act for the rest of the seven years with an increase of 2.5% per year. we hear in the top years right now.

in fact, the defense department tried to reduce funding so rapidly. in it shows up of the fastest-growing is in cummins. we all know that but we can also make a difference. ambassador, you have questions i think with negotiations with iran in the nuclear program they have. dr. kissinger was pretty animated when he expressed concern over the negotiating posture that allows iran and public reports suggest that the goal has gone from no

nuclear program to allow winning one that would put them within months of the nuclear weapon in dr. kissinger. >> i am concerned about the trajectory of these negotiations. when you look at the full sweep going back through 2003 or 2004 when it began before it was the p5 + 1 we started with a multilateral negotiation to prevent iran from developing that capability. now increasingly we're in a bilateral negotiation between the united states and iran that is aimed at secretary carey has said to

limit the breakout time it has to develop a nuclear weapon now one year. that seems to be the enormous retreat. i don't know exactly this state of the negotiations with the press reports iran might be allowed to keep thousands and thousands of centrifuges without taking them down is very concerning to me because i think because there is a time limit in the negotiation that was agreed to it will be time limited with your 20 years or three years or 10 years. and some point it runs out. of the banks are a guide despite in thin they have the threshold and the way

negotiations and have proceeded in you both discuss the problem of sequestration with the queue the are you noted additional changes were required from the civilian defense department the panel started to grow even after active duty forces had been treating. by 2012 the number of contractors working for the deity had grown approximately 670,000.

but four examples as to the heart rate and court -- headquarters staff just 3,000 i was charged with not surprised to receive a realistic plan but you cannot even come to grips with 1913. but the doe headquarters they could not determine the

we have concerns and if you want to talk about the specifics i appreciated but it is challenging to say that we need more money. we need more money. we'll understand that. would be doing with the money we give you? or to spend it we want to make sure the readiness force has the weapon to do the job. >> senator this is an important area to focus and is understandable why the civilian workforce or the blue of her but now it is

time to go back to first principles to examine exactly how contractors were used to look for deficiencies there and looking at a civilian organization but there are some components taking an interest that may lead the way for others. sub look at the concept to produce the number of layers to optimize and others this is an area of focus by would highlight currently the secretary of defense does not have the authorities that the predecessors have used to manage drawdowns. ask senator kerry he was meaningful levels of

voluntary separation to be used to incentivize early retirement. currently they do not have that authority and it is a constraint. it is an opportunity for you to give the secretary additional tools for the work force. >> doesn't buy the you that we cannot even identify the jobs? >> yes. and that is something we all needed to ask of them. >> the fact just to make up point to respond to that excellent question about the earlier question that senator sessions asked which is it that we hear coming here that the department needs a lot of money but we hear horror stories of different procurements that have gone bad and as two-thirds of the taxpayer money have a right to be

asking the department how to justify all of this. one thing we do talk about is on the entire reform agenda. the thin to have the defense business and toward a i know he has them very much on his mind. >> thank you mr. chair for her and also for being here today. and when eating out of the

seed corn stick let with any future strength gore readiness for prosperity that we have. i do agree that you say we need to end the sequestration and i do believe that we need to restore readiness and also aggressive reform within the dod. but another component beyond looking internally is we have to look externally. anytime united states is in gauging their military forces elsewhere, we do rely on other partners. and we do need to engage other partners to the fullest extent that we possibly can. over the last 12 years military cooperation between the united states and turkey has faltered.

i can give specific examples at critical moments. in 2003 my own unit the fourth infantry division those that were denied access and to see the ports but then we saw them tonight a kurdish ally headed into syria to break the siege from isil and i believe that led to many deaths for those that were trying to defend the shibani early on when they were certain if it would fall or not. and turkey has continuously denied our country the use of an air base which would be close for search and rescue missions for those

that might have issues if they fall behind enemy lines we went into further detail how turkey denied us using these areas that could be used in the search and rescue mitt -- missions for men and women on the ground. time and time again turkey has denied use of facilities you are a nato ally. and they're very unapologetic when it comes to deny resources and we believe it is necessary in their region. so what i would like to hear from you is that as silica constrained budgets and resources and the reduced

readiness, we need to engage our other partners partners, specifically turkey. so what impact has turkey's action or lack of action. other now and what can redo to you take on more ownership in the middle east ? >> as much as a light to turn that over to my colleague i think a need to take it on. but there is no question that turkey the prime minister has become a very problematic and difficult ally. and there are a lot of reasons for that but i think

turkey is headed domestically in a dangerous trajectory and a lot of degradation or democratic practice which i think contributes to some of this. and it will require attention from the leadership to manage that because i agree we need partners when we operate overseas. and in fairness to the turks a lot of their anger and unhappiness is good reason we have been denied access because their view of what is going on in syria that they share a long border with the u.s. is not doing enough to try to promote the departure of the president and it is their belief they

you cannot just take on the problem of syria by only taking on isil along as a sod is there he generates more support with the assault on the people. and that is a very in large part of turkish frustration. so not to cooperate with us. and some to say we will not help you rescue your downed pilot. but the broader point that we have to wrestle with mir at a junction because of where we are of the of digit

end international order and was framed where we need in the treaty allies is. also those but the efforts in the middle east in the united arab emirates in most cases our allies are spending less and less on defense and salsa they have less capability to draw on and that is the paradox. i do think one of the things we need to think about is to be much more forthright where we want them to spend their money on defense to develop those capabilities to complement or supplement hours or replace areas with

less capability so it is a better division of labor and think that is true in europe and east asia as ec defense spending declining. we need to do that so we don't have them wasting money and not being able to be there when needed. >> thank you, mr. chairman and for both of you to be here. looking at syria and isis, what is your recommendation as to the next up for the coalition states? we making progress in iraq iraq, do you wait and tell iraq is done or do you take action now to move them out? bin does that include assad?

>> this is about security in global strategy. >> it is my personal opinion >> we have your presence hear i will not take advantage of. >> my own view is we should have been doing much more much earlier. the president has said long ago that assad must go. and of think the problem can be resolved as long as assad is there. but the problem of with syria is we rely totally almost on airpower. not very good intelligence because we have no presence on the ground. we have to find some type of circuit from the shechem militia we have to find a sarah gets on the ground with whom they can go to the

position risk they could have done something going back to 2011 having to face hit. >> ms. warner. i would agree. i wish we would have begun. >> but what is key is the air campaign is to put more pressure on but the key is eventually you have to put pressure on the deal levin regime to expect them to come to the table. but unfortunately right now

the main benefactor would-be isil because they are the strongest force on the ground so we have to build up alternatives for the surrogates before we get to that point. >> another question about strategy is what he think the end game is to keep it won after the heather? >> i don't think that president putin is solely interested in the ukraine and i think he has a broader gender -- agenda and to stabilize and he can impose regime change to dominate and prevent them from associating with the european union moving in the direction of the west. fundamentally he rejects the

post and with friends in europe in there in it a bit of denial that they seem to hope that there is some way to negotiate a limit with him on ukraine but i think this is just the beginning. and we completely ec efforts to create problems the drive wedges between the united states and its allies. >> would you agree if nato does not live up to its obligations that is the end of nato? >> absolutely. >> i don't disagree with anything the ambassador said but and he is sitting on top

and you are in questionably in decline. but i think he will lash out along the way to establish himself. >> he thinks wherever there is a weakness? >> i do. that is why it is important the follow-through on monday initiatives for nato and to help the ukrainians defend themselves. >> thank you. yen and i want to thank the

analyst. we have been discussing the challenges but the ultimate strength is the men and women in uniform that continue to volunteer post the 11 to serve our country. i have had the great honor and could spend a lot of time with our troops i am sure that was a great couple weekends ago and was with thousands of young alaska and soldiers in the past weekend i was with a smaller

group of marines. en distillate with the troops to raises an interesting question. what we hear from civilian leaders and the president included is that we consistently here create -- we are a war weary nation. i think it is used as an excuse that we will not take action because we are wary. but if you spend time with the troops than they have sacrificed a lot the last 12 years we know that. but with the concern of the pay raise is they want to deploy. they joined the military to serve their country. they don't want to sit around. helpless think through the conventional wisdom that

somehow we are the war-weary nation that we cannot make local commitments and the truth is less than 1% actually doing of fighting in the others seem to be ready not necessarily to fight but deploy a. klay think the issue that we are wary is conventional wisdom in such a way that nobody seems to challenge it. talk about the tip of the spier god love them they seem ready to go. >> that is a great question and i would agree men and women in uniform are one of the greatest ranks we have is a nation. their remarkable. when the american people, when it is explained

with the nature of this thread is and why we have to meet it in with the risks to not go after as the president did, i think the american people rallied in support of a cause when it is wilts articulated and the sacrifice or the risk that is commensurate. i don't see but that treasury that we have spent that is something that weighs heavily on everyone and should but the interest is clear the objectives are clear the mission is clear when people are mobilized a think they will follow that

strong instinct. we had a mission and we need to you get it done. that is a challenge for everyone of a public leadership position to make that case when necessary. >> general marshall once said he thought it was difficult if not impossible for the united states to fight the war more than four years. and i think that reflects americans want to uc a precise value over the conflict. . . 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 afghani