already doing something. >> mr. chairman i would say one of the things i think her are committee should be doing is documenting this risk and just how critical i think it is in terms of to what degree we talk about every day about russia and iran. we talk about north korea but we haven't really talked about our role in restoring the capability. let me go to the other services. >> congressman thanks and our situation is much like general welsh. we are meeting our requirements in response force right now which is a fairly small commitment but more broadly pits the forces that are back at home station currently about 50% of the minute training personnel and equipment shortfalls that are the concern. it's her ability to do with the unexpected that is the issue more broadly than global response force. >> thank you congressman. in fact i was at forces command when we sequestered in 2013 in the first thing that happened is we ended up eliminating some

deployments and we ended up producing hours and getting that next set of deployers ready to go we ended up delaying the deployment of carrier. when you talk about the global response force our ability to train our folks and their ability to have that next set ready is very much tied to the budgetary topline. right now we have two carriers ready to go. we always have two to go. we are building up to a larger surge capacity but clearly with sequestration our ability to maintain that projection force generation is significantly challenged. >> sir we have a designated global response force out of the 82nd airborne division that is ready to go and prepare to go. what i would say though is because of the fact that we have less forward station capability out of the army now the

importance of global response force has increased significantly. unfortunately i think it goes beyond damages the ability for the second airborne to force entry operations anywhere in the world. i go back to general dunford it's about the total force responding quickly in a variety of different directions both medium and heavy. i worry about the readiness levels as we stated earlier of those units having the capability to do that at the level we expect them to be able to do that. >> appreciate those responses and putting the joint dod piece on this is modeling and how we work together sateen. i think we have a long way to go. chairman thank you very much. >> mr. ashford. >> thank you mr. chairman and from a parochial perspective my district is omaha nebraska stratcom in the 55th air wing and is a historic two-week my

father flew b-26 bombers in world war ii. the plane was actually built at the martin bomber plant which is i guess now scheduled to be now demolished after all these years. 1943 was built. obviously we are very proud of moffitt and its history and stratcom and thank you for all your support there. congressman o'rourke there have been a number of questions asked regarding this question but i really still don't have an answer. it's not because of you just seems so dynamic. congressman o'rourke asked a question about the situation in the mideast and where we were. obviously we talked about that is dynamic and it seems to me if we don't do something about sequestration those problems are going to continue to exist and they are in some sense -- and we don't know what's coming next. i hate to be redundant but i would just ask one more time

what do you see in the next year to two years may be through 2016 possibly with the possibility of the situation in the middle east becoming more difficult or even the level it's at now? >> i think we understand for sure as a minimum we know we will have to continue to train iraqi security security forces that advised them as well as the syrian modern resistance. we know we have to have their support necessary to support us as we do that. that's the minimum. we also require resource -- response courses in case the troops get in trouble so inept at forces rarely available in kuwait and other places. if we decide it's not working the president make made the decision we have to do reassessment and we decide to use more forces we will have to be prepared to do that. and that's the concern re-prepared to do that and do we have the readiness to accomplish that mission if necessary? >> if you would from your

perspective,. >> congressman the own thing i would add is there to trends that really when you talk about dynamic is this sunni-shia and violent extremism in the area. this is a dynamic area and we know we are trying to do in iraq and syria specifically but what we don't know if is what's going to happen in 2016 which makes her readiness to deal with the unexpected all that much more important. >> as you mentioned the problems are dynamic and that is what we can expect. more instability, morant certainty. new groups arising like basis surprised most americans as it appeared that i think i i think that will lead to frustration in the u.s. and on the ground and folks doing the air campaign. i think it would be the best approach to take as the situation changes again. so i think this will be an ongoing discussion. i think ray was exactly right in

saying we have to continue the operations we are executing now. we have to continue to execute them well and they have to be done in a manner that allows us options as this dynamic situation evolves. >> just to see and observe what's going on and the exceptionalism of the team over there is beyond anything so thank you very much. >> mr. brooks. >> thank you mr. chairman. 30 minutes before this hearing began the embargo on congressman prices proposed house budget was lifted. it was embargoed until 9:30 a.m. this morning and i've got some parliamentary questions in secretary mchugh i hope you can assist me with those. what does the president request has the space budget for national defense? >> how about i give you the army number? >> to someone here have a total number for national defense from the president and his budget?

>> 561. >> 561 as the base. how much for overseas contingency operations? >> for the army its 20 billion. >> i think it's very close to 50 billion 48 a plebus number. >> how about 51 billion does that sound about right? that would give us a total ban of 612 billion. does that sound about right for oco and the president space budget request? now the budget control act has a limitation base of 523 billion so the president is proposing a budget that is if my math in my head is correct $30 billion more than what the budget control excess is permissible. does anyone have an explanation for how he can just disregard the budget control act of 20 lebanon throughout a budget that's $38 million more in its

limitation? >> i won't speak to the law but you asked if i could perhaps help on this. i can tell you in discussions that the osd level the president we have sequestration level is responsible. >> secretary mchugh if i could interject i'm looking for legal explanation, not the policy explanation. i didn't hear anyone come up with a legal explanation. >> under title x authority i don't have legal responsibility from the department of defense. >> let me move on then to congressman price's proposed house budget. he starts according to page 40 of his news release draft s. 5 and i don't know people a chance to review what he has the base of 523 million but then he has 94 billion for oco in order to go beyond what the president has requested for national defense

and oco is defined as global war on terrorism. of that 94 billion for oco 20.5 billion is something called a reserve which we may or may not ever see so it might be 77 odd billion to send oco opposed to the 94 bits in these graphs were rough total of 617 billion. my question is kind of a can to a congressman fleming was acting. does it make any difference to the department of defense if the money comes to the department of defense via the base versus overseas contingency operations? how does that affect your ability to do it need to be done? >> i think i addressed that earlier when i said for the army receiving relief there are end strength provisions above 450 provides $4.2 billion in one year relief.

i'm trying to explain. >> i've only got a minute and 10 seconds left to so let me move onto something more specific. look tauro combat ships that are being built in the state of alabama, secretary mabus cannot be built out of oco funds? >> i don't believe that under the current fund we can do new construction. >> it's not as good as base money in that instance. is that a fair statement? can you do missile defense out of oco money general odierno do you now? >> as far as i know we are not able to do that. depends for right now we don't have the flexibility periods about flexibility and the oco budget. we don't know how it's defined so it's difficult to answer. >> is it fair to conclude as i'm looking at the proposed house budget that's a whole lot better for the money to be in base as opposed to oco and to the

extended send oco does have some adverse affect on our our national security capabilities. would you agree with that secretary mchugh? >> yes sir, i did early. it presents challenges. >> secretary mabus? >> s. i would. >> secretary james? >> s.. >> does anyone have any idea how much our national security would be if it's in oco supposed to base? >> the worst of all is that we don't get this fixed or some mechanism. c thank you maam, thank you mr. chairman. >> ms. duckworth. >> think you should chairman. secretary mabus i was happily surprised to see you devote so much time to power and energy issues in your written testimony. your comment about fuel -- energy used as a fuel struck out to me. in 2003 and 2007 dod put up numbers that said 80% of all supply trucks on the road in

iraq and afghanistan work conveying fuel. over 3000 americans and contractors were killed in fuel supply convoys. every time we talk about energy initiatives within dod somehow what gets lost in the conversation or the national security implications of what you and other services are trying to do. it's not just about going green for trying to achieve some larger environment to go. it's about developing technologies that will lighten the loads of our soldiers and marines and allow a platoon of soldiers and marines to push further to bring the fight to enemy territory because they are not dependent on huge logistical logistical. also range endurance in time on station for vehicles and airplanes. it's about being able to protect greater and more lethal power. anything that enables us to do that i'm all for and i think it should be embraced. mr. secretary can you outline

some of the initiatives the navy is undertaking specifically touching on what they are helping the navy to do an in tactical and strategic terms? >> thank you so much and i couldn't be more articulate than you just were on that but some of the specific things that we are doing and energy efficiency we are doing a everything from hull coatings to changing lightbulbs to doing voids planning to putting electric drives on some of our larger ships or slower speeds to building an all electric ship. the marines as always are leading the way here and your statistics about we were losing a marine killed or wounded in afghanistan for every 15 fuel trucks that were brought in, that's just too high a price to pay. we have seal teams now in the field that are pretty much netzero in terms of energy. they make their energy where

they are and they make their water where they are. for a marine company by using solar power to power radios, gps gps' they save 700 pounds of batteries per company and they don't have to be resupplied with that. and i larger more strategic scale the ability to use fuel as a weapon and the volatility of fuel prices that go up dramatically and down dramatically create immense problems for us in terms of being able to pay for that fuel and being able to plan for how much that fuel is and we are moving to non-fossil fuel sources to provide some competition in the fuel market but also to smooth out that volatility and to create american jobs and have a homegrown source of fuel. >> thank you. senator mchugh can you talk about the initiatives?

if you have an lsa that could produce its own fuel and pacing keep a convoy or two of soldiers out there running fuel for the generators that run air conditioners that would be a good thing. can you talk about the army initiatives? >> thank you very much congresswoman and as is being discussed before this committee but in the past it is as you accurately put a matter of soldiers lives and particularly true with respect to our operational energy programs. we conduct constricted our energy utilization by 17% in recent years. the frustrating thing is the cost of that energy nonetheless continues to rise. but having said that we think we have a responsibility to our soldiers as lightening your load. like her our friends in the marine corps we have reduced weight and the necessary

equipment for battery usage. we have solar blankets that can be used in just about any climate to charge various radios, to charge our battery supplies. significantly lessening the load and we have also through the use of more efficient engines caused the need to resupply for fuel brought forward much less demanding, much fewer occasions. again to the strategic aspects of this as secretary mavis said this is a matter of esb environment but it's also saving dollars and i would be happy to provide you additional information on how we have done that back home. >> i would appreciate that. thank you mr. chairman. >> mr. nguyan. >> thank you mr. chairman i appreciate this panel being here today. it's always good to see all of you. appreciate your service but this

question is directed to secretary james. it's in reference to the champ system. come restricted air force to develop the champ system on a cruise missile on the fy14 and added $10 million to the fy16 on the misappropriations to build the system. the capability of cocom has asked for, as this committee for and right now it is a cost-effective way and you talk about affordability obviously and we are looking to save money in areas where we can but it's very cost-effective for us than then very expensive for adversaries to try to defeat. america is leading the world in technology at the moment but nations are catching up at a time when we really don't need that and we certainly shouldn't delay deployment of this particular weapon system. despite the obvious benefits and the low-cost timeliness of the

closing of the technology gap and authorization appropriation outright encouragement by this congress and i was briefed earlier this year that the air force is not fully committed to building champ by 2016. this is not a limitation on technology, authority or funding so please tell this committee and myself if there is any reason to air force can't deliver champ in 2016? >> mr. nugent i'm going to yield to the cheap because i've met i don't know great deal about this program but it's one i'm going to look into more based on your bringing this to her attention but i will yield to the chief on this. [inaudible] to look at a new way of moving this.

thank you. if using this weapon on a platform that is actually going to be operational. the second thing not to do is maturation of the technology. he wanted to be more efficient. we wanted to be more effective and more survivable so that's the near-term focus. we want to produce a family of electromagnetic weapons of the idea of walking away from the concept is simply not true. one of the problems we have had that is made is inefficient in getting started on this program and this is me offering opinion to you sir we have built were for capabilities and to separate portfolios so what are e-5 data on air staff is in recognizing this problem several months ago he directed across functional study to bring our electronic warfare folks in our weapons boosters together which is where champs has to work and asked to give him a study on the future of the weapons approach.

it's due this summer so we will be informed of summer on this but to your specific question do we plan to produce this weapon by fy16 no sir. >> was amazing to me general with all due respect is that the system has been tested and works on the current system that we have, the cruise missile and we have some inventory because we had because of the imf treaty and it works. there are also increased capability of the system. obviously they are not in a classified setting to talk about that increase to it but the cocom's have indicated to get it out in the field today is better than while yes it would be great to have a usable platform the future and i think the air force should continue on that venture but to get it out into the field in a relatively short period of time at a relatively low cost by

using an existing platform, it's a stopgap. it's something you fit in knowing full well that the long-term goal is you need to have long-term approach but today it would give the warfighters, the navy and the army and those that will need that capability right now and right now i mean in terms of within a year or two versus 10 years out in development. >> congressman munitions in general are a major issue for us right now. the funding are prioritizing precision weapons we have used in the past 15 years and our stocks ever pleaded markedly. i would love to have the folks on my staff come and sit and talk to you and get your view of this problem and how you see the future for it and then sit and tell you exactly where we are in this study effort. would that be fair? >> that would be fair. thank you.

>> mr. brown. >> thank you mr. chairman. my questions they are directed to secretary mabus and admiral howard. i have appreciated the time you spend in my district. your remarks on the christening of the montgomery were just fabulous. thank you. secretary mabus what are the likely impacts to the full combat ship program of slowing or breaking production for fiscal year 16, 17 and 18 as we develop upgrades for fy19? >> there are and full cereal production now. we have driven the cost down because of that from a beginning cost for a hole of about $800 million and now the ones coming off the line are about $350 million. if you break that serial production if you break that

block by you number one blues some very skilled craftsmen. it's very hard to get that back. the industrial base impacts are enormous. number two you and the economies of scale that we have now. and the ability to do these ships one after the other. number three, after the small surface combatant task force looked at how to make the ships more lethal, more survivable, we came up with a package after an exhaustive look at every possible type of ship, every possible type of upgrade that for about $75 million per ship is going to be far more lethal and far more survivable and you can fit it onto this whole. but to keep those dollars go through the costs and upgrade

costs in those bounds at all you have to keep the serial production going. you have a production break, you are going to be looking in the first of the ship class far more expensive. you're going to be looking at job training that you will have to do because you will have lost so many these tradesmen. it would be not only for the lcs and the frigate that will be the same ship just upgraded, i cannot overemphasize how devastating it would be too great production for economic reasons because you are going to end up getting fewer ships at a much higher cost. so any economies that might think you were getting would just disappear. i think i use the term it's a bizarre way to approach shipbuilding.

>> there's also warfighting and operations but when you slow down the billing of the ships we are building the ships to replace our countermeasure capability. they will replace the frigates and the last of our frigates are being decommissioned this year. that the ship right now coupled with the fire scout tremendous isr capability potential she is going to bring flexibility and agility to our mission sets in the longer we set up that gap is the frigates go away the less we can offer to the cocom's needs. cnet finally congresswoman we have a need demonstrated need for 52 of these small surface combatants. we will not get there under the current budget under the current build plan until 2028. we will be low in terms of these for the next more than a decade. >> and some comment about the fact that we have this redesign

coming from the task force and looked at it. is that par for the course that we change ships as when to stand the circumstances that brought back for example both are ddg's and virginia class ever and we have had to make redesign changes learning things in the new circumstances out there so is it any different with regard to the redesign of the lcs to become a frigate or is it just are responding to them their second -- new circumstances we discovered? >> you are quite right that is the essence of modernization for our services and for capital ships that certainly takes an amount of time. the genius of lcs was to create the mission packages, the weapon system separate from the platform so we could more quickly adjust to emerging threats. >> i just want to thank you both because i know how hard you have worked for the fleet in general

but my particular concern has been the lcs and i appreciate your leadership on that. you will have the continued support of this congressman and i yield back. >> ms. stefanik. >> thank you mr. chairman thank you to all the witnesses here today. i want to direct my question to secretary mchugh. and recently a senate hearing you said because sequestration army will reduce its end strength to unconscionable levels by 2019 likely losing another six brigade combat teams and potentially at division headquarters along with associated effects to support infrastructure. as you know very well for drum is home to the tenth mountain division which i'm provision represented near for so many years represent with great honor and an exceptional record. it's extremely unique in terms of its training capabilities power projection and regional location in order to support our armed forces. this installation has already experienced these devastating cuts first-hand. with the deactivation of one of its brigades dilapidated world

war ii era buildings still being used in the potential loss of 16,000 soldier and civilian jobs due to another round of sequestration in the bca? these cuts as you know would have a huge economic impact on new york and the northeast as a whole. for drum is a training hub for all service branches and houses the army's most deployed division since 1990. because of the potential cuts to training facilities and troop count due to sequestration would he be able to give us your thoughts on how these cuts to fort drum and other installations like it would impact the army's current and future missions overseas? >> thank you congresswoman and best wishes. representing a place i obviously think is very special. as i said in my opening comments to reality of sequestration is simply this. virtually every post, every camp, every station every program that the army conducts

will see significant reductions. mathematically it's inescapable. and that includes fort drum. we are blessed as an army to have a great plethora if you will of amazing bases in places like the north country in your district support and provide a credibly effective training ground and a very welcoming home. but what we are faced with as all of us have said here today are the realities of the numbers that the budget would provide and 420,000 as you know we are currently looking at possible reductions for our major military installations of up to 16,000. so that is in play. i think there is an irony here.

i went through three base closure rounds and i understand how painful they are. i lost a base in plattsburgh new york thanks to the great efforts of that community. that part of the world came back but it wasn't easy and it took a lot of hard work so i recognized and fully understand the hesitancy of many members. but here's the reality. without support supportive base closure round wherefores rather than to take excess infrastructure where we believe it exists and spread these cuts almost innate peanut butter kind of fashion across all bases cross all installations and it's not just a matter of end strength. it's to the point that you made our ability or inability really to keep up the facilities that our are soldiers and families rely upon and call home.

this is a very dangerous spiral which we find ourselves. while ultimately as a military we are most concerned with leading the nation's defense needs. sequestration is a cheap and i both testified we feel we can't meet the defense strategic guidance but it's also a question of the inability of seaquest -- sequestration levels of providing a good home and adequate training facilities like we currently enjoy in places such as for drum. >> i agree with your concerns about sequestration. i have been a strong voice against the seaquest are in terms of the long-term impact on our readiness and it puts our troops lives at risk. so thank you very much for your service. both to the north country but to this country. thanks. >> thank you for yours.

>> ms. mcsally. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you for your testimony. spent a long day but appreciate your patience. general odierno i would like to ask you you have set said in the past quote our soldiers are confident in the a-10. is that still true, just yes or no. i have a lot of questions here. >> very competent. >> you. >> you have also said quote your soldiers per for the a-10. is that still true yes or no? >> it depends on environment. >> you also said the a-10 is the best close air support we have today. you still believe that to be true? >> in iran and afghanistan. that don't give a shout-out to the a-10 units that are played fighting against vices and the 34th squadron that i commanded to assure and train our allies with the russians increased aggressions. secretary danes given general odierno statements he reaffirmed his decision to mop of the a-10 a budget based decision only?

>> it's driven by the budget. >> just by the budget so if you have more money you would keep the a-10 in the amatory? >> i would, yes. >> i think your budget request is about $10 billion over the sequester number? >> 10 billion i would have to add that we would need dollars above the president's budget. >> so how much more money would you need above the president's budget request in order to not mothball any a-10's? >> i think the one your cost would be on the order of between four and 500 million but please love me check that to be sure. if you look over the five-year period of time it's closer to $4 billion. >> i have heard you say 4.2 billion but for next year would you guys get back to me on what the cost would be. i'm assuming there maybe other unfunded requests above that or if we are able to get to four or 500 million would you you keep a-10 and the amatory? how much more money do you need to keep the a-10?

>> we would have to look at it because it's beyond the a-10. it's manpower for new airplanes so it's not just the cost of the a-10 but the a-10 cause 4.25244 million -- >> announce an discussion last year and this is a very important one because we are talking men and women on the ground under fire in harm's way and making sure they have the based -- best capability especially in close proximity with enemies where they need long survivability and that is where they a-10 brings the best capability. this is really important. i known the past there has been a discussion that you said the a-10 is old, the a-10 is aging and meet new capabilities but i know senate testimony highlighted their youngest b-52 is 53 years old and you would like to keep the amatory until 2040 which by my math their youngest b-52 would be 78 years old in 2040 so you are keeping an aging airplane that certainly can't survive in the high air

defense environment. we have heard the argument in the past of the a-10 is old. we have invested over a billion dollars in a two rebuild its wings and its avionics and capabilities. so those two things seem to be contradictory. so i just wanted to comment on that. >> we don't have the b-52 in amatory by choice. the b-2 was supposed to replace a large part of athlete that it stopped. we need 80 to 100 bombers in the same thing as same thing is to be a tempe would want the a-10 to be flying its mission when it's 50 60 or 70 or so. it's not fair to the sons and daughters of america. >> the b-52 so fine because you don't have the capability to replace it but the a-10 is being asked to be mothball but we don't have the capability to replace it even though it can fly until 2028 or 2030? >> the a-10 is then retired because of budget control. >> you have the other aircraft

that can cover the mission. say i'm not under the circumstances but i mention. their unique circumstances which only the a-10 can save lives. would you not agree with that? >> i do not agree with that but i think your circumstances where you prefer to have an a-10. we have placed ourselves in that with every option available. >> if we had the funds with the current wings rebuilding of the a1-c is a 2028 until a need to be retired? right now the plan is to replace the a-10 eventually with the f-35, is that true? >> true? >> f-35 will be the high threat cast for the future. >> so the a-10 will be replaced by the f-35? >> f-35 will replace the f-16 eventually. it will augment that with the b1 scenario and allows us to the

b-52 in a c-130 and we will eventually have the f-35 is the high-end. >> my time has expired. i don't believe the f-35 replaces the a-10 and the capabilities of brings to the fight for general odierno strips to make sure they would defend another tank at home to their troops. i love the f-35 but it doesn't have the same capabilities. >> the a-10 cannot go into high threat environment and beneath that. cnet absolutely we need all of those capabilities. >> i appreciate the discussion. >> we are going to do this outside. >> thank you all for your patience. i think we will have a couple more. mr. jones. >> mr. chairman thank you very much and really appreciate your service, your leadership and the appointees by the administration as well as the service chiefs here today. i think of nothing else comes from your financial stress, the stress to our military is the fact that we are going to have

to start having different debates on the foreign-policy that you have nothing directly to do with. i looked at this week and i heard mr. rogers and i want to bring up something very quickly. and i would ask a very simple question that you might or might not be able to answer. these are articles this past week between casualties and desertion of afghan military shrinking fast. ..

hello you cannot sell the heard gen. walsh: i agree with you. we haven't we haven't done much to help with the infrastructure. we can build the infrastructure of america. yet we spend billions of dollars in afghanistan to build its infrastructure. that that is the contradiction that is present in the problem with this debate about whether we have sequestration are we don't have sequestration. i asked general campbell last week were very impressive army general who oversees the military action

in afghanistan. i was a little bit taken aback by his answer when i asked him to fund nine more years in afghanistan spending roughly 25 to $50 billion year is worthwhile. you get a chance to say, well, i think i think in three years we give them benchmarks. if if they can't reach as benchmarks when we say were out. his answer was fine. in fact i have copies of it he said that his hope is and he believes that this would be this start of central asia. well every history book i've ever read as you not going to change it in a matter what you do.

i want to know in informal settings, do you in the military year today in uniform get that chance once a month or once a week to sit down with general dempsey, take up your ties relax and have a beer or glass of wine always keep and talk about where we're going in this country and how it is impacting our military? to the service chiefs and i have one minute, service chiefs, do you get the same thing with now secretary carter way you get together in a relaxed session and talk about the foreign-policy of america and how our military is falling apart because they are overworked, tired, and the equipment is overworked and tired? do you ever get that opportunity? the military 1st and then one of the service chiefs please. >> maybe with the chairman twice a week monday or

friday me usually at least once every week. we have we have formal briefings, but at the end we have executive session. we discuss all these issues in detail. >> thank you. one of the service chiefs. >> secretary carter is bring together all bringing together all the service chiefs, combatant commanders and service secretaries this friday that have executive discussion your talking about how we best inform the debate on what is best for national security. >> mr. lamborn. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your service to our country's because will be finishing up her hoping to finish up. now, the navy is operationally deployed the law system. he directed energy weapon to

be used against a variety of the the energy has turned the corner and is one of the keys to asymmetrical advantage using a technology for future security. and sure the other branches are as up to date on this is the navy is. is anyone other is anyone other than the navy leaning forward and directed energy? >> we put $5 million out on leisure technology in order to have a competition that will allow us to downsize in such a way that we can easily used uavs, mortars rockets. there is a great application command. to that. it is about getting a small enough and enough directed energy in order to meet our needs and it is essential to our future. we just recently invested in that. >> air force.

>> we, too, have a program. for example i was just out in new mexico air force research laboratory with lasers and directed energy. furthermore energy. furthermore we are testing an aircraft defense system which would have lasers involved in the laser communication system. we have quite an active program as well. >> that is good to here. they are doing wonderful work. on missile defense on missile defense and concerned that some of the services may not be taking missile defense capability as seriously as i think we have to. for example the navy is cutting -- he thought i would let you off the hook. cutting missile-defense capable ships with budget. each of used committed to missile defense? >> absolutely. we cut the modernization to hear you -- ballistic

missiles defense capable. we get a purely as a budgetary thing. one of the arduous is yet to make. we need a certain number of ballistic missile defense capable ships. we can meet most of the requirements today. we we have for that will be permanently home ported to take the place of about 16 16 make your because they are permanently home ported. we are continuing to modernize the system on our cruisers and destroyers but not as fast as we would like to collect it is all because of the budget situation. >> would anyone else like to? >> i can add obviously the only was all in with respect to missile-defense.

it is one of if not the most high demand low density assets that we have. she she spoke earlier today about the incredible amount of the climates. it will be less than honest if we said that we know already had challenges today a patriot modernization program although continuous progress white received 92 missiles as an idea we've

seen that command only increasing. >> and air force. >> the air force is heavily involved in commanding control. we have an awful lot of people who are involved in the collection analysis, and distribution against indications in the morning. missile-defense missile-defense and one of the four pillars missile-defense is offense of operations.

>> washington journal" continues. host: after two days of scrutiny of secret service by lawmakers on capitol hill, we welcome to our desk and expert, author, and former investigative reporter, ron kessler. mr. kessler these allegations of aged misconduct stemming from the secret service alleged drinking and driving incident. this as director joseph clancy's first big test. how do think he did in those hearings this week? guest: you know, he came across as pathetic. he had all the wrong responses. he started claiming that there

was a culture of drinking in the secret service. there isn't. in this case, they went to a party. they should not have gotten into a government car. they should not have gotten into the compound. that is not common among the agent. the agent overall are brave and dedicated. the problem is the culture within the management. the management has this attitude of covering up, of laxness, of corner cutting. and agents who report problems or threats are punished. our retaliated against. and in turn, those who pretend that everything is fine are promoted into management. as one example of the culture of fear, when gunshots were fired at the white house in 2011, a uniformed officer reported that. but then her supervisor said no, it is just a construction site noise. she said later she was afraid to pursue that because she feared that should be criticized by management. that is the culture.

clancy represents that culture. he is from within management. you saw that when he testified a few months ago on the hill. on the house side about the fact that the secret service issued a statement when groans i'll is, the intruder got into the white house. host: the fence number. guest: the fence jumper. the secret service said at the time that he was apprehended at the door and he was not armed. that was a total lie. they knew very well that he penetrated the white house and that he was armed. plenty was asked, is anybody going to be held accountable issuing those lies? and he said, no, those were not lies. that he was asked, how do in error? he admitted that he didn't even know how this arose. so that is the culture that is leading to all these coverups. host: clancy saying, not that nobody is going to held

accountable for this latest incident, but that the investigation is ongoing to what exactly happened there. some pushback from him especially yesterday in that senate hearing, about the reporting of a gatecrashing was exaggerated. that it was a cone. what we know about the facts of that incident from march 4? and when will this investigation that he is having conducted be completed. guest: the "washington post" has had it exactly accurate. host: an organization used to work at. guest: that is right. not always right, but in this case, they are. these two high-ranking supervisors went to a retirement party, presumably jake. when a to this compound -- the white house compound in the middle of a crime investigation did there was a suspicious package that had been thrown in.

they thought it was a bomb. they drove their car into this area. and hit a barricade. you know, clancy is making a big deal out of, well, some media organizations -- not the "washington post" but others -- said it crashed into the barricade. so what? it is a minor discrepancy. he should be focused on fixing the agency, not whether the media got something a little bit wrong. host: the agents taking and cut hena -- in cartagena was a story you broke before you were a full-time author writing about these issues. that was april 20 sell -- april 2012. we are all most three years later, intriguing among agents continue to happen. -- and drinking among agents continue to happen. why hasn't that changed? guest: and going back five years, you have the party crashers at the state and her. that was also part of the systemic problems because agents

and officers feel that they will not be backed by management if they turned someone away. it turned out that these glamorous people shouldn't have been on the guest list. they turned them away. and they feel that they will not be backed by management. the answer to your question is one person is responsible for all of this. and that is barack obama because every time one of these things happened -- happens, he says he has for confidence in the secret service. he should have replaced the director at the time when they did their intrusion, along with the third intruder. another story i broke. and brought someone in from the outside. that is what this panel of four really highly respected individuals recommended. it was his own panel recommending they bring in some of from the outside will not be part of this culture. who will shake things up. who will not be beholden to interest with him.

for example, one of these supervisors who was involved in this incident is a longtime colleague of clancy that had been on the presidential detail together. and clancy, you know, really has no idea, as far as i can tell, of what needs to be done. host: just one of the statements from the white house this week, backing up agency management and showing their competence in -- confident in planted. here is white house spokesman john ernest. [video clip] >> he is someone who has a sterling reputation inside the secret service, but also outside. he has had a very high -- for himself. that positions him well to serve as a leader for that organization and to the boom in some of those changes that he has a knowledge are badly needed. host: can you talk a little bit

about director clancy's background, for those who are less familiar with him and his history? guest: well, he had been an agent for a most 30 years. and he became head of barack obama's protection detail. that is when barack obama, you know developed trust in him and understand, of course, that he felt -- that obama felt positive towards him because he protected him. that doesn't mean that he knows how to manage the agency. clancy has put out the word that he removed some top managers who are part of this whole culture. host: a very high profile time right around the end of last year when it happened. guest: in fact, the real story is that he replaced them with -- with managers who have the same culture. one of those i have interviewed for one of my two secret service books. and he made her system -- assistant director.

i have never, never come across anybody more pathetic in a position of responsibility. literally. she shouldn't have been in charge of a drugstore. i have done books on the fbi the cia, and the secret service. and i was just appalled. she was so afraid to say anything to me. -- had to answer most of the questions. what can of the manager is that's? -- is that? you cannot imagine how screwed up this agency is. all of these incidents are not accidents. when clancy was appointed by obama, i did an op-ed saying obama guarantees more secret service problems. and that is what has happened. host: the two books you have done on this the first family detail in the resident secret service. to some of the 20 nonfiction books about the secret service. that you have written.

ron kessler is with us to talk about the committee hearings this week, and the latest incident at the secret service. the phone lines are open. joe is up first. new york. joe is an independent. joe, good morning to you. caller: good morning. i am very confused. i have been aggravated about the story that happened, i don't know, a year or so ago. a woman was -- and she got confused and bumped into a gate near the white house. and she made a u-turn and went the wrong way. she was chased down the c -- street. it was live on television. we see the secret service and the washington police shooting at her car. she was shot dead. the time i turn on the 6:00 news, the story had vanished. i am indicting that only the secret service, but the news media for not following up on the story. how closely they come to killing her child? if it is a cup to run into a

gate of the white house, how come these two secret service agents were not shot? guest: this woman, you know, had mental problems. she would failing into the barricades at the white house. at a high rate of speed. and then continued towards the capital and 80 miles per hour. agents feared that she would be -- she had possible explosives and the simple he couldn't take a chance. she was using lethal force mainly -- namely her vehicle to cause a threat to the white house and to the capital. that was followed up on, but you know, it is unfortunate when people resist arrest or threaten something as sensitive as the white house. you know, we don't want another assassination. and that is what is involved here. they tell me because of the quarter cutting -- quarter

cutting, it is a miracle that there has not already been an assassination. that is a real danger. host: you talk to these agents a lot. how would you respond to admire -- anne myer on twitter who says i think it is a lack -- it is a moral issue due to lack of respect for the documents of the white house. guest: these agents are brave and dedicated. they would take a bullet for the present. even for the repentant. let me tell you, in the book, i go into detail on what these people are like behind the scenes. hillary is so abusive to agents. being assigned to her detail is being considered a form of punishment. host: what are some examples from your book? guest: she would just fly into a rage over nothing. criticize agent, even if the limo goes over a bump. it is just a nightmare working with her. and yet, yes, they will take a bullet for her. on the other hand, barack obama

and michelle are very considerate of agents. this is a nonpartisan book. so that tells you something about character. character is reported when it comes to -- you know -- hiring someone, choosing a friend. you never hire someone who treats people so badly. and, of course, when choosing the president. instead, voters focus on how they smile on tv, how they promise, as opposed to what they should be looking at which is victor and track record. host: phoenix, arizona. the light for republicans. tom, good morning. caller: good morning. i have a question about the incident with a guy jumped the fence and ran into the white house. he got inside, came in contact with the first secret service agent. and from what i understand from the reporting, that agent was basically tossed aside. party may? host: that he was tossed what?

tossed aside? caller: tossed aside. and they continued on into the white house. when they came in contact with the second agent, that is when they were subdued to i am curious -- subdued. were they fired or were they promoted? guest: no action has been taken so far as i know at this point. and that is a problem. in the case of the intrusion there was just a series of screwup's, which to illustrate the laxness and corner cutting beginning with the feds which is only seven and a half feet high. it doesn't have a curvature at the top, which would make it difficult to jump. it has a horizontal bar at the bottom, which makes it easier to scale. that is an example of secret service laxness. and then what's this individual got in, the walkie-talkies -- no

one could hear anything. they were talking over each other. the acoustics were terrible. and then you have a uniformed officer with a k-9 unit -- one of whom i interviewed for one of my books -- and he was on a cell phone talking on a personal call. obviously, he should have been probably fired. but at the same time, i think that is reflective of the fact that management cuts corners. so he figured, i can do whatever i want. the same as the agent to hire prostitute. host: amid all this, the secret service requesting a $1.9 billion budget. that is an 18% increase. do you think they needed to go and that they can spend that -- need it? and they can spend the money wisely? guest: they definitely need it. that includes money for the new campaign which means protecting all these different candidates but also $80 million for

upgrades to the white house security, for example, and training. the secret service has this attitude, as part of this terrible culture of we make do with less. so they haven't been spending money where they should to keep things at the right level. as opposed to the fbi, which has increased its budget immensely. hey, the result is we have not had a successful terrorist attack since 9/11 because the fbi does have a good culture would never tolerate this kind of cover-up. i have proposed in my op ads appointing a former high-ranking fbi official to run the secret service. but, of course, obama went with an insider. host: i want to get your specific thoughts on the $8 million that is in their to create a replica of the white house for agents to turn on. is that needed? guest: oh, yeah. that is long overdue. the fbi and the military do it all the time.

they have these fake towns where armrests -- arrests are made. if they don't have the white house itself, they are really spinning their wheels. host: oceanside, california. the line for independents. kelly, good morning. caller: good morning. i do think that the blue line is going to always protect the blue line regardless of who is in office and what is going on. that is pretty much my statement. as far as protecting the border of the white house to prevent people from jumping the fence, i have been at junkyards or whatever, and they have electric fences at the top of those places. so if they can protect a junkyard with an electric fence they should be able to protect the white house. host: before we let you go, you said that bringing in somebody from the fbi to -- isn't going

to make much of a difference here in your opinion? caller: i think it needs to be an appointed position. something that is appointed from outside of law enforcement. host: ron kessler. guest: to say that the blue -- what is it, the blueline? that is just prejudice. that is like saying all blacks are criminals. or all jews are whatever. you know, to just have a blanket statement like that about people who risk their lives to protect is really reprehensible, in my opinion. host: stephen is up next. texas. life for republicans. stephen, good morning. caller: yes, sir. i am just trying to figure out -- i did not book for him, but nobody should be put in the position they are put in. but he did choose the secret service man to cover him, protect him.

however the way it works. [indiscernible] outside sourcing, as far as navy seals if secret service can't do it. why can't they all work together? i have a lot of respect for the secret service but i cannot understand why they throw secret service under the bus. i mean, everybody is stressed. the secret service is on 24/7. host: ron kessler. guest: as i said, there has never been an assassination. and that is how important it is to fix the secret service. really, in assassination nullifies democracy. i lived through the jfk assassination. and i cried for days. it was a terrible blow for the

country. that is what is involved here. when it comes to who should run -- and outsider, such as a former fbi person, i think is better than a military person because former fbi alreadyare a lot spent. a military prison would be an improvement over clancy, but you know, there will be a very steep learning curve. host: the caller brings up the call -- alcohol issue. your thoughts on director clancy talking about agent using this as a coping mechanism and how they need to be helped? guest: i think those part of clancy's cover up. trying to blame everything on stress and having thinking problems. you know, every organization has some people who engage in excessive drinking it these agents, you know, when to a retirement party.

they drink the way all of us do. but then the problem is they got into a government vehicle, when into the compound, they were belligerent. essentially disrupting a crime scene. so it goes far beyond drinking. and by claiming that there is a cultural problem involving drinking, clancy is diverging attention from what he should be focusing on, which is this corner cutting culture. and the fact that it took five days before he even learned of this incident did to an anonymous -- incident through an analysis -- and anonymous incident. that shows the cover-up mentality continues. that agents are afraid to report problems. and, you know, this hearing seems to be predicated on the idea that clancy has just taken over. that is not true. he has been acting director since october. on day one, he should have taken action to make sure it is very clear that anybody who does not

report problems or bad news or threats is going to be removed. it doesn't mean they have to be fired necessarily, but certainly removed. but he didn't do that. what he did was he imported these -- he imported -- appointed host: these new people at the top. the house appropriations hearing on this, congressman chris do it was on the open -- "washington journal" earlier this week. here is a bit of their exchange. [video clip] >> when you say i had to set the example, dude, you don't have to in their trust. you are their boss. they are supposed to earn your trust. and heaven and your trust. and the way to earn your trust as you hold it -- them accountable. and then the others who aren't of their drying -- driving through barricades and link drunk in hotel corridors and overseas locations, those guys know that they are going to be held accountable.

so, i made, i have gone on for a while and i am not reading you i'm parading this culture that has been fostered there. if you like to respond, please do. >> thank you, sir. we have had incidents, obviously, in the past. and previous directors have -- after due process -- have moved these people off jobs. they are gone. cartagen isa an example, where i believe we lost 10 people. they were terminated to there is an indication that -- or there is a history where we will discipline people. but again, i cannot do this on day one. i am frustrated that the agency is taking this, and rightfully so, but i have to allow this due process to take place. and then that will be our first test. our first indication of are we serious about owning people accountable.

maybe this -- it is as bad as it is to say this, maybe it is good that it happened early in my tenure so we can tell the tone as we move forward. host: we want to get asked -- back to chris's for his it's there that the agents themselves do not trust director clancy. do you think that is true? guest: yeah, and the fact that it took him five days to tell them what happened shows the culture of retaliation against anybody who reports a problem. you know clarity -- clancy's response is because. he mentioned cartagena. in the case of that, with hiring prostitutes, the secret service put those agents who were not high-ranking, the way these were, on administrative leave. that meant there guns were taken way, the badges, their credentials.

they were not allowed access to secret service buildings. their vehicles were taken away. where in this case, you have high-ranking -- host: was that at the direction of the former director? guest: mark sullivan, yeah. whereas in this case, what if clancy do with these high-ranking people? one of them he was on detail with for years. he did not put them on administrative leave. rather, he puts them in other positions -- he put them and other positions where there are not involved in operations, but they still have their gun scum of their weapons, their credentials, their vehicles. so that is the double standard that he -- he says this is his first test. i say he fails -- failed his first test. host: carolyn on the life of democrats. carolyn, good morning. caller: good morning. they said unless there was an incident 72 hours later, they eliminate the case.

well, what more incident then someone throwing a package over the -- into the driveway and saying it is a bomb? that has to be an incident. and we are investigating the secret service instead of this woman who threw the bomb over. and they said they have her license number, and they don't even explain her background. where she is from, who issued. host: at to be clear, that package was not a bomb. it turned out to be a book wrapped in a shirt or something to that effect. guest: yet. on the one hand, if it is true that the states are erased after 72 hours, it is another indication of the ridiculous corner cutting by the secret service. not spending the money to upgrade to secure the cameras that the rest of the world uses. on the other hand, -- host: host: and are the actual tapes? guest: they are, you know,

videotapes. which i am not surprised about because, you know, everything in the secret service is so decrepit -- going back to the intrusion by gonzales, an alarm that was supposed to indicate that there was somebody trying to get into the white house. by the way, they didn't even lock the front door. kept going off repeatedly giving false alarms. so the white house asked if they would turn it off, and they did. the secret service turned it off. can you imagine a bank manager turning off the alarms in a bank? everywhere you look, it is just a mess. unbelievable. host: brookhaven, pennsylvania. ken is on a line for independents. good morning ken. caller: how are you doing? host: good. turn your tv down and talk to us through the phone. caller: ok, i will turn the tv

down a little bit. my question is -- the to secret service men who were accused -- two secret service men who were accused of driving drunk and running into a barrel, ok? i understand that. why have not the drivers of a car been busted for to you i -- for dui., serving for six months or more, and losing their license and all that? host: it brings up the question of whether a sobriety test was administered at the time. and the question surrounding the decision by a high-ranking officer not to do that. guest: right. officers wanted to arrest the two agents and give them a sobriety test, but according to the "washington post," which is very accurate, a high-ranking supervisor overruled them and

said, no, just let them go home. another example of covering up. absolutely egregious. and with the -- the incident involving agents going in, it is -- you know, on top of all that, why did the woman who had the suspicious package getaway? and was there -- was that in part because officers were so preoccupied with these agents who were disrupting things? you know, there are so many questions and so much suspicious activity surrounding this. and clancy's responses are so egregious that i think there should be an fbi investigation into what happened, given the fact that the grid have been obstruction of justice by the officers who said don't arrest them. given the fact that there is a raised -- erased tapes.

host: so who is following up on those questions that you are asking echo is congress -- asking? is congress going to hold more hearings down the road? guest: congress is investigating. they are doing a very good job. in addition, clancy gave to the inspector general of the dhs the apartment of home executed to investigate. but they don't have the same powers the fbi has. and i think, absolutely, an fbi investigation is called for here. host: fort pierce, florida. bill is on our line for democrats. bill, good morning. caller: good morning. my question involves, being an organization that has been around for a while, generally these problems don't pop up from nowhere. how, in your opinion, how far back to these problems go check of -- do they proceed -- problems go? do they proceed the obama administration?

guest: they do. they started in 2003 when the department of homeland security took over the secret service. it is hard to really explain how it happened, but dhs had been more political. in addition, the leader was not the right leader. mark sullivan has the same attitude. i interviewed him for one of these books, and he has an attitude of we make do with less. and turnover is bad. but look at iraq. look at the soldiers we sent to iraq. they had to sleep on the floor. how can you compare a secret service agent who can make tremendous amount in the private sector with some young guy in the army? that is the cultural attitude, again, that is just a mess. and mark sullivan diverted agents rum protecting the president -- from protecting the president to protecting his own

assistance in southern maryland. the secret service has no legal authority to protect its own of -- agents number one. and number two, admits the present was unprotected, including when he lifted off in marine one. one of the functions is to look for snipers as the helicopter takes off good and what did clancy say when he was asked about that at the hearing on the hill? he was asked, you know, what you think of this? and he said that did subtract from the security of the present. how could somebody, anybody, say something like that? host: do you think the wider public is watching the secret service here and is concerned about this? here is a treat this morning, no one cares. move on to an important subject. guest: i think people do care. first of all, they are

fascinated by the secret service to begin with. they are silly fascinated by what our leaders are like in my book. in addition, i think people understand that this is one of our most important agencies. protecting the president. protecting the vice president. they engage in all the corner cutting that come in my book has not hit the press yet. for example, the sicker service under pressure from white house staff, both under bush and obama, and other campaign staff, letting people into events without screening. it is just like letting passengers into an airplane without metal detection screening. again, the secret service what spend that money for enough screens -- screeners come and the political people said, we have to let them in. we do want to offend all these possible voters. sure enough, the managers, again, that the agent, but the managers ordered the agents to let them in.

you can have terrorists go in with grenades and take out the president or the vice president. that alone is a scandal. no, nobody -- obama keeps saying he has confident in the secret service. and continues to defend these directors. host: another bill from virginia beach, virginia. a republican. bill, good morning. caller: hi, good morning. i am calling -- i guess i have some really sympathetic feelings towards the members of the secret service. primarily because they have to deal with personalities and politics to the point that they have to stay perfectly neutral. i would think that the average person would never qualify to be a secret service representative. guarding a member of congress or a member of the white house staff. and the president. you made a comment, mr. kessler

a short while ago that some secret service agents might consider being on the staff regarding hillary. my consider that to be a punishment assignment. and i am just wondering -- my concern is that i am wondering if the attitudes of people in politics and -- in some cases could be arrogant? or unforgiving? and possibly taking guest: sure. that is exactly the point. if you don't looking these things, we will suffer. if you look at richard nixon,

before he was engaged in today's ethics controversy -- we got watergate. in the rest of our lives, we look at the elusive character, and we don't deal with people like that. in the case of hillary, she shows arrogance in the way she treats arrogance, in the same way, she decided to put all of her government e-mails on her personal server. incredible erick bennett. that can only be magnified when selling gets into the white house and they amass all of this power. host: you bring up the server issue. she said in that press conference and the u.n., when she was asked about it, that it was at home protected by the secret service. is the secret service qualified to do data protection? guest: no. they are very good at investigating that sort of thing, involving cyber crime financial crimes.

she was referring to the fact that this service protects their house. well, that is not the issue at all. nobody thinks that someone will physically steal the server, or do something to the server. no. it is cyberattacks. she was diverting attention from the real issue in that case. the caller mentioned the pressure, the difficulty of dealing with these people. as one example, and again this -- when dick cheney's daughter was under protection, she would try and convince them to take her to restaurants. they are not taxi drivers. they have specific duties to protect people. they refuse, as they should have. she threw a fate and got her detail leader -- a fit, and got her detail leader change.

the uniformed officers at the white house, saying, we should let them in, even if they are on the guest list. host: a question from twitter what do you expect barack obama to do? trash the secret service that guard him and his family? guest: you bring in an outsider to change the coulter. someone who is not holden. it is not a big deal. it should be a matter of course. obama, is either in denial, or has colossal mismanagement -- and added to that ms. manages things. he doesn't understand management, and other words. it is egregious. i wrote this op ed.

more problems now that he appointed clancy. the first problem happened to we factor clancy assumed directorship, and believe me there will be much more in the future. host: that is in "the washington post" from march 15. keith is up next on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. i just think until the secret service can get their problems worked out, they need to bring in some military ops, or something. something they already have that won't cost any money. transfer them there and let them be several lines of security until they get all this figured out. guest: that certainly would be an improvement as to someone in charge, from the military. look at the former fbi director, he came from a marine background. the previous director would

punish agents who brought him bad news or is agree with them. that's why you had one general after another under him. even a case where he refused to implement polygraphs, which would have the issue some -- have stopped the issue some seven years later. then, another came in and he was having a meeting with the head of intelligence, and she lied about a specific spy case and how to handle it. what did he do? he removed here right away -- removed her right away. that sent a message. when you meet the director, he will not put up with coverups. host: jodi arias -- jody asks

is the department of homeland security the problem? guest: i think switching them back would cause more chaos. what is needed is a strong leader who understand how serious these issues are, how important this job is, who will stand up to anybody to protect the president. that means both standing up to obama and to members of congress who think that the secret service should get more money. that's just penny wise and fullest. the new budget is $1.9 billion per year, roughly the price of one stealth bomber. what could be more important than protecting the president. host: kerry is up next on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: i have been listening for about a half-hour and i think that people out here in

michigan, and in the rural areas, we could care less about what mr. -- the gentleman there on your site is talking about this morning. how did he -- did he cover the hearing yesterday? host: would you like to talk about your expense in the field. d? guest: i have interviewed a number of agents, both former and current. i went out to a training center along with my wife, a former "washington post" reporter. interviewed mark sullivan, a k-9 unit, as i mentioned before, a dog who discovered dynamite in a washer where racks for the

presidential limousine are washed. i've been on this for some time. one of my books led to the sessions over the abuse of director. host: the car totagena story. you are the author of about 20 books on the secret service and cia. mine for independence, matt, good morning. caller: i have read several of your books. i'm a history buff. i want to say that straight up. as the conversation of gun on -- i watch the whole thing -- i've come to realize that the easy way to bring government is -- great government isbreak government

is complicated. the secret service had a wonderful reputation. i have a relative who is an atf agent. very good at his job, highly trained, highly sophisticated. he barely ever drinks. i also have a brother who has taught israelis how to shoot rockets out of the sky. my home security system does not use tapes. nobody ever brings up -- and it is important -- the white house is like a museum. it is historical. there's a reason for that. there is an antiquity act that protects it. if we want to move into the smithsonian, i would agree with that and put up a fence. if we are going to destroy any more of our country, just

remember the white house is an museum. host: how do you protect and working museum? guest: i think there is mythology that somehow improving the security of the white house is going to infringe on some artwork or deny access to the public -- the public to the president. of course the public does not have access. it much more important that we protect the occupant of the white house. this can be done in a fairly unobtrusive way. certainly, beginning with increasing the height of the fence and having curvature, a horizontal bar on the bottom. many things that can be done, many of which were in the report by the four-person panel that president obama ignored when they said he should get an outsider to leave the secret service. -- lead the secret service.

host: the people on the panel where the outsiders? guest: two had served for bush and two for obama. host: in the secret service? guest: no. one was an associate attorney general under obama. another one was joe hagan then pushes deputy chief -- bush's deputy chief of operations. very impressive. i have rarely seen such good public service, in terms of the report they turned in, and the issues that they covered. obama just the door them. host: line for democrats. caller: good morning. my theory is what these gentlemen are trying to do is maneuver obama's people out of position, so they can put their people in. host: does is go with conspiracy

theories, or no? guest: my book is nonpartisan. i cite a number of republicans including mary cheney and how she went to get her agents to take her to restaurants. another item that is very relevant is back when reagan was president, the secret service did not want anyone near him when he left the washington hilton. his own staff, all republicans, obviously, overruled the secret service. they don't in fact have authority, but the secret service caved as they usually do, and said no, let people and to see reagan as he came out of the washington hilton. sure enough, someone was able to get within 15 feet of reagan totally unscreened for weapons, and that is how reagan almost

lost his life, because of his own white house staff. host: kevin is up next. go ahead. caller: the man just asked a question and you turned around and said, is this another conspiracy theory. i would like to ask you real quick, what is the definition of a conspiracy? guest: to say that i am trying to get rid of obama people just has nothing to do with any evidence or the subject. i don't know what that means. we are talking about

rep. carter: today we welcome joe clancy. his first appearance before our subcommittee. director clancy, welcome. thank you for your willingness to serve dhs and our nation. fiscal year 2016 budget of the secret service is $1.9 billion.

an increase of $273 million from fiscal year 2015. this increase is due in large part to the preparations for the upcoming presidential campaign cycle deployment of obama detail, and additional funds based on recommendations of mission panel -- the mission panel that reported out of december on the need for significant reform and service. director, we look forward to the discussion of these increases with you, learning whether you plan to adjust the recommendations today with various reviews of your service that have occurred over the past few months. i want to address an instance that was news last week. according to reports two

senior secret agents arrived at the white house public checkpoint in a government car after allegedly consuming alcohol. have agents proceeded through the checkpoint and drove to the scene of an active investigation. the violation of behavior was not reported to headquarters until days later. for an agency tried to restore its reputation three years after well-publicized scandal, this leaves embarrassment and renewed scrutiny of the secret service. simply put, this conduct should not to be tolerated. congress is disappointed to see it on display again. director, i look forward to hearing your comments. first, i would like to recognize our new distinguished ranking member.

representative: congratulations on your appointment as director. you make efforts to make the secret service the best it can be. the agency has in do it significant criticism over the last several months, indeed over the last few years. unfortunately, most of it has been justified. i would like others on that committee -- i and others on the committee were disappointed with conduct. this time it included senior personnel, a member of the presidents protective detail allegedly after consuming alcohol. perhaps more disturbing, if true, it is an allegation that a supervisor overruled an initial decision by officers on duty to conduct a sobriety test.

i applied your quick notification of the inspector general in this case, but hope you won't wait for the conclusion of the ig investigation to start addressing what went wrong. if the allegations of this conduct are accurate, i worry that they may be indicative of a larger cultural problem at the secret service. we will be discussing that incident this morning. i don't want to overshadow the good work that the vast majority of secret service officers and agents are doing every day. i saw that work firsthand when i visited your los angeles field office last week. i was impressed by the quality of a staff briefing in which u.s.s. personnel were discussing the final security plans for the presidents visit to los angeles the next day. and interest of time, i won't elaborate on everything i saw. i want to have at one program

the los angeles field office is implementing in an impressive way. bell essentials electronic crimes task force. -- the los angeles electronic crimes task force. they are to investigating and deterring cyber crimes. it is a roundtable concept comprised of local, state, and federal law horsemen partners. -- enforcement partners. they shared common strategies. i'm proud to say they were selected out of 80 nominations to receive the 2015 award for excellence in investigations from the peace officers association of the los angeles county. director clancy, we want to help the secret service on behalf of

our country. thank you for joining us this morning. i look forward to discussing your proposed budget for the coming year, as well as your plans to point the secret service in the right direction. rep. carter: now i would like to recognize the chairman of the appropriations committee, mr. rogers for any comments. mr. rogers: thank you for being with us this morning. this constitutes the first hearing of this subcommittee. i'm immensely pleased that we finally managed to pass a full your spending bill for the department to support our men and women on the front lines and bolster critical agencies and fund the joint anti-terrorism and law enforcement efforts on our home turf. unquestionably, your organization is a vital piece of

this. a dual mission of protection and investigation. the investigative component of your charge is essential for the financial infrastructure of the country. your mission is to protect our president, his family, and other dignitaries from a host of potential threats. that requires discipline and dexterity, unparalleled skill and professionalism. unfortunately, service has been beleaguered by a series of embarrassing and on acceptable lapses in security and other missteps. this will not stand. just when we think we have assessed the problems associated with september's white house incident and developed a plan to

close existing gaps in security moving forward, news broke that two agents drove around a security barricade at the home where the president lives during inactive bomb investigation. -- an active bomb investigation drunk. you personally committed to me and others and leveraging your lifetime of service to this organization to restore the service to its once stored reputation. i want to take you up at your word. give you every chance to achieve that goal. incidents like these demonstrate just how far you have got to go. and how short of a time you have got to do it. we will find the adequate funding for your agency. we expect results. your fiscal year budget request

includes 1.9 l.a. and dollars -- 1.9 billion dollars. in addition to the presidential protective service the supports the services network of 42 domestic field offices, 60 resident offices and president agent offices and 24 offices abroad. notably, this request includes a significant increase to accommodate the responsibilities leaving -- leading up to the '16 election and when present obama transitions out of office. $87 million pursuant to the recommendations of the protective mission panel. mr. director, we look forward to hearing how you intend to use this money right the ship,

so the sick or service can focus. thank you for taking on this chore -- so the secret service can focus. thank you for taking on this tour. rep. carter: thank you. now the distinction ranking member of the appropriations committee. representative: thank you very much for holding this important hearing today. welcome, director clancy. thank you for joining us. the secret service has had a long and start history of professionalism. recent incidents have diminished its reputation over the last few years and raised serious questions about its ability to protect the president. clearly we have a lot to discuss. last july through a report accompanying the house funding bill, and this committee

expressly stated that it was "deeply disappointed of recurring allegations and misconduct within the secret service. you withheld a substantial amount of headquarters funding in the fy-15 appropriations bill until new guidelines were submitted. it is hard to believe here we are again. not only were we rocked i the white house fence jumper last september, but now we are confronted by yet another unfortunate incident that appears to entail significant misconduct. on march 4, two intoxicated agents drove a government card through an active investigation. according to news reports, no righty test was administered.

the agents were not arrested. they were allowed to leave the scene. the president's budget request nearly $87 million for protective mission enhancement in the wake of recent secret service missteps. i agree it more resources are necessary for security enhancements. hiring, training, and funding alone won't be enough to solve the secret service problems. this latest episode seems to be more evidence of a cultural issue that has not been adequately addressed by changes in senior management. director clancy, you recently assumed your position, but you have been with agency for an impressive 30 years. we want to work with you to restore the public's confidence in the secret service. we want to support you with the resources that you need, but the responsibility is ultimately

yours. you must provide the leadership and insists on the accountability that is necessary . i look forward to a productive discussion this morning. thank you, mr. chairman. rep. carter: director clancy -- is this on? we recognize you for your opening statement. i will ask you to keep it to five minutes. director clancy: thank you. that morning, chairman carter, ranking members, and distinguish members of this committee. i'm pleased to appear before you to discuss the president's 20 16th budget for the secret service. as the newly appointed director, i'm honored to lead the men and women of this important agency through this challenging time despite allegations of miss conduct involving -- misconduct involving two agents, i have

been impressed by the selfless dedication of the workforce as a whole and our people's willingness to take on necessary reforms in the betterment of the mission. with respect to these recent allegations, the secret service has turned over the investigation to the department of homeland security office of inspector general to ensure a thorough and independent review of this incident. i have committed full cooperation and eagerly await the oig's findings. turning to the budget, i want to thank all members for your work on the 2015 department of homeland security appropriations act. this subcommittee worked diligently to provide the secret service with additional resources to support our staffing, training, and operational needs. in addition, the 2015 bill includes $25 million to begin the necessary enhancements associated with the protective panels recommendations that were included in a report to

secretary johnson on december 2015 -- 2014. the recommendations rot focus to training and leadership deficiencies in the -- brought focus to training and leadership deficiencies. however, the secret service mission -- uncommitted to -- i'm committed to determine the full extent of our operational requirements. the 20 16th budget bill -- 2016 budget bill -- my statements provide a euro overview. i would like to highlight a few areas. $86.7 million for quested to adjust specific -- could be broken down into four categories. training center improvements. white house security infrastructure improvements. protective technology upgrades.

my priorities are to staff the agency at a level commiserate with the man's -- with the demands of the mission. this includes critical and service training for agents and ethics and leadership development. one of the biggest missions demands will be associate it with the campaign protection to less than two years remaining before president obama's term in office comes to a close. the secret service is preparing for campaign protection requirements. during every campaign, the secret service budget temporarily grows to accommodate the search in protection requirements. of the money requested in 2016 for campaign protection and related items simply reflects anticipated time special agents

will work in protection hours in support of the campaign. when people ask how it is the secret service can protect multiple candidates traveling which are different cities and states in a matter of hours, i point to special agents who serve in the field offices around the country. without the support of highly trained special agents have experience with investigations and protections, the secret service would be unable to handle the surges associated with presidential campaigns and other major events. securing the two nominating conventions is one of the most challenging aspects of campaign protection. these typically last three to four days and attract thousands of participants each. the secret service began to work months in advance to plan comprehensive security operations to identify and mitigate threats. a good cause harm -- it could cause harm to those attending

these events. to mitigate the risk of cyber attack on critical distance a key infrastructure that could affect the security plans special agents have trade in the critical protections -- i'm sorry there are responsible for protecting venues that are automated and interconnected. the secret service recruits from within the agency's electronic crimes special agents program. the computer forensics responder disciplines. special agents trained in these areas are responsible for the successful investigations into many of the largest known data breaches in recent memory. last month, secret service services led in the arrest of a russian national who will face charges as he allegedly conspired in the largest hacking and data breach scream -- scheme in that u.s.

we need superior leadership. i have worked open the lines of communication between the rank-and-file and their supervisors. i made significant changes in top leadership positions across the secret service to inspire a renewed focus on staffing, training, protective operations, investigations, and professional responsibility. i'm in the process of restructuring the secret service second and leadership to better leverage the expense of civilian professionals while allowing law enforcement arsenal to focus on their core areas of expertise. with the support of the department and congress over the next several years, i'm confident you can put the secret service on a path to success for many decades to come. chairman carter, ranking members, this concludes my testimony. i welcome any questions you may have this time. rep. carter: thank you for that report.

let's start with the 800 pound gorilla in the room. what happened the other night at the white house? i was in ukraine with a subcommittee of this body when we learned of this back home. considering the discussions we have had -- first of all, give us a picture of what you think happened. it sounded like they crash through a barrier or a gate and ignored crime scene tape due to intoxication. it requires