it's not done yet. we had to go through sector by sector case by case convince each other our standards are good as yours. but we are making progress. our technical team is doing even between the different else i hope we can receive company announced some result there later this fall.

>> commissioner malmstrom, thank you so much. you addressed a very broad range of issues with good humor, great comments. and have a feeling we will be seeing quite a bit of you in washington, and i think -- i think ambassador froman will be getting some frequent flyer miles to brussels. we hope the next time you're in washington you will return and help us understand the processes, i, for one, would like to sit through your class. maybe they should be something to do the next time but we are grateful you spend your time with us. we wish you the best with your meetings, with ambassador froman, others. with your applause, please join me in thanking commissioner malmstrom. thank you so much. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> attorney general loretta lynch will testify at a senate hearing on the 2016 justice department budget. live coverage begins at 10:30 a.m. eastern time on c-span. also to british voters go to the polls to elect a new parliament. on my lung we'll bring you live election coverage with studio analysis results and predictions predictions. live coverage begins just before the polls close at 4:55 p.m. eastern time on c-span.

>> here's a look of some of our future to programs for this weekend on c-span networks.

>> the obama administration has requested $585 billion for the defense department 2016 budget. defense secretary ashton carter and joint chiefs chair martin dempsey discuss the pentagon budget at a senate hearing yesterday. the hearing covered a wide range of military issues including series of civil war the against isis, iran's nuclear program and ongoing military operations in afghanistan. senator that cochran chairs this

appropriation subcommittee hearing. >> [inaudible conversations] >> the committee will please come to order. today, our subcommittee on defense appropriations reviews the budget request of the department of defense your we are very pleased to welcome secretary of defense ash carter and chairman of the joint chiefs

of staff, general martin dempsey, united states army. this is our final schedule hearing of the year on the 2016 defense budget request. the subcommittee recognizes the uncertainty of the current fiscal environment and the impact it has on the department of defense and its planning. we also appreciate the complexity of building the first year 2016 budget request, and we look forward to comments from secretary carter and general dempsey on how we can support our men and women in uniform and our national security interests. we are pleased to recognize dr. carter on his first appearance before the subcommittee in his capacity as secretary of defense. mr. secretary, we look forward to working with you. also want to recognize that this will be general dempsey's final

appearance before the defense subcommittee as chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. general dempsey, us-cert with the distinction since 2011, and this committee as grateful for your contributions. we'll miss your valuable insight when your term comes to an end in october. the committee also welcomes mr. mike mccord, the undersecretary of defense and chief financial officer for the department. i'm confident that mr. mccord will provide the committee with useful information as the subcommittee formulates the 2016 defense budget. thank you for appearing before us this morning. your full statements will of course be included in the record. i will now turn to my friend and vice chairman of the committee senator durbin for his opening

remarks. >> turn one. thank you all for being here. secretary carter glad to see you. glad we had a chance to chat for america. mr. mccord, thank you as well for being part of this pic special thanks to general dempsey, for your many years of service in the united states army into the united states insurance of our national defense. you have risen to the top rank within the white house and administration as the chairman of the military side of our defense, and i appreciate all the talent that you brought to it and all the dedication. wish you the best whatever life take you with your wife, children and grandchildren. even now be able to enjoy a lot more. secretary carter and chairman dempsey come it's important for us to your device on a number of pending issues. the first is a threat of her own creation called sequestration. our efforts within the house and senate to increase defense spending are using what is in

fact, a budget gimmick, namely to ship tens of billions of dollars of funds for the base budget over to the overseas contingency operations account. i believe this effort is not the right way to address the problem. while i support avoid sequestration, congress must address funding shortfalls for the entire government and do it responsibly. moving programs from the base bill to the war funding accounts adds to our problems instead of fixing it. the department of defense cannot operate efficiently the u.s. government lurches from one fiscal crisis to another year after year. i want to hear from you on that subject, please. is manufactured a budget crisis comes at a time of quickly changing global security department. our military is operating all over the globe, operations in afghanistan, africa, stability the pacific in response to russian aggression in eastern europe. since last you should we've added military operations in iraq and syria to the busy military operational tempo. the are a number of issues i hope to get to the questioning

maintaining our competitive innovative edge in technology and medical research indeed what i believe as an exploitation of service members and their families by predatory for-profit colleges, making certain that the department of defense can keep track of the contractors that are working for them, and lastly keeping in mind, general dempsey's persistent admonition that job what is getting our people right, late last week the department reported an estimated 20,000 servicemembers were sexually assaulted last year. the number of individuals reporting these incidents a sadly disappeared more than half of the same boat still expect retaliation. with to make more progress and it requires a strong commitment. this is a daunting array of challenges and just a few of them and they face. i look forward to your testimony. >> thank you senator. secretary carter, you may proceed. >> thank you. thank you thank you, vice chairman durbin, and the

subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here today. and mr. chairman, i want to especially recognize a sense of civility and courtesy with which you conduct all you do including the leadership of this committee. doesn't go unnoticed. leasable bite me. it's much appreciated. vice chairman, i will make sure that we get to the issues you raised both in our private conversation and just now in the course of this coming thank you for your leadership. i thank you all for thinking my friend and shipmate marty dempsey for his wonderful service. i'm going to miss them. i know all of you on this committee share the same devotion that i do it the finest fighting force the world has ever known, into the great defense of our great country. and i hope that my tenure as secretary of defense will be marked by partnership with you

on their behalf. i'm gratified that this committee, as well as the other three defense committees recognize the urgent need to hold the decline in defense spending imposed by the budget control act. president obama and i deeply share in that recognition. and indeed i want to commend you and your colleagues for both recognizing and saying that sequestration threatens our military readiness, besides our war fighting courses, the presence and capabilities of our air and naval fleets our future technological security and ultimately the lives of our men and women in uniform. the joint chiefs have said the same and that specify the kinds of cuts that their services would have to make if sequester returns. over the past three fiscal years the defense department has taken

over three quarters of a trillion dollars in cuts to its future years of defense spending. the magnitude of these cats which dressed the most capable players are programmers at the stretches have been made even greater because of the frequently sudden and unpredictable timing and nature of the cats as well as continued uncertainty over sequestration. and as a result dod has been forced to make a series of incremental inefficient decisions, often made well into a fiscal year after prolonged continuing resolutions are finally resolved. moreover even as budgets have dropped precipitously, our forces have been responding to unexpectedly high demand from a tumultuous world. as a result i believe our defense program is now unbalanced. we have been forced to prioritize force structure and readiness over modernization. taking on risks and capabilities

and infrastructure that are far too great. this is a serious problem. height demands on smaller force structure mean the equipment and capabilities of too many components of the military are growing too old too fast. from our nuclear deterrent to our tactical forces. meanwhile, in each of the past several years, painful but necessary reforms proposed by dod, including many significant reforms, like eliminating overhead and the needed infrastructure, retiring older force structure and making reasonable adjustments and compensation have been denied by congress at the same time that sequestration looms. we are starting to see this double whammy. once again, and markups of legislation this year. if confronted with a sequestration level budgets and

continued obstacles to reform, i do not believe that we can simply keep making incremental cuts. as i've said before we would have to change the shape and not just the size of our military significantly affecting parts of our defense strategy. in recent weeks some in congress have tried to provide dod with its full budget request for fiscal year 2016 by transferring funds from the base budget into our account for overseas contingency operations, or local government to fund incremental temporary costs of overseas conflicts in afghanistan, iraq and elsewhere. while this approach clearly recognizes that the budget total we've requested is needed, the cabinet it takes is just as clearly a road to nowhere. i say this because president obama has already made it clear that he won't accept the budget that locks in sequestration going forward.

as this approach does. and he won't accept a budget that severs of the link between our national security under economic security. legislation that implements this budget framework will therefore be subject to veto. so if we don't come together and find a different path by fall, when the budget is needed come people put our department and our troops and an all too familiar and very difficult position. we will yet again have to make very hasty and drastic decisions to adjust to the failure to have an adequate dod budget. decisions that none of us want to make. the joint chiefs and i are concerned that our congressional committees and injured fans of this idea and don't explore alternatives, then we will be left holding the bag. that's not what i want to be in six months. but since the oco funding approach is not the kind of widely shared budget agreement that is needed we can see now that it will not succeed.

moreover the one year oco approach does nothing to reduce the deficit. it risked undermining support for a mechanism, oco which is meant as i said to fund think about cost of overseas conflicts in afghanistan, iraq and elsewhere. most importantly because it doesn't provide a stable multiyear budget horizon this one year approach is managerial unsound, and also unfairly dispiriting to our force but our military personnel and their families deserve to know their future more than just one year at a time. and not just of them are our defense industry partners also needs stability and longer-term plan. not interview crises or short-term fix a ticket there to be deficient and cutting-edge as we need them to be. last and fundamentally, as a

nation we need to base our defense budget in on our long-term military strategy, and that's not a one year project. this funding approach also reflects a narrow way of looking at our national security one that ignores the vital contributions made by state the state department, justice department treasury department, homeland security department, and disregards the enduring long-term connection between our nations security and many other factors, factors like scientific r&d to keep our technological edge education of a future all-volunteerall-volunteer military force and the general economic strength of our country. finally i'm also concerned that how we deal with the budget is being watched by the rest of the world, by our friends and potential foes alike. it could give a misleadingly diminished picture of america's

great strength and resolve. for all these reasons we need a better solution than the one now being considered. two years ago we saw members of congress come together and reached a two-year agreement 30 murray-ryan bipartisan budget act. act. although we preferred and longer-term solution to sequestration, that deal was able to provide dod a measure of stability needed to plan for more than just one year. today i hope we can come together for longer-term multiyear agreement to provide to the budget stability we need by locking in defense and nondefense budget levels consistent with the president's request. i pledge my personal support to this effort as well as the support of the entire staff of the department of defense. and i would like to work with each of you as well as other leaders and members of congress to this end.

if we are successful i'm confident we can build a force of the future that's powerful enough to underwrite our strategy and to show resolve to friends and potential foes alike. a force that's equipped with a bold new technology and ideas able to lead in cutting edge capability, cyber in space a force that's a lean and efficient throughout the enterprise, that continues to attract and inspire new generations of americans to contribute to this great mission. that's a vision for the force of the future i've been pursuing since i took office 11 weeks ago. and i hope to continue doing so in partnership with all of you. mr. chairman this is a time for coming together and problem solving, which we we've come to know well from members of this committee. much like in december 2013 our only choice is to come together to find real solutions that

reflects our strength and security as a nation. i look to this committee and the many leaders who sit on it to help us get on the right path out of this wilderness. thank you. >> thank you esther secretary. i noticed that in his summation that we have before us this morning, you have created or proposed to create a new you know, a point of partnership so-called. apparently to be led by a civilian with a military deputy and staff with an elite team of active duty reserve and civilian personnel. it sounds like an ambitious undertaking, and may be complicated.

there is the suggestion that the theme will look for breakthroughs in emerging technologies. i wonder if you could let us know how much do you think this is going to cost and how long will it take to be up and running? >> i surely can provide you with the cost. i will do so. as far as the mechanism is concerned, it's an important effort. it's an experiment to effort. this is her so-called defense innovation unit experimental that i announced the creation of about a week and a half ago. it has a couple of things that brings together, mr. chairman. one is our need to continue to be on the cutting edge especially the cyber edge

represented by the silicon valley tech industry. second, our need of which are mentioned in my statement, to continue to attract the very best defense. so we want to have an open door. so we are an exciting and attractive place for the country's smartest young people to come and work even if they can only work for a period of time and contribute, to come in and help us out. and third, it combines an ingredient mention which is the use of the reserve component which is a huge treasure for our department. a lot of the reservists are very technologically savvy. and so that you're out there anyone in the region will contribute. so brings a number of ingredients together for the future and we're going to try it out. it does say it's an experiment. it's not a costly experiment but it is critical i think for us to have an open avenue between us in silicon valley.

and by the way other individual partners as well. we need to be an innovative department so we stay fresh and attractive. >> thank you. general dempsey, ask you if you'd like to make your opening statement, he may proceed at this point. >> thank you, chairman and vice chairman durbin. distinguished members of this committee. thanks very much at the outset for the very kind words about my service. it is been a rare privilege to hold this position and to be able to represent millions of men and women and their families who serve around the world. and thank you to this committee for support through those years. so if this is my last hearing thank you for the opportunity. and if it turns out that it's not, i suppose been until we may begin to conduct out of like you did know that i fully support the selection or the nominations of general general dunford as the 19th of chairman and general paul silva as the

vice-chairman. they will serve with distinction. you can count on them. you can trust them what you think is the right word to provide you time timely pragmatic and effective military advice. i would just like to reiterate something that i've said in previous hearings this fiscal year which is the global security by but is as uncertain as i've seen in 40 years of service. and we are at a point where our global aspirations are exceeding our available resources. we've heard the congress of the united states loud and clear that we have to become more efficient. and we have to do the rigors strategic thinking to determine the minimum essential requirements that we believe that is to say, the uniformed military, are essential to protect our national interests across the globe. we think that the answer is the minimum essential requirements.

in my judgment this budget represents a responsible combination of capability capacity and readiness. but we are at the bottom edge of our manageable risk in achieving its affiliates our national security strategy as it is currently designed. funding lower than pb16 and lacking the flux go to make the internal reforms that we believe we need to make will put us in a position where we have to change our national security strategy. for the pass, let me describe what can change even see. for the past with the giddiness these military has secured the global commons. we deterred our adversaries. we have reassured our allies and we've responded to crises and conflict primarily by being calm and maintain our presence forward, or abroad. it's been our strategy to shape the future at the international

security environment by our forward present and by building relationships with regional partners. in general terms about one-third of the force is forward deployed, one-third has just returned and one-third skating ready to go. this agenda puts a significant strain on the men and women in uniform but we've kept a nation safe by following that paradigm. sequestration would fundamentally it's a typically change the way we deploy the force. and in so doing effect it but the way we can shape the security environment. we will probably be almost 20% smaller from where we started when i became the chairman. and a forward presence will be reduced by more than a third. will have less influence and we will be less responsive. conflict will take longer to resolve and we will be more costly in terms of dollars and casualties. in an age where less certain about what will happen next, but certain that does happen more

quickly, we'll be further away and less ready than we need to be. simply stated sequestration will result in a dramatic change that we protect our nation and how we promote our nation security interest. mr. chairman, and members of this committee, our men and women in uniform are performing around the globe with extraordinary courage, character and professionalism. it seems to me that we owe them and their families clarity come and importantly predictably on everything from policy to compensation, health care equip, training and readiness. settling down to the uncertainty that we've experienced over the past four years in her decision-making processes and getting us out of the one at a time cycle that we've been in will help us keep the right people in our all-volunteer force and that after all is our decisive edge. we will be able to maintain a military that the american people deserve and, frankly, i think they expect. i'm grateful for the continued opportunities for our men and women in uniform and i promise

i'll run to the date as we say in the time remaining and make myself available at any time to help you shape the policy and fiscal decisions activity. again i thank you, a congress of the united states and members of this committee for your support. >> thank you very much, general. we appreciate your leadership and your statement. i'm going to recognize the senator, ranking member, mr. durbin number for any comments or statement he would like to make. >> thank you, chairman talk about osgood into the oco issue but i think your statement from both of you have been unequivocal on the particular issue. i'd like to go to issue not that budgetary consequence but of great consequence nevertheless. just a few days ago i joined with my colleagues senator jim king of virginia, senator lindsey graham and senator john mccain and sent a letter to the president requesting the administration to consider the establishment of a humanitarian safe zone or more than one,

around serious to allow for the protection and medical treatment of the people of syria. i did that with some reluctance, realizing that it would require a commitment by the united states for the safety of that zone and we discussed that yesterday. but i have to say that this may not be a genocide by classic legal definition, it is the humankind crisis for our time with 200 the 400,000 cashless millions of displaced and no end in sight. you were very candid in your response yesterday. i appreciated mr. secretary, if you chose what you think of this concept and the challenge that it could present to us. >> sure. thank you, senator. you're right, it is what's happening in syria is a terrible

humanitarian tragedy. it's been going on now for several years. the army displaced people within syria, and playing to countries around. we are caught between the two forces, or the country is caught between two forces, oath of which are contributing to this violence against the very people of the country. namely, isil and the like on the one hand, industry regime on the other hand. as you know we are trying to create a third force to combat those and to create an environment in which the syrian people can live in peace which they deserve. your question is about can we establish ourselves as you meditate and safe zone. we did discuss that yesterday and i was a something from the practicality of that. that in concept is an area which

people, to which people could wait and find safety. i think that was her concept. what i was saying to you was that we would need to come and we have thought this through, how to secure that zone. doing something like that would be something that would be contested both by isil forces and other al-nusra and others come on the one hand, and by syrian forces on the other, would not necessarily be supported by the neighbors or supported militarily and a strong way by the neighbors and, therefore, something we would do ourselves. that's a combat mission and a major combat mission. so the practicalities of it are significant, and that's what i was sharing with you yesterday. perhaps general dempsey would like to add something to that and we need to fight the great such a space and then a fight to

keep such a space and that's why it would be, it's a difficult thing to contemplate or challenge. >> let me say before the general response from an anxious to hear his response to my concept is we would not be going it alone. my hope is that would either be done through the united nations or in concert with other nations might join us in this effort and i'm not naïve enough to put isil is going to sign up. so we have to be prepared to defend space. i'm anxious to hear the generals response. >> it would just be isis that could be a potential challenge but also the regime itself. so the assumption, i think you're right, that this could be practical and effective would have to involve ritual partners. i can tell you militarily both at uscentcom and in conjunction with european command in our turkish counterparts we been planting -- planning for such contingency for some time.

the question if you ask can we do this, of course military we can do it. they would be opportunity costs that is to say, resources we have deployed elsewhere would have to be repositioned. i won't miss the opportunity to point out the cognitive dissidents about talking about doing more in the world when, in fact, we are facing losing another $250 billion over the next five years. but i will say that it is militarily practical military but it would be significant policy decision they do so. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, senator. senator from alabama mr. shelby. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, secretary carter. general dempsey, i join others in congratulate you on your long career, or 41 years now since you graduated from west point. you have served this nation with honor and distinction. thank you very much. secretary carter it's my understanding that the

department of defense has recommended a legislator solution for section 16 await which would allow the use of as many as -- 16 '08 future space launch competition. is that correct? >> it is. i've also been informed that if dod implementation, that there could be a minimum of two to three years gap in assuring access to space. have you looked at that and do you agree or disagree with that? and how can we ensure that there's no gap there? because these programs are so important to national intelligence and a lot of other things spin and obsolete as. we can't afford to have a gap. and just to scope out the issue as a whole these engines that power some of our rocket

boosters that take our nation's 30 satellites into space are manufactured in russia. we want to get off of that dependency of russia but it takes some time to do so. and in the meantime we don't want to have a gap. therefore, our approach is to not order more and not to cancel the orders we have placed for the engines while we are able to prepare competitive engines that are not russian into the space left business. so that's our strategy and you're absolutely right we can't afford to have a gap because we need to be able to launch national secret satellites. >> that it's important for us to build our own rocket any future. but it takes time. sometimes it's hard to rush technology since that revolution -- >> absolutely, yes. >> i will post this next question to you and also to general dempsey, if i can. the iranian threat not just to

the middle east but to the persian gulf we are all familiar, not as much as you two are, of what's going on in yemen. a lot of our allies are very nervous of their come and probably should be. and as we're negotiating, the administration is negotiating with iran on nuclear weapons it seems that they continue to supply, train and so forth their allies all over the area that are causing us and our allies more than apprehension. so i'd like your comments if you can, where you can on iran. i believe senator durbin product isis in essence what's going on that day. we're fighting in a sense with iranians that there, the revolutionary guard and some of them, and then in yemen we are

on different sides. it's a contradiction. we understand that happens sometimes, but what is our challenge with north korea also, and perhaps even with russia? i know that's a lot of questions. >> thank you but i will say something creepy about some of them and ask the chairman. you're right iranian behavior is concerning on a number of fronts and a number of locations, both as regards to the stability of gulf countries freedom of navigation which is very important. and other things. in addition to the nuclear program of course which is the concern that inspires for negotiations to which he referred. i'll say that for us in the department of defense, i think this creates a continuing requirement for presence in the region we assurance allies and

partners in the region particularly israel, but not confined to israel but particularly israel. and also of course with respected nuclear agreement, the president has said that he would take no deal over a bad deal and, therefore, we are under instruction to have a military option, which we work hard to maintain. so those are responsibly with respect to iran. isis is a continuing threat both in iraq and syria and then you see the ability of it as a movement to inspire the lost and the radical worldwide to acts of violence. so it's seriously concern in both of those respects.

and we are combating it from the air and with partners in both iraq and syria. and we can go into that in substantially more detail if you wish. just to touch on north korea north korea's behavior, i was in south korea just a couple of weeks ago, continues to be provocative considerable uncertainty about their future behavior it's a we need to watch it carefully. we say that south korea is the place where our slogan is we need to be able to fight tonight. this is not a game over there. we need to be ready every day. so as we talk about our budget at our presence and so forth wanting we can't trim is our deterrent in the korean peninsula. i've gone on long enough. we can talk about russia later perhaps. let me see if the chairman wants to add something on the subject.

>> just rather than going down the lineup card of the threats, let me unpack really briefly. i said in my statement that it's the most uncertain security apartment that i've experienced in 40 years, and here's why. we face emerging threats from both state actors you mentioned the threat that russia poses to europe, the threat that iran poses not just in the nuclear arena, the threat of the dprk, a rising china which is not yet a military threat but if left them at that relationship is not managed carefully, it could become one. so we are state issues with the state actors and we've got a large body of nonstate actors al-qaeda, other groups that have aligned themselves. and for the first time in my career they are both manifesting themselves simultaneously. this is not a time to be withdrawing from the world.

>> the senator from rhode island, senator reed. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. thank you, mr. secretary, for your health is one. thank you, general dempsey, for your service. i think you'll thank you to the brilliant first class been -- >> how could i have forgotten? >> just for the record. but thank you for extraordinary service to the nation and your testimony today. in regard to the proposals to move oco money prevent and to do things that might help defense commute indicated general dempsey in testimony that there are nine lines of operation against isil. department of defense has to of those lines. the other lines are agencies that would not benefit directly or not benefit as much from this oco maneuver come is about. is a?

>> to tell you the truth i have a look at anyone's budget other than myself. other than ours. it is fair to say of the nine lines of operations, two of them were military and others are other agencies of government spent on the other agencies state department which they're not able to ramp up their efforts? in fact their efforts are contracted because you've got to fill the gap somehow, or if you can't because you don't have that expertise, only homeland to get him fbi agents deployed forward, dea agents deployed forward. you've got a hold strategy which will become unhinged even if you get the extra oco money. >> again i don't know what the other departments are lacking. i literally don't know but what it will take is in general terms, that those kinds of threats that you describe to the threat of nonstate actors in particular will require a whole the government approach, not just a military approach. >> one example that seems to leap out to everybody the

sophisticated use of social media by isil. and our response to that is sort of the department of defense vicious public but without stake him without traditional non-defense actors who have a role in this our response will be as it has been to date unsatisfactory. that's the conclusion to you don't have to concur but that's my conclusion. mr. secretary, you also made a very interesting point not only in terms of how can you have a long-term strategy with a short-term budget how can you go ahead and do things that require complementary partners and government when they don't have the resources? but the other point was the one about the world is watching. youth traveled to capitals and talk to defense ministers prime ministers, et cetera. manufacturer looking and getting

intel about our adversaries or potential adversaries and they're looking at us unwilling to invest and pay for long-term national security. and they did i think unfortunately. >> that is my experience come and, of course, you travel as well. among friends its concern about whether we have our wits about us in terms of the danger the world, the responsibility of america and the inherent strength of our country. i obviously don't talk to our potential foes, but they talk to others and to see what the americans are doing to themselves. now, i think it's important to come back and say we are still the world's greatest fighting force. we are an immensely powerful country. we are immensely experienced included in our military, and complex missions. we did take a hold of government approach which is necessary in the world, and so you need to tell people that they can't look at the difficulties we have come

and we obviously have been in terms of reaching a budget, and conclude that america has eclipsed or losing its power. and i hasten to say that. at the same time it would certainly improve our standing where we to come together as i urged behind a future for our budget. >> there's another aspect, and i agree with you we still remain that paramount military force in many dimensions but the gap is narrowing in so many areas. it used to be not fight tonight in korea. it was fight this month and we can get there and -- we can't do that any longer but it used to be we put an aircraft up in the air it's going to be dominant for 10 years. that question might not be as long now. a lot of the programs that are not reached by oco and not

reached by some of these proposals, these long-term investments and capabilities, cyber and elsewhere that if we don't make them now we can keep the lights on but that gap will get to the point where it disappears. is about there? >> it is very, very. >> thank you. >> the senator from maine senator collins. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. welcome, mr. secretary. thank you general dempsey, for your service. mr. secretary, twice this one we've heard general dempsey say that this is the most uncertain security environment that he is seeing in his 40 years of service. it is the navy that allows us to project power, particularly in areas where we would otherwise be denied access in trouble

spots around the world. yet the navy's 30 year shipbuilding plan does not include enough funding for ships to fully support the 308 ship goal over the entire 30 year period. we've seen the need for naval ships to be deployed. just last week that a store that was built which i had the honor to christen was deployed in response to the iranian naval forces firing upon and boarding a commercial shipping vessel. at the same time combatant commands or requirements for missile defense platforms are soaring in the middle east in the asia-pacific region as our adversaries develop missile technology. and recently the office of naval

intelligence just last month described how china has launched more naval ships than any other country during the past two years, and will do so in the next two years. mr. secretary, i know you're well aware that ships can't be built overnight, and that operational requirements are increasing. what event is the departments plan to mitigate the risks associated with the shortfalls in shipbuilding come and to preserve a robust shipbuilding industrial base speak with thank you, senator. first of all of you say i completely agree with you. it's one of the great strengths of our country is our ability to project power around the world took the navy is an important ingredient of that and also to ensure freedom of navigation and

to dominate enable comments as we're able to do. because of the quality as well as the size of our fleet, and we are committed to continuing to do that. and you're right we can't do that without an additional base that is robust. and a we have as you know full well a vibrant and competitive marketplace, but we need to keep that going. and i suppose where this links up with the discussion were having today about long-term budget is exactly the point you made which is ships particularly ships of the quality that are made in bath and elsewhere for our navy, those are not one year projects is that everyone your budget horizon, how are you supposed to build over time to a navy of the size you need to? we need that kind of horizon.

and are interested partners in the shipyards need that kind of horizon as well and that's one of the reasons why we are asking for that kind of planning horizon. >> thank you. general breedlove, the u.s. command of nato, testified last month before the armed services committee that russia and pro-russian separatist forces continue to exploit the recent cease-fire in eastern ukraine to reset and repositioned themselves and that they appear to be preparing for a fresh offensive against ukraine's military. he voiced his support for providing the ukraine with offensive military hardware to deter a russian advance. by contrast i recently met with german chancellor merkel who argued exactly the opposite, and against providing offensive

weapons. could you give us your thoughts on this issue and what factors you are considering in deciding whether or not to provide military weapons the ukraine and what your assessment is of our ability to protect those in ukraine and the sovereignty of that country? >> first of all general breedlove is right. it does appear that the russian clearly, clearly russian-backed separatists in eastern ukraine are preparing for another round of military action that would be inconsistent with the minsk agreement. and we are supporting the ukrainian military not with offensive arms but with

defensive arms. but i think chancellor merkel is also making an important point that need not be at variance with helping the ukrainian military, namely that the big influencer, if there's anything that will influence russian behavior, it is the combination of economic sanctions and the fall in oil prices. that is what is punishing russian now. and it's also true that, since you mentioned chancellor merkel, it is the weight of european sanctions that matters most because they do most of the trade with russia. that's why we are so intent on working with the europeans, led by germany and i appreciate the steadfastness of germany in

leading those sanctions. because by ourselves we would have a lot less pressure to apply to russia, simply because the fog of trade of us is less with russia so we need russia, i mean we need germany rather and the europeans to apply that kind of pressure. i can't predict whether that will work or not that is the main thing that is applying pressure to russia even as we try to assist the ukrainians in defending themselves. >> thank you. >> i have been advised that senator mikulski has a need to be out of here at about 11:30 and i was going to ask unanimous consent that she be permitted to proceed now. senator schatz will be the next senator following her. if there's no objection. i asked him and his consent in her behalf. >> thank you.

thank you, senator schatz but i need to be a fault in a conference call with the white house on the baltimore situation. first of all, we want to survey thank general dempsey for his many, many years of service. but dr. carter, we also want to thank you for coming back. you had a pretty good life lined up for yourself and you are willing to come back and deserve, and we are grateful both to you and of course, to general dempsey. we've heard so much from you and i can -- we've learned so much from you and i can understand why men and women in the military have such bad on respect for your but such affection for you. you have truly been a soldier's soldier come and to think your inspirational leadership has been something that's inspired us all. in terms of the testimony today i found it enormously sobering, atand the threats that the nation is facing and then the threats that we are imposing upon ourselves to it seems we have

two threats, the threats in the world that you are sworn to defend and to protect, and our threats we are self imposing through our approach to the way we're dealing with our money. the most stunning prospect of sequester we all met and kind of bonded more than two years ago is really deeply troubling. the budget that we just passed yesterday is so deeply flawed that it will only provoke tremendous problems in this committee, and i'm deeply concerned that what we passed yesterday, despite the best efforts of the children, will result in 300 to be allocations that will only trigger more gridlock and more confrontation. this is not something i look forward to as the ranking member. i have such respect for the

chairman, both sides of the aisle but we are not heavy for a good situation. now, there are those who say let's let up the caps on duty. it's clear the compelling need you presented. i'm also want to look at the domestic caps and don't come back to my question. but one of the most troubling things i heard in your testimony was that we can't even get our military are civilian defense employees at 223% cost-of-living increase -- 2.3%. we are holding the line at 1.3 to save a billion dollars. you have to do it but my god what a nickel and dime approach to our problem. one of your solutions, i think this is not criticism is let's change the hours at the commissary so that our enlisted people even have less resources to nutritious food and all the good things that come out of the commissaries in some ways are becoming nutritional settlement

houses on many, many basis. so let me get to my question. as you look at this years budget and appropriations committee different things there are those who support the dod caps. how does the defense department look at also the lifting of the domestic caps? i'm reminded of what general dempsey has said to me several times, that outcome for people who want to enlist in our military, very desirous of serving the only one is going to be eligible because one can't read, the other is to stick to serve come and the third has of a mental health or addictive problems that they can't serve. so out of for people who want to join our military, maybe to get out of the lives they have, only one is going to be eligible, and yet this is where we are. could you comment?

>> two comments. first of all thank you. and with respect to confrontation and gridlock i hope we are able to come together and get past that by the end of the year so we don't find ourselves in the situation of confrontation and gridlock. i earnestly hope we can do that. a nickel and dime approach to defense as you said isn't the right one. we need a longer horizon than that. >> and i'm not being critical of you. i'm being critical of ourselves. >> of all of us. and it's not a way to run a proud department that is protecting is beginning to other departments as well. the chairman mentioned the same thing. we are defense but national security is bigger than that. national security, which i do take an interest in and responsibility for, i think you expect me to is bigger than our

department in today's world because of the complexity, of the threat. we need homeland security, we need law enforcement and other things that are not military and not in our budget. finally, he mentioned quality people for our force. we have a magnificent force in terms of the quality of the people. we have, but that is because were able to be selected from a large pool of excellent young americans who are patriotic and able and want to serve. you got to worry, not worry but you need to make sure that we have future generations that unlike the. that's what education and r&d any other part of what makes a country great in the long run are important to national security as well. i think we do need to think larger about the national security. >> did you want to say something? >> no. i have nothing to add senator. thanks for the kind words, by the way.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the chair recognizes senator moran. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. general dempsey, mr. secretary, thank you for the opportunity to visit with you this morning. general dempsey, thank you for your service. ..