because i think that it's wrong to wait that long. we don't have the luxury of waiting and what i learned in the presidential campaign is you have to start talking about these issues early and often so people understand what kind of choice they are being given. >> i just want to stack up something you said earlier in the week was that you would go ahead and support the republican money nominee. can you talk about that? >> as the speaker of the house i'm the chairman of the republican national convention, so i share the convention so i going to be neutral in the presidential nominating process because i'm a chair of the convention so i won't say who i am for or against our will support the nominee would be weird if the chair didn't support the nominees because i have a special roll i stated joe

and all the while i will stand up for what i believe. i stand up for what i believe is right and for the party's principal and nation's principal. thank you. >> the house is in today to work on two items, one a short-term spending measure for midnight tonight through midnight next wednesday and the conference report the final version on the customs enforcement. you can follow the coverage on c-span. the producer on capitol hill on for twets. no votes monday followed by the chair. first and go tuesday 6:30 we will work until we -- we will stay until we get our work done. we will take you back to capitol hill we are expecting to hear

from the democratic leader in just a couple of moments. >> [inaudible conversations] while we wait for the democratic leaders, some conversations from this morning's washington journal about the spending bill set to come to the floor next week. >> host: joining us now to talk about the august spending bill we have the staff writer at roll call. good morning, thanks for joining

us. let's take a look at what has the poll believe the speaker paul ryan said about the august. >> we don't want to rush legislation like this appropriation. this is something i more or less inherited from the last regime and i don't want to rush things. we always have the third week of december on the calendar as a weak that we would potentially be in session so we didn't want to come up against an arbitrary deadline and russia something. we are negotiating something and we didn't have to keep the members here on saturday and sunday why do we continue to negotiate. >> i wasn't going to let december 11 be an arbitrary deadline that made us rush legislation. >> talk about that deadline and what do they face now? >> guest: the new deadline is anticipated to clear up the next

hill which is a continuing resolution running the government from day-to-day that will put the new deadline is december 16 which is wednesday in the middle of next weekend week and that isn't necessarily an easy deadline to meet because we heard thursday from the chairman of the house appropriations committee and others that there is a lot of work to be done still through the weekend to even have a potential omnibus spending bill that would fund the government through the end of next september. that is to be written by the end of next week that rogers isn't even sure that's necessarily done. >> host: who is doing the negotiating of the? >> guest: there's two separate

pieces come actually three this time. there's the funding levels themselves of how much money there is being spent on the various departments, but seems to be pretty well forward. they did most of that. there are a separate set of issues called policy writers that are provisions that are designed to be attached. the republicans in this case on the hamstrung leader in the obama administration they want to stop the obama administration from doing all sorts of things. that is the second basket. the way these negotiations have developed there's actually a third basket this year which we don't always see which is the expired tax provisions that need to be revised. these are all sorts of tax credits for viewers are probably familiar with some of them may claim on their own forms and those provisions also have lapsed so it seems it is getting bundled into the same package

this year. >> host: with go to one of the calls on the democratic line. we have west virginia on the line with neil. hello? do we have the call? >> caller: hello? >> host: go on. you are on. >> caller: good morning. you are up here talking about what we want to do now with the appropriations. why doesn't all the media can then delete the -- con them the people in the senate into the house so they can get all these writers in here to make the president signed the president doesn't want to sign because he doesn't want to decline anything. but it's -- you know, this happens every time. why don't all the media gets together and condemn the house and the senate.

why do they have to wait until the last minute? you should be speaking about this instead of praising what they are going to do now. >> host: but give him a chance to answer. >> guest: this situation -- i will take the comment and tell you that one of the issues this year that led to this particular standoff come of this in some ways was generated by the democrats wanting a bigger budget agreement on the numbers for how much would be spent. we started this cycle with a disagreement over the spending levels themselves into so the democrats in fact in the senate united to preclude the republican majority from advancing appropriations bills, which is something they have enough votes to do that. once that happened, however and once there needed to be a big negotiation on the budget numbers in the fall, that led to

the obvious situation we were going to have one of these omnibus spending bills come to december, so this go around certainly there is blame to the process not working. it's not either party necessarily that gets all of the blame of this year. >> talk of "-open-double-quote the sticking points might be. >> one of the things we think and these are all behind the scenes negotiations. the reporting indicates that there are any number of sticking points. but the number that the viewers might be most interested in, we have the environmental protection agency under the obama administration that has wanted to issue all sorts of regulations, some related to waterways. there's also the there is also the clean power play and which is the regulation mission. these are things that republican

had wanted to block from being implemented so there are clearly fights that have been going on about that. one of the big fights that has emerged in recent weeks that has become more public in the recent weeks is campaign finance reform. the senate majority leader mitch mcconnell desperately i would say once to change the way the campaign finance laws are structured so the party and campaign committees like the national republican senatorial committee and the democratic senatorial campaign committee did more coordination rights in terms of how they could actually deal with the power of the committees versus outside money so that's one of those issues that's going to come up. the third one that became a firestorm of days ago is that there are some questions about what they are going to do regarding abortion and access to

reproductive services and reproductive health coverage. this isn't the same as the planned parenthood debate but it's related to that. >> host: we have peter from the valley college new york. >> host: go ahead. mitch mcconnell just used that object reconciliation to defund the affordable care act. when you use that you only need a simple majority 51 vote to get the legislation to the president's desk. i was curious why mitch mcconnell didn't use the budget reconciliation to pass that the funding bill of the cities in

california because apparently the legislation could pass because they couldn't get 60 votes. can you explain why he didn't use it for that and if he could have, what are the circumstances in and the issue? thank you. >> one bite of the apple as a apple as a practical matter for the reconciliation process here. the reconciliation procedures are derived from the budget so in order to use the procedure to allow the simple majority vote, you can do it once. it's long been established by the senate republicans as well that they were going to use it to sort of offended the obamacare which president obama will ultimately vetoed. but regarding the sanctuary city question, and other questions, and senate bill there's a whole different rule that governs when

you can or cannot use reconciliation and for what you can use it for. and the purposes have to be primarily budgetary in nature. it's possible i suppose that there would have been a way to craft the reconciliation bill that would have addressed the sanctuary cities, but that seems like a very narrow use to be able to have the desire to budget the impact. >> host: what about the serious refugee program will we see something about that attached to this bill? >> i've been hearing that a group of house republicans would very much like to attach this year he and refugee issue to the omnibus spending bill, but it's one that just a couple of days ago senator richard durbin, the number two democrat in the senate was making it very clear to the reporters that is when the democrats were going to sort of push in particular.

there may be room for more flexibility when it comes to this visa waiver question. it's a separate issue although somewhat related because we are talking about gaining control of people from other countries into the united states and those that don't require visas to come into the united states. there seems to be bipartisan concern about that program and there might be an attempt to clamp down on that that could get the democratic and republican votes. >> host: let's go to the next call. london kentucky you are on. >> good morning. >> good morning. >> i have never heard anyone discuss the national debt as it relates to the assets and the trend of that and how that would rely to similar comparisons and for example ibm or apple etc..

>> guest: when it comes to one of the advantages i would say quickly the u.s. federal government has when it comes to the earnings or whatever it may be relative or is a personal private company is of course the private company cannot print money. there is no such thing as an apple currency. they may want one, i don't know. there is no actual apple currency. so there is no good way to make use of the term apple in the comparison between a company and then a federal government in terms of keeping. >> host: the next call on the independence line is jennifer independent lioness jennifer from north port florida. you are on.

>> caller: good morning. i am just curious if you have any information about the extension and how that is looking. >> host: talk about what this bill is. >> guest: excellent question. the act provides funding for paying for long-term health care needs of mine 111th responders -- 9/11 responders and the cleanup of the world trade center county were affected negatively with all sorts of terrible toll consequences of fuse -- the fumes and what was going on in manhattan. some of you may know, jon stewart has been coming to the hill to talk about that.

quite frankly what we are hearing right now is i found out again yesterday the speaker's p5 office told us that he has assured the members and is assuring people this is going to get done. they were not committing specifically publicly to which vehicle it was going to be. so whether or not it is in the omnibus spending bill or whether it's sort of hitches a ride to somewhere else before the money runs out, speaker ryan says it is definitely going to get done and what i think i was talking about a week ago to the congressman republican from long island, he was saying that he has been sort of on the case about this just about every day and when you are in the new york metro area it is a serious issue and it looks like that's going to be something that is going to get done.

>> post with you to join the republican line, 202-737-0002. democrats can call (202)748-8000 and independent (202)748-8002. the next call is on the independent line. james from montgomery, you you are on. >> i would like to report corruption in the west virginia court system. i may or may not have a case coming up. >> host: did you have a question about the omnibus spending bill that congress is debating? >> caller: yes, using money to do testing and stuff without going through congress about it and i sent a list of stuff that he was -- i wanted him to look

into the case and he got in on the first term and was on the yellow room i guess they call it and made a smart remark. >> host: i'm sorry i don't mean to interrupt that you but we are talking above the omnibus bill so unless it is a question directly for that i'm not sure our guest can address the west virginia issue. let's just move on. what is the next step for congress now in pushing this bill forward? >> guest: once again when we get past today where the house will gamble in as 9:00 this morning as i understand and then we will see them advance the stock app measure what's going to happen when the bill is is overcome and a bigger bill, the omnibus bill is a substantial piece of legislation that will run somewhere north of a thousand pages probably, and

what you will see have if you are a c-span viewer there will be an announcement that will be made at some point probably on monday if not sooner, maybe we are of what the agreement actually is and then in theory you're supposed to be about 72 hours before the house can vote on data so that would send the vote back until wednesday but one notices december 16 which is the date the funding expires happens to be wednesday, so all of this is getting pushed every minute we go we are pushing back further and the other thing that viewers should know as someone that focuses particularly on the senate i can tell you we are already at the point where any senator can seriously disrupt the hijinks.

the house folks because of the weight of way that the committee is structured don't have the power to do that any senator can seriously start of interrupt the timeline particularly if the bill doesn't arrive in the senate until tuesday, wednesday there may need to be another stopgap bill to prevent there from being another shutdown on thursday or friday of next week. >> host: let's hear from the democratic line we have george from ohio. >> caller: yes i am. i have a question. if donald trump gets to be the nominee how will that affect the senate? >> guest: there is concern among republicans that the republican operatives and lawmakers themselves that if someone come in mr. trump or someone like him is the republican nominee for

president, it makes it very much difficult for the republican party to a controlled the the control of the senate and the 2,016th election. if you look at the electoral map that is facing the republicans in the senate in 2016, the places where they have income bent republican senators running in particular, we are looking at places like wisconsin, illinois, new hampshire and ohio and pennsylvania, these are places that often skew more moderate to liberal when it is a presidential year so those are vulnerable senators to begin with. the fear is if you have someone like donald trump headlining the ticket that you end up with

someone like hillary clinton who is the democratic nominee. if you have jerry clinton versus donald trump there's a fear among republicans about how the senate map with turnout. >> host: up next on the independent line from massachusetts, we have kenneth on the line with neil from roll call. go ahead. >> caller: i can't understand why the republicans cut back on all the money when they want to increase the budget. it doesn't make sense. saying we are broke and yet they want to start world war iii and spend money on defense. there's a defense agency right export to us and it's all wrapped up and ready to go for the republican party as soon as they get in they are going to start making weapons of mass destruction, the same thing that we are going to the war with. i can't understand why the country is so divided.

divided we stand, divided we fall and i'm seeing it fall right in front of my eyes and it's sad. this is in the america that i was born in. i was able to get a job and the same day i quit in the 70s. now, good luck. i'm sad to say all this stuff to people, but we've got to get -- we can't just focus on a certain group of people, it's all bad. >> host: let's give him a chance to respond. >> host: >> guest: thank you. good morning, everyone. this is going to be fast because it is a very busy time, plus we have a very terrible bill on the

floor. so many times it seems we come into this room and acknowledge another tragedy. today i mentioned monday marks the three-year anniversary of a heartbreaking shooting at sandy hook elementary school. that's a little more than a thousand days and that's been a little more than a thousand mass murders, more than a thousand shootings. almost one a day. sandy hook and san bernardino are bookends of a dalia tragedy of gun violence that tears communities apart across the country. gun violence has claimed over 90,000 american lives in the past three years. we have a responsibility to address this. it's a public-health issue, public health issue, it's an epidemic and we join -- we had a vigil yesterday here and across the country to honor those who bought only lost their lives at

sandy hook at newtown but across the country. yesterday as you may have noticed i offered a resolution to bring forward american republican congressman, future king's bill to close that gap of people on the fbi terrorist watch list. the republicans blocked the resolution for the seventh time this morning. to keep the house debating the bill to end the loophole. this morning and they blocked it for the seventh time. 90% of democrats have already signed the discharge petition to force a vote to protect the american people. we will continue to demand action. it's about action as we honor people. honor with action not just words

with moments of silence but honoring them with action. we are coming up on the ominous though as you know, and that's why this is going to be a shorter than usual meeting. calling on the republicans to lift republicans to lift the outrageous ban on federal research on gun violence, called for the yesterday. it is in the bill, the dan on gun for violence. the american people want the facts. we need the data. too many times we say we can't make a decision on this because we don't have the data. let's get the data. even the maker, i was in the committee at the time when they noticed it into the law the republican majority in congress and key now has stepped away from his own action.

so negotiations on the omnibus continue. again we have a big focus and we will continue to have a big focus and we will always have a big focus on gun violence prevention because i don't know how we can even face the public this congress having moments of silence and no action. here we have these two bills before us, the omnibus bill to keep the government opened we open we must pass this bill. and i think we are working in a direction to get stuff done. i see that the republican leader announced he won't have the vote until tuesday. i thought we were closer to a bill than that, but nonetheless some of the tax expenditure bill is the other part of it and i don't see very much support on the democratic side of the tax extended bill.

it is a massive permanent giveaway on the unpaid for tax extenders package which is really destructive of the future. evidently the republican deficit are in danger now we are adding hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit permanently and have you heard any of the deficit hawks speaking out against this action, maybe the are on the endangered species list, i don't know but it undermines the ability to invest in our children and eliminates the possibility of revenue reforms that create simplification and a tax code. what we want to do is just that, simplify. make fair, lower the corporate rate, do what we need to do to create growth and create good paying jobs here at home. this bill they expect us to vote on includes hundreds of billions of dollars in permanent tax breaks for special-interest

corporations while neglecting hard-working families. some of it is about rewarding overseas activities to continue to ensure key tax credits that are indexed for hard-working families putting money in the pockets of the american people. i worked with president bush on landmark legislation in that regard. that was seven years ago. it's time for this to be indexed. they index the tax break scored their friends. as the congressmen wrote in their letter on the extender abilities are the cochairs of the republican caucus. why do we agree on the importance of providing permanent extensions with key refundable tax credits that benefit working families, we are concerned that the current agreement is made to heavily

towards corporate america. for--- 4-1. the bill must be separated. and i assume they will be as let's say one group of members voted for the omnibus depending on what it is and we will see what comes back with the extender bill which has the support in the caucus. ..

>> this is an unfolding case in revelation. we will see what else is there. >> have republicans responded to call to get rid of the amendment in the omnibus? if that is not removed, will democrats be able to reach a deal speak with i think a more of an and senate for democrats to vote for the bill. this is after all a compromise and window we have a responsibility to keep the government open and that's what we are striving to do. in spite of some of the bad

writers that are still in the bill from days gone by, shall we say, ossified within the process. but i think it's a gift to them to say if you want our votes come. is a way to get them. i think the more in the positive. >> madam leader, also -- >> are you going to ask about the lawyers speak was i wasn't. the bengals and the niners. >> the warriors. >> anyway speak the warriors by winning all thes these games stt that he does like to talk about it. >> we don't have a basketball team. >> but we have one in the golden state warriors. that's the san francisco bay area. >> so back to my question. the speaker has said they are considering coverage on tax extenders bill in the omnibus. is there a possibility if the

trade-offs that they do in fact separate these. if you get something on childhood or you get guns but that is considered this macro sense? spend what is the question? >> that if the negotiation is being worked out that way to look at these two piece of legislation side by side and not focusing on one bill, because it would get as many republicans -- >> so the question is -- >> the question is is how the negotiations are working, that if you get something in tax centers, then -- >> we will see how it goes. i thought you going to say if the joint in together. let me anticipate that, i would not vote for it so that's the way to keep government open. unless they've all the republican votes to do it. >> i want to get as many republicans as they can to the omnibus. you guys have said consistently

that looks like -- >> you've already had your question. >> follow-up. >> i'm wondering if this is going to look unlikely you can get a deal, a big deal on extenders and perhaps end up with just a two-year -- >> no. i think will have a republican extender bill. i'm only speaking for the house democrats, and when they say i'm holding up the extender bill, i've never been for it. i wasn't before it. i think it's far too expensive. i think the extender bill that is out there, as i said come is destructive of our future. it's a long way to go to of hundreds of billions of dollars, maybe 700 or more billion dollars in private tax extenders that does to reflect to go down that path. and yes, there are a couple of good things in there about child tax credit and the rest the eye negotiated those with president bush. it was historic, the level to which we took that. but it's time for us to have

indexation for that, that you don't hear about that. from my standpoint, some of might members even think with extenders can't indexation in that they wouldn't be for the bill because it's too big. it undermines our ability to get something done for the future. so as i said to senator hatch, you need to set on holding it up or i'm in the loop i don't want to be a both their idol if want to be in the loop on that bill. and then lifting the ban on all the money and that means for the oil industry while they can't index her children is just can't get too big, unfair and does not have the support of house democrats. but it could have the support of others. i'm not speaking for anyone except house democrats. this would be the last question. >> some of the budget watchdog groups have said that this

republican-controlled congress love about $1 trillion to the debt. our republic is being dishonest and for that matter the white house is about how much deficit control is going on. >> i'm just saying they have a different view of what adds to the deficit. what i do know is as a stimulus to the economy is to invest in child tax credit, earned income tax credit because people spend that money immediately. it injects it into the economy. but then if you review the list of some the things that they have, some of them are not -- 179 small business, we created that. but you shouldn't be having a permanent and an paid for. that is the issue. that's not the issue of -- some of them are terrible and their permit and unpaid board so that no justification. others of them okay, we have to

pay for 9/11. what's that, about $9 billion? we have to find the money to pay for 9/11, for the health and the conversation of people who in an emergency, so that should make it not have to be paid for come in an emergency risked their lives, have consequences, health and otherwise that we owe them for compensation. we have to find the money to pay for that. but hundreds of millions of dollars, permanent, unpaid for tax breaks. i mean, i'm glad that you said that some people are concerned about the budget because i haven't heard any of the speak up, but this is not the right way to go. but they haven't matured and this is their vehicle and so there some negotiation going on with them on it. and i don't, that, i'm not part of that because i don't believe in a. i think it's the wrong way to

go. my members share that view. and by the way, my members are the most vocal on this because i listen to what they had to say. i notified them of what i hear. i don't tell them what we're going to do. i hear what they say back and didn't even want us negotiating on it for anything because you think it's the wrong places to go. and i think the american people understood that all this talk about the budget and the rest, this is the president, deserve so much praise when he took office the deficit was 70% higher. it is come and 70%. 1.2, now like 500 come 1.2 children, 500. he has worked very hard to take down the deficit. the republicans come in with this incident we had the majority. if you want some of these extensions to happen you have to go big. and big means unpaid for,

permanent, take it off the table so that baseline is different for how we're going to invest in the future, take it off the table so that these are all taken care of in any discussion we have about implementation or fairness in the tax code that really creates growth, create more good paying jobs in our country and has many more people participate in the prosperity of our country. it's about trickle down, trickle down, trickle down this is the current manifestation of trickle down. but they have the majority and so they need to be negotiated with of course. the president has signature so that gives them leverage in that discussion. but i've made it clear, don't count on our vote for that. >> can you clarify that the child tax credit is added to the bill you think it is too big and destructive -- >> gets into. the child tax credit is in their. >> but indexing. >> they're not going to index. instead they put big oil and

there. when you see the bill and use how can we get better balance to this bill by indexation, a tremendously no, not indexation, let's go on the other side and to big oil. that's not even an attempt. but do you know what? if i have the votes am is what they want to do, we did not want -- will not be accomplices. thank you. >> but you in your position -- does the white house agree with you guys speak with you will have to talk to them. in other words, we have shared values on this end up someplace this bill will be approved by the negotiation that the white house will have because they want to sign something. we don't need to be for a. don't have enough republican votes to put into special interest friends to pass this thing in the second, and that's what i don't want to join to the omnibus bill because they don't want to support ahmed does touch

the omnibus bill and i don't know what happens to the whole package of that. i think were on the path, responsibilities keep government open for the american people. they of frivolously indicated have to be willing to shut it down so we will have to work hard with the new speaker, extinct and friendship. any suggestions or opportunity we may have to work together, we have that response will define our common ground and that is what we are doing. somebody had this idea about this big the package. they could not have been think about the house democrats and supporters of that when they came up with that. >> are you going to make the wednesday deadline? >> coming up live on c-span2 this afternoon a conversation on syrian refugees. we'll hear from germany's ambassador to the u.s., the

assistant secretary state for democracy and human rights at the assistant secretary of state for population, refugees, and migration live from new america at 1 p.m. eastern here on c-span2. this evening on our companion network c-span, donald trump will be holding a campaign rally at the iowa state fairgrounds in des moines. >> this weekend on c-span saturday night at nine eastern executives from pandora and spotify on how technology impacts the entertainment business from this years aspin forum. >> are there certain parts of the day when music is not the only thing you want to listen to. the morning commute is one hypothesis that we're testing right now is that when come if you're on the subway and in your car, et cetera maybe don't only want music. maybe he wants a news, the weather report. you want to see come i if you on the subway, not while you're driving, there's some other

content you want to experience during that period of time and that's kind of the hypotheses were tested right now to see if people are interested in experiencing that. >> sunday evening, ohio governor john kasich at the council on foreign relations on rebuilding international alliances. >> thanks to my 18 years, 18 years on house armed services committee i knew many months ago that the only with to solve this problem is to call for an international coalition to defeat isis in syria and iraq. we are to join with our nato allies important with allies in the region, jordan, egypt, the gulf states of saudi arabia to organize an international coalition to defeat isis on the ground and to deny them the territory that they need to survive. those with long experience know that an air campaign on its own is simply not enough.

>> for more schedule information go to our website c-span.org. >> the senate armed services committee yesterday held a hearing on modernizing and improving military readiness. the committee heard from retired air force and navy officers. arizona senator john mccain chairs the armed services committee. [inaudible conversations] >> well, good morning. committee meets today to continue our series of hearings on defense reform. we have reviewed the effects of the goldwater-nichols reforms on our defense acquisition management personnel system, and our past few hearings have considered what most you as the essence of goldwater-nichols. the rules and response to the secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff joint chiefs of staff, the subsectors and service chiefs and the combatant commanders. this morning we seek to understand how goldwater-nichols

has impacted the effectiveness of u.s. military operations and what reforms may be necessary. where please welcome our distinguished panel of witnesses who will offer insights from the many years of experience in distinguished service. general norton schwartz former chief of staff of the air force and president and ceo of assist executives for national security. admiral james stavridis, former commander of u.s.-european command and u.s. southern command and currently thinking of the fletcher school of law and diplomacy at tufts university and frequent appearance on various liberal media outlets. doctor christopher lamb, deputy director of the institute for national strategic studies at the national defense university. more than anything else the goldwater-nichols act was a result of escalating concern in the congress and in the country about the effectiveness of u.s. military operations. the vietnam war, the good of the hostage rescue mission in iran and the flawed invasion of

grenada pointed to deep systemic problems in our defense enterprises that need to be addressed for the sake of both our war fighters and our national security come a particular goldwater-nichols focus on ensuring the unity of f command and improving the ability of our forces to operate jointly. as we've explored in previous hearings many questions remain about the balance our military to strike between core military competitiveness, competencies and joint experience. as it relates to combat effectiveness there's no doubt as one former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff put it, no the nation can match our ability to combine forces on the battlefield and fight it jointly. the subject of today's hearing relates directly to the many steps goldwater-nichols to to improve the unity of command. the long beach unified commanders explicitly responsible to the president and secretary of defense for the performance of missions and preparedness of their demands. it also removed the joint chiefs of staff from operational chain

of command and prevented the services from of enforcer in and out of regional command without approval. geographic combatant commanders were given the ability to issue authoritative direction on all aspects of operations, joint training and logistics, internal change of command, and personnel within their assigned areas. the steps were effective in establishing clear lines of command authority and responsibilities a translator to a more effective fighting force than we had in the 1980s. however, 30 years later we have to take a hard look at this command structure in light of current threats and how our model for fighting has evolved. the united states confronts the most diverse and complex array of crises since the end of world war ii from rising competitors like china, powers like russia, the growing asymmetric capabilities of nations ranging from iran to north korea. the persistence of radical

islamist extremism and the emergence of new domains of warfare such as space and cyberspace. these threats come across our regional operation structure embodied by geographic combatant commands. so we must ask, whether the current combatant command structure best enables us to succeed into strategic environment of the 21st century should we consider an alternative structures better organize less around geography and country joe and functional nations? at the same time as numerous witnesses have observed while combatant commands were originally envisioned as the war fighting arm of the military, the department of defense, that function is largely migrated to joint task forces, especially on an ad hoc basis in response to emerging contingencies. this suggest people have identified a shortcoming in the current design and have adopted measures to work around the system as we see quite often.

this should inform our efforts to reevaluate and reimagine the combatant commands. at the same time combatant commands have contemplated -- have come to put a very important piece time function. at a minimum they would call into question the top heavy and bloated staff structures that we see in the combatant commands. time and again during these hearings we have heard how dramatic increases in civilian and military staffs have persisted, even as resources available for war fighting functions are increasingly strained. as former undersecretary defense for policy michele flournoy pointed out earlier this week, combatant commands staffs have grown to 38,000 people. that is nearly three divisions worth of staff and just the combatant commands alone. we have to ask if this is truly necessary and whether it is

improving our war fighting capabilities. at the same time we have to examine whether they are duplicative functions and the joint staff, combatant commands and subordinate commands that can be streamlined. that includes the question of whether we really need all of the current combatant commands. for example, do we really need a northcom and a southcom? do we need a separate africom headquartered in germany when the vast majority of its forces reside within you. as we have to visit the role of the chairman of the joint chiefs, the chairman and the members of the joint chiefs of staff, goldwater-nichols strengthened the command at the expense of the service. has gone too far or not far enough? robert gates raised this issue when he testified before this committee, because of his frustration with the military services lack of responsiveness to current operational requirements.

many of our witnesses have discussed whether the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff has sufficient statutory authority to perform the strategic integration that the department of defense all too often seems to do poorly, integrating priorities, efforts and resources across regions, across domains of metadata activity, and across time. balancing short-term and long-term requirements. the question has been raised whether the chairman should be placed in the chain of command, with the service chiefs and combatant commanders reporting to them. we have heard testimony in favor and against. i look forward to exploring this further today. these are critical questions about our defense organization that have direct bearing on the effectiveness of u.s. military operations, and as a consequence on the well being of our warfighter's. we owe it to them to look at this seriously, ask the tough questions, challenge assumptions and embraced in solutions if and

when it is needed. i think our witnesses again and look forward to their testimony. senator reid? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. let me join you in welcoming the what does it. i've had the privilege of working with general schwartz, admiral stavridis as eucom command and dr. lamb, your defense, analysts and i deeply appreciated and thank you very much, gentlemen for joining us today. as the chairman has said we have undertaken a very rig was under his direction review of the goldwater-nichols. and we heard just a few days ago from the second of defense, former secretary of defense michele flournoy about one of the issues that that was in her words over the years the qdr has become a bottle of staff exercise that includes hundreds of participants and consumes many man-hours rather than a top and leadership exercises that sets clear priorities that makes tough choices and allocate risk. one of the things i would hope

the witnesses will talk about is the whole planning process, the formal, informal and how we can improve that. that's just one of the items. there's a long and i think important list of topics that we could discuss. the role in the authority assigned to the joint chief of staff, but he should replace the military chain of command for military operations. and the potential benefits of adopting organizational changes including consolidation of staff development and creation of cross functional teams to achieve efficiencies and provide senior civilian and military leaders with more impact in a timely recommendations. finally, in previous hearings some of our witnesses have observed that enhancing the effectiveness of military operations and better capital, capitalizing upon the gains achieved through those improvements may require significant changes to our

interagency national security structure and processes as well. this point was made by jim loughner who was the godfather if you will of the goldwater-nichols. in his words no matter how will you transform defense is still going to be -- that is quite broken and problems confront this nation require an interagency response. we do not have the ability to integrate the capacity or the government agencies that are necessary. i think it's important to keep that in mind. the chairman, let me commend him for beginning this process with this committee with the department of defense but i hope it's a catalyst under his leadership for serious review by other committees and other agencies about how together we can improve the security and the united states. thank you, mr. chair. >> thank you. welcome, general schwartz. >> thanks, chairman mccain and

ranking member reed for your come and the committees commitment to improving dod's internal governance and defense organization shaped of the goldwater-nichols reform. it is an unexpected privilege to return to the shearing ram and to offer a few related ideas on how to improve performance in the department of defense. and it is a special pleasure to sit beside the finest flag officer of my generation, admiral stavridis. mother many issues that warrant attention am command arrangements, resource allocation, acquisition processes, overhead reduction, joint credentialing of military personnel and the potential for consolidation, among others, i wish to focus this morning on the three that i am persuaded hold the greatest promise for particularly positive outcomes. they are the role and authority of the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, rightsizing the

combatant commands and establishing standing joint task force is for execution of cocom operational missions that i'm prepared to address the of that matters you mentioned at your discretion. in my experience as a former member of the joint chiefs of staff and the joint staff, a functional combatant commander and a chief of service, i have come to the conclusion that the chairman's informal role in supervising the combatant commanders in the jcs is insufficient for the demands of our times. while it is true that delegated authority from the secretary of defense is an alternative, there should be no doubt in the armed forces about the directive authority of the chairman. subject to the close and continuing scrutiny and oversight of the secretary of defense.

strategic guidance for force employment, force allocation trade-offs between combatant commands and establishing strategic priority for the armed forces should that be the result of bureaucratic negotiation or the exquisite application of personal persuasion, but rather the product of strategic leadership. this capacity is constrained by the chairman's inability to exercise executive authority on behalf of the secretary of defense. at the remedy i suggest that you place the chairman in the line of supervision between the secretary and his or her combatant commanders. and nine combatant commands are a complex entities, none of which are alike. some with regional responsibilities and some with functional roles. the commands strive to serve

both peacetime, crisis response and were fighting obligations. the composition of the combatant command staff clearly reflected in tension in this excessively broad mission, peacetime administration, deterrence, training, and partner engagement versus maintaining the capacity to conduct complex contingency operations in peace and war. the proliferation of resource directories, joint intelligence centers, security assistance or a gram offices, typically j. fours, partner engagement entities, and operations in training staff is the result of this expansive assigned missions that. and over time the war fighting

role of the combatant commands has evolved to the almost exclusive use some would suggest successive use of joint task force is up to and including 4-star led joint task forces to execute assigned missions. the simple question in my mind is, can they combatant command, no matter how well tailored, performed each and every associated task with equal competence? i don't think so. and the attempt to infuse greater interagency past into the combatant commands has been my experience detracted from the core operational focus in either peacetime or in conflict. how have we squared the tension between combatant commands peacetime and wartime roles? i would argue by, again extensive use of joint task force organizations to execute operational missions.

it is my conviction that the efficacy of the task force employment model is beyond dispute. the national counterterrorism joint task force demonstrates conclusively, in my mind, the enduring value of standing, mature, well-trained and equipped joint task force is. it may well be that high-performance parallels exist for national joint task force is in the surface, maritime, and air domains as well. what we should continue, however, are what i should say we should discontinue, is that the proliferation of joint task force is each combatant commands with the attendant service components and headquarters staff. task force 510 in the pacific