the smithsonian -- will be live from the national mall at 10:00 a.m. eastern for the outdoor dedication ceremony.

speakers include president obama and founding museum director lonny bunch. watch the opening ceremony for the smithsonian national momentum for african-american hoyt and culture on c-span. defense secretary ashton carter and joint chefs of staff chair joe dunford tim about the budget namedded. the committee is chaired by senator john mccain.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] gordon. since a you'rum is now present i ask the committee to consider a list of 40 pending military nominations including in this list, there's a nomination of general journey heighton, u.s. air force, for reappointment of the grid of general and to commander of the united states strategic command. all of these nominates have been before the commit year. there is a motion to report 40 military nominations to the senate? your second.

>> second. >> all in fav aaye. >> aye. >> motion carries. the senate armed services committee mets this morning to receive testimony on u.s. national security challenges and ongoing military operations. i'd like to welcome our witnesses, secretary carter and secretary dunford. thank you for your service and thank you to the men and women you lead and their families for their service and sacrifice during these challenging times. this committee has conducted regular hearings on u.s. national security strategy and ongoing military operations, and we have devoted special attention to the chaos engulfing the middle east and the u.s. military campaign against isil. it well be up too future historians to render a final judgment on this administration's stewardship of u.s. interests in the broader middle east but in the opinion of this one senator, it's been an unmitigated doctors.

president obama sought to pivot away from one of the most vital regions of the world out of a misplaced hope that, quote, the tide of war was receding and we should focus on, quote, nation building at home that withwithdrawal of u.s. power filled with the worth actors, al qaeda and icele and now putin's russia. just consider over the past eight years, this administration has overseen the collapse of regional order in middle east into a state of chaos where every country is either a battlefield for regional conflict, a party to the conflict or both. the rise of isil, and the threat it poses has made al qaeda appear modest by comparison. but both terrorize networks have expanded their influence from west africa to south asia and everything in between. the administration may have

postponed iran's nuclear programs but this is come at the cost of unshackling iranian pair and ambition, both of which will grow as bills of dollars in sanctions relief is transformed into advanced military capability and support for terrorism. and then there is putin's russia. which has reclaimed a position of influence in middle east that is not enjoyed in four decades. the best that can be said about this devastating legacy is over the past year in part thanks to our witnesses today, president obama has at least begun town leash america's filing men and women against isil. they're fighting with skill and courage despite enorm mose -- enormous risks. we're gradually eroding isil residents territorial control and removing key personnel from the battlefield. this military campaign has too

often been slow, reactive and excessively micromanaged by the white house. inteed, we read this morning of plans for yet another incremental increase of 500 troops in iraq, one more step down the road of gradual escalation. budget thanks to the tremendous talent and ted indication of our men and women in uniform, we are making progress. i have no doubt that isil will eventually be expelled from its songholds in mosul and raqqa. the day of liberation will come later than it should have but it will come. this will be a tactical success but it is unlikely to lead to strategic gapes bag the administration has -- gains because the administration has failed to address and exacerbated the underlike conflict. the fight for power, isil is merely a symptom of this deeper problem. in iraq, mosul may be retaken

eventually but that will only reignite the battle for the future of iraq, battle in which we have an important stake. the biggest problems still lie ahead. combating the influence of iran, trace the future of the kurds and their place in iraq, and a attenuating the disenfranchisement of the sunni iraqis that gave rise to ice until the first place. libya, we have had success in degrading isil's stronghold but what remains is a divide nation littered with independent militias flooded with arms and searching in vain for legitimate governance and political unit. conditions that will remain federalle ground for extremism and anti-western terrorism. we have also begun targeting ice until afghanistan but a resurgent taliban,backed i afghanistan's neighbors continue to destabilize the country while

afghan national army casualties remain unsustainably high and yet it was in this environment that president obama chose to withdraw another 1,400 troops. nowhere, however, is america's strategic drift clearer than in syria. after more than 400,000 ted, and half the population driven from their homes, after the worst refugee crisis in the century which now threatens the project of european unity, the administration still has no plausible vision of an end state for syria. instead, while russian and syrian regime aircraft bomb hospitals, markets and eight warehouses and other civilian targets, president obama sent his intrip ped bill delusional secretary of state, to tilt yet again at the wind mil of cooperating with vladimir putin. even committing to share intelligence with russia for

coordinated military operations. this agreement would be deeply problematic, even if implemented. it would mean that the u.s. military would effectively own future russian air strikes in at the eyes of the world and strengthen assad's military position in the country, thereby unmine our open strategic objective of a political transition. it appears none of this will matter but a once again, assad and putin are not holding up their end of the deal as nearly everyone predicted. assad has declared an end to the cease fire. barrel bombs are falling again on civilian friday aleppo and an air strike reportedly carried out by russia has killed 12 member of a u.n. humanitarian convoy. nonetheless, administration officials are tells separately trying to salvage this agreement, likely because they realize that without this

diplomatic fig life the failure of their syria policy will be evident and everyone else knows there's no plan b. this should be yet another lesson as if we needed it that diplomacy in the absence of leverage is a recipe for failure. our adversaries will not too what we ask of them out of the goodness of their hearts, or out of concern for our interests or the suffering of others. they must be compelled and that requires power. until the united states is willing to take steps to change the conditions on the ground in syria, the war, the terror, the refugees, and the instability will continue. such will be the unfortunate inheritance of our next president. the middle east aflame, where american influence has been squandered. america's at -- adversaries neither respect or fear us, america's friends are increasingly hedging their bets and america residents policy options have been narrowed and

worsened. what is worse i america's military will confront these daunting challenges with constrained budgets, aging equipment, depleted read ins and a growing set of operational requirements driven by other escalating challenges in europe and asia. we're simultaneously asking our military to wage a generational fight against islamist terrorism while rebilling a read and modernized force to deter and if necessary defree throw power of iraq state competitors in full spectrum combat. would be the first to admit that congress is failing in its -- to match resources to requirements. but the failure of the president is worse. after all it is the duty of the commander in chief to be the strongest advocate for the needs of our military, but president obama has been more interested

in using the defense budget as a hostage to distract political concessions for greater nondefense spending. secretary carter, this may be one of your last appearances before the committee itch hope you will use the opportunity to offer some clear answers to these troubling questions. senator reid. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and i would like to join in welcoming secretary carter and general dunford in giving the security challenges that face the united states your appearances before the commit year are always deeply appreciated and very timely, particularly this moment. while significant work remains to defeat isil, the united states and coalitions, military operations have resulted in important gains in both iraq and syria. most notably isil has been driven out of the territory the group once held and isil lot its hold on the stiff of manbij, and

several key towns. the effect of-the-operations has been to cut off key supply line and tree strict ability to move equipment and personnel across the battlefield. as a result it appears isil is under more pressure now than any other time. unfortunately, in syria it appears the cessation of hostilities is not going to hold and we look forward to your assessment of the progress of the military aspects of this campaign and whether there is a possibility of a renewed secession of hostilities in the firefighter. the military commanders are widely focused on ensuring military operations to force the efforts of diplomat and other policymakers to address the kinking political challenges in iraq and syria. even after the coalition retakes mosul and raqqa, the works of diplomats and military intelligence heintz will not be over. ensuring isil is dealt a lasting

defeat will not only require military support but assistance in achieving the -- this will require that the civilian agencies are provided the critical resources necessary to proffer this work. with regard to afghanistan, spout the president's position to maintain'll 8400 troops in the done into next year. this decision sented a important message to afghans, allies and taliban and others that the united states remains committed to ensuring a stable afghanistan. we look forward to your assessment of this year's fighting season and what more we took to support development of the afghan national defense and security forces. despite a challenging security and political environment the afghan national united statesy government continue to be a partner for the u.s. but rye mained concern about the reports of corruption in afghanistan and the slow political progress on the reform agenda.

in light of these challenge us hope you'll also discuss the efforts of the identity and allies to build institutional capacity and enable necessary reforms in afghanistan. in eastern europe, russia continues it's pattern of confrontation and antagonistic behavior, and fomenting -- their if a raters have harassed u.s. ships across the region and provide support and training to separatists in eastern ukraine. in violation of the cease fire agreements. uconn and nato hey undertaken efforts to deter some behavior. >> north korea remains one of the most dangerous and difficult national security challenge this country faces. earlier this month north korea conducted its fifth nuclear test, dome machine straighting the north korean regime has little interest in the resuming six party talks. while we have made significant

effort to put strong and excessive sanctions in place to curb the development, china's unwillingness to enforce the sanctions has undermind u.s. and international efforts to bring north korea in line. finally, our long-term military needs a put focusing into five years. the last time congress provided the department with budget stability but there is no budget furphiesal jeer 2018 and beyond. without another bipartisan agreement that provides relief from sequestration, the department will be forced to submit a fiscal year 2018 budget that adheres to the sequestration budget cam and would undermine our defense strategy. and modernize it platforms and equipment and we must not let that happen. thank you begin, mr. chairman, and thank you, gentlemen. >> welcome, mr. secretary. this is the last time for this

year we appreciate your -- you and general dunford's appearances before the armed services committee and look forward to you and general doneford's testimony: thank you for your service to our nation. secretary carter. >> thank you very much. champ chairman, ranking member reed, all the members to the committee, thank you for having us here and chairman and senator reed, thank you for taking the time to talk with me before the hearing. and for hosting general dunford by my side where he is all the time and i'm very pleased and our country is very fortunate to have him. similarly i want to thank you for hosting the service chiefs last week. i appreciated your comments to them about the inefficiencies and the dangers of continued budget instability and gridlock,

as well as the risk of sequestration's looming return. i look forward to addressing those topics more today with you. also appreciate your support for our me and women serving around the world. military and civilian alike. you always provided. they're the finest fighting force the world has ever known. they're the -- no one else in the world is stronger no one is more capable, more innovative, more experienced, and has better friends and allies than they. that is a fact. and the fact at they weres ought to be proud of. americans ought to be proud of. dod is currently addressing each of the five challenges they we described to your in our budget testimony this spring and that the chairman and senator reed have already touched on, namely, russia, china, north korea, iran, and terrorism.

and on the last, in the wake of this week's attacks in new jersey, new jersey, and minnesota, we remain as determined as ever to continue encounters troh irss rind the world. as chairman dunford and i testified this spring we have been planning for activities to be paid for by the 2017 budget that we have committed, and that we developed. that budget adhered to last fall's bipartisan budget deal in overall size. while in shape, it marked a strategic turning point for dod. making breakthrough investments in new operational concepts, in pioneering technological frontier and reforming the dod enterprise and in building the force of the future. it also put a high premium on continuing to rebuild the ready unless of our forces, requiring not only stable resources but also time. nothing is more important than

readiness, to me or to the service chiefs. and yet today, just eight days away from the end of this fiscal year, that budget has yet to be funded by congress. i want us toe discuss that with you today but because that's hearing is on military operations let me begin with an operational someone date on our campaign to deliver isil a lasting defeat. now, each time chairman dunford and i appeared before the committee since back last october, i've described to you our coalition military campaign plan which is focused on three objectives. the first is to destroy isil's -- the isil cancer's parent tumor in iraq and syria. the sooner we end isil's occupation of territory in those countries, the sooner we destroy both the fact and the idea of islamic state based on isil's barbaric ideology. the safer all of us in the world will be.

and that's necessary, absolutely necessary, it's not sufficient. so our second objective is to combat isil's metastases everybody they emerge in afghanistan, libya and elsewhere. and our third objective is to help protect the homeland. this is mainly the responsibility of our partners in the fbi and justice department, homeland security, the intelligence community, and state and local law enforcement. but dod strongly supports them and i'll address how momentarily. since last fall we have taken many steps to continually accelerate this campaign, all consistent with our strategic approach of enabling capable, motivated local forces for that's the only way to ensure isil's lasting defeat. and while we have much more work to do, the results of our effort are showing. in iraq, we have been enabling the iraqi security forces and the kurdish peshmerga after retaking ramadi and establishing

a staging peace the isf went on to retake fallujah and important air fields set thing stage to complete the envelopement of mosul and the collapse of isils are control. the last few diedays the i sf began racings to retake other towns surrounding mosul. and the final assault on mosul will commence as with previous operations, when prime minister abadi gives the order. in syria, our coalition has also enabled considerable results by our local partners. they retook shadadi and manbij city. and providing key intelligence insights. additionally, our ally turkey is helping local syrian partners clear their border region with isil.

we're working shoulder to shoulder with the turks, supporting these efforts from the air, on the ground, and with intelligence, and as we do so, we're managing regional tensions. tensions we have foreseen in keeping everyone focused on our common enemy isil. we're systematically eliminating isil's leadership with the coalition having taken out seven members of the isil senior, including the chief of extent prayings al-adnani. he was one of 20 operators and plotters we removed from the battlefield. and also continuing to go after is ale others attempts to delve chemical weapons as we ensure that u.s. coalition and iraqi troops are protected from that threat. in just last week in one of the single largest air strikes of our campaign we destroyed a pharmaceutical facility near mosul isil tried to use as a chemical weapons plant elm also

continue to aggressively attack isil's economic infrastructure, oil wells, tanker trucks, cache storage and more, and we continue to take the fight to isil across every domain including cyber. with all that's we're putting isil on the path to a lasting defeat in iraq and syria, particularly as we embark on a decisive fate of off campaign to collapse isil's control of mosul, raqqa. with respect to the syrian civil war, want to commend secretary kerry for working so tirelessly to seek an arrangement which, if implemented, will ease the suffering of the syrian people, and get russia pushing at last for a political transition, which is the only way toned the sir -- to end the syrian civil war. there hey mains a way to go so city if the n terms can be impled. unfortunately the behavior from

russia and syria has been deeply problematic. let me turn to our second objective, combating isil's metastases. in libya, thinks to u.s. precision airstrikes, isil's territory in cert has been reduced to a single square ill kilometer people and confident will be ejected from there meanwhile in afghanistan, we work with our afghan partners to conduct the large operation against isil over the last two months, dealing the organization severe blows, killing its top lead are and degrading infrastructure, logistic space and recueding and there will be more coming. next, to help protect our homeland, and our people, dod continues to provide strong support to our law enforcement homeland security and intelligence partners. this is the number one mission of our northern command. and the u.s. military is supporting our partners in three critical ways. first, we're ensuring the

protection of our personnel and the dod facilities where they work and roadside. second, we're disrupting isil's operations. third, we're also disrupting the flow of foreign fighters both to and from iraq and syrian this is part of a broader effort within our coalition to stem the flow of fighters and counter the recruitment and spread of its loathesome ideology. going forward the collapse of isil's control over iraq and mosul, which we're confident our coalition will achieve, will indeed put isil on a path to lasting defeat but after that to take up a point that both the chairman and ranking member reed made there will city stihl be much more to do. political challenges will remain. for that reason the international coalition stabilization evident cannot be allowed to lag behind our military progress.

that's critical in making sure that isil, once defeated, stays defeated. coolly delivering ice al last defeat requires strategic patience and persistence weapon can't predict what will come after the coalition defeats sol we most be ready by anything, including isil's attempts to remain relevant, even if only the darkest corner's the internet. let me now address issues dod faces as an i institution and how you can help. we have the grave concerns related to processes here in congress. one, budget gridlock and instability. two, micromanagement and overregulation, and three, denil of needed reforms. as you have heard consistently from the and dod senior leaders assault three are serious concern but here today because of how close we for the end of the fiscal year i want to focus on the first. we need congress to come

together around providing normal, stable, responsible budgets because the lack of stability represents one of the single biggest strategic risks to our enterprise at dod. that's why i've been talk about the nature of risk posed by instability over a year and a half you. heard the same from the service cheechs last week. such budget unstable undercuts stable planning and efficient use of taxpayer dollars often in ways taxpayers can't even seem it baffles our friends, emboldens our foes. to managerially unsound and unfairly disspiritting to the troops forks families and work force, and it's inefficient for our defense industry partners, too. we're now eight days away from the end of the fiscal year. but instead of stability, we're going into fiscal year 2017 with yet another continuing resolution. this for the eighth fiscal year

in a row and that's a deplorable state of affairs and exert your helicopter about the damage it can could to our institution. as you know the longer a continuing resolution lasts the motorhome damaging it is. it's not matter modify but where the dollars are. a cr that guess past december would undermine our plan to -- our reassurance accomplishtive as a time weapon kneed to be standing with nato allies and standing up to deter russian aggression. know you will return here in november to pass defense appropriations on a national defense authorization act. i look forward to work with you then. however, i cannot support any approach to the defense budget that moves us towards sequestration. or walkway from barn -- away from bipartisanship and not at the expense of the stability that comes with it.

not if it short changes the needs of our war fighters and means funding low priorities stained to high pressure priorities and undermines confident in the ability to pass bipartisan budget deals which could lead to the imposition of sequestration's $100 billion in looming automatic cuts to us. and not if it ads extra force structure we can't afford to keep ready in the long term which would only lead to a hollow force. i'm confident and hopeful that we can come back together again. today, america is fortunate to have the worldest greatest military. know it, you know it our friends and allies know it in critically our potential adversaries know it, too. only with your help can we ensure that my successors can say the same and that what is today the finest fighting force the world has ever known, remains that way for years to come. thank you.

>> general app general dunford. >> chairman mccain, -- thank you for the opportunity to join secretary carter this morning. i'd like to associate myself with the comments made by the service chiefs who testified before the committee last week. as you expect they offered their candid assessment of the ready in and modernization challenges of each service and i fully condition cower with their southeastsment of the tempo and budget challenges but due in large part to this commit career's support the joint force remains the most capable and professional military in the world. we can defend the nation, we can meet our alliance responsibilities, and today we have a competitive advantage over any adversary. i think that an important point that should not be lost on our allies. it should not be lost on our enemies and should not be lost on the men and women of the joint force. our soldiers, sailors, mr. anne

marines and coast guard men and i say that mindful remain challenged by state actors. russia, china, iran, and north korea, continue to invest in military capabilities that reduce that competitive advantage. they're also advancing their interests through adversarial competition has that a military dimension that falls short of armed conflict. examples include russian actions in ukraine, north korea's nuclear sable rattling, chinese activities in the south china sea, and iran's activities across the middle east. in different ways each of thieves nations leverage economic coercion, information operations, cyber capabilities, unconventional warfare and forced posture, delve bratly seeking to avoid a u.s. military response. meanwhile nonstate actors such as icele and al qaeda remain a threat to our homeland, the american people, and our partners and allies, at evidenced by the weekend's

attacks such extremist groups seek to inspire and radicalize others. the joint forces engaged in responding to each challenge were focuses on detemperaturing potential adversaries and we're prepared to respond. we also remain firmly excited to defeating icele and its affiliates. since my last appears i've made additional trips to the middle east and encourage build the coalition's progress in iraq ask syrian also degraded the islamic state's capabilities in libya west africa, and afghanistan. coalition operations supporting indigenous ground forces and the chairman mentioned this, ranking member reed mentioned this is have disrupts core isil ability to restore attack. reduce control, limit freedom of movement and reduce resources available. most importantly the coalition has begun to discredit isil's

narrative expats our've 0 vein instancability. while morning remains to be begin and no means are with come place sit it's clear we have -- as the joint forces address each strategic challenge we also recognize the need continue vest in future. as the secretary said we don't have the luxury of choosing between the challenges we face today or the challenges we will face tomorrow. to meet tomorrow residents righter -- tomorrow's requirements we haves e must take action today. we must develop and enhance the capabilities that in the increasingly contested domains of space and cyber and must also do that while preserving the edge in our conventional capabilities. in end we must maintain a balanced inventory of joint capables and capacities to immediate the full range of challenges we'll confront in closing i am concern about ravediness today but more concerned about maintaining a

competitive advantage in the future. if we fail to modernize the joint force we'll be at a disadvantage and the committee share mist belief we should never send soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, into a fair fight. thank you. >> thank you for your comments about the testimony of the service chiefs of we presented. too. we were shocked to. or at least surprised to learn that none of the service chiefs have had a conversation with the president of the united states. that's the first time i ever heard of it in my years of service and membership of this committee. general dunford in your professional military opinion, is russia -- a russian quagmire in syria? >> it's not clear to me that russia is in a quagmire in syria. >> enough your professional military opinion is the cessation of hostilities agreement being effectively

implemented on the ground in syria? >> that would not appear to be the case over the last 48 hours, chairman. >> this not the first time we have had one of these agreements. in fact it is beginning to fit the definition of insanity. of doing the same thing over and over again. suppose this fails again. general dunford. what do we do then? try another cease fire? what do we do then? we just saw evidence that a chemical weapon and we knew that a chemical weapons factory was functioning in raqqa. what is plan b? there is a plan b here or do we just keep going back to the five star hotels in geneva and have meetings with our mr. lavrov and come out with various declarations? what do we do if this one fails? >> mr. children we have a wide

range of military -- >> give us one. >> chairman, if i could finish, we have a wide range of military options we would provide to the president should our policy change in the wake of this recent cessation -- >> the policy working? >> against isil, the present policy -- >> syria. >> with 4 then thousand people killed, six million refugees, is our strategy in syria working? succeeding in. >> with regard to political transition in syria -- >> regard taz the whole situation in syria. is our policy working? >> chairman, i'd let others address the policy. our focus from the military -- >> i'm asking is our military strategy succeeding in syria? >> our military strategy is focused on a counter-isil campaign in my judgment we are succeeding in that campaign. >> so, as far as you're concern we ignore the 400,000 dead and the six million refugees that caused by bashar al assad do you

believe it's likely he will leave power? >> i can't really judge that right now. doesn't appear he will in the near term, chairman. >> so you can't judge that. >> i can't judge the long-term prospects for assad was my point, chairman. i'm sure he's not leaving in the short term. >> in your professional military opinion, is it a good idea to share, set up an intelligence sharing probation violation with the russians? >> -- we don't have any intention of have an intelligence chairing arrange. with the russians. >> that is part of secretary kerry's proposal, that we set up an intelligence sharing operation in syria with the rescues. >> the u.s. military role will not include intelligence sharing with russians. >> do you support the idea they should share intelligence, military intelligence

information with russia and syria. >> airplane, what the president has directed us to do is to establish a joint implementation -- >> i was asking for your professional military opinion, not what the president has told you to do. i'm asking as in your confirmation hearings if you would give your professional military opinion to this committee in response to questions. i expect you to hold to that. is it your professional military opinion that it would be a good idea to have an intelligence sharing operation with russia in syria? >> chairman i do not believe it to be a good idea to share intelligence with the russians. >> i thank you, general. on the issue of secret service i hope it got the attention of my colleagues that every one hoff the service chiefs said that quebec -- sequestration puts our men and women at risk. at the same time the president of the united states is putting the risk to american service men

and women in the same level as funding for the epa. and so it is just remarkable to a lot of us that we don't take care of the compelling argument of caring -- reducing the risk to the men and women serving in the military, demanding there be nondefense increases in spending at the same time. all i can say is i thank you, secretary carter and general dunford, but this -- this latest information concerning a chemical shell obviously shows that in raqqa they're doing a lot of things, including a chemical weapons factory which adds a new dimension to the threat to the lives of the men and women who are serving in the military. i still look forward to hearing from secretary carter and general dunford what is the

strategy if the present strategy continues to utterly fail and, frankly, haven't heard that. senator reed. >> thank you very mitch, mr. chairman. mr. sect and general dunford, one of the factors that appears to be influencing the timing of the mosul operation is to -- how do you govern mosul after you militarily succeed iraqi security forces succeed with american and coalition assistance? and that triggers the issue of not only the role of agencies outside defense, like the state department, aid and others, but the resources they have. it would be necessary -- is it necessary in your view that these agencies be robustly funded in addition because without them you can have a military victory and essentially just wait around baud they'll come back because you haven't put the politics politics and ae

capacity together. >> it is necessary. had the defense ministers of the key coalition contributors their andrews a little while ago and we went through, as we always do, the campaign, their role, including the moves to envelope mosul we have now taken. their biggest concern with the campaign in iraq is exactly the one you note, namely, is the political and the economic lagging so far behind the military that there's going to be an issue once mosul is -- once isil is ejected from mosul? i'm just very specifically, if i may, senator, take the political part and the stabilization reconstruction part. on the political part, this is the question that recures actually everywhere we go. everywhere we enable forces to

defeat isil, the people who live there say, what's going to happen afterwards? and that's something we have dealt with in -- all complicate, all different. mosul will dedifferent, too. my understanding and it's not just mine but the chairman's and the -- our commanders there and the president's with prime minister abadi, president barzani, who are contributing forces, the peshmerga from the north, a couple brigades, and the isf from the south for the envelopement and collapse of control on isil's control on mosul. our understanding with them, which they both adhering to, is that neither of the forces that will participate in taking mosul should be the hold and govern force there they should be

local, police, sunni, in many cases but actually a mixed ethnicity city and the governor of the province is the one that they are working with and we're working with. that is a daily exercise for general found zen and for us to keep everybody aligned and focused on the job at hand, which is defeating isil. with respect to stabilization and reconstruction we don't know what the collapse of isil's control over mosul will look like. we have had a different experience in different cities. and obviously no one wants to see a street to street fighting in mosul but you don't know there would be a large number of refugees and we're preparing for that. not usaid. you mentioned u.s. government funding and that's essential but the u.n. and other international aid agencies and that's one thing our asked our coalition partyer ins.

if you don't want to make a military contribution or don't have a strong military contribution to make or its problematic for some historical or political reason for you to make a contribution, check is good. to the local people to help them reconstruct. >> but essentially, you cannot -- you can conduct operations but the real long-term method is a political, economic relief, refugees support, et cetera, those are funded outside the popular defense so a comprehensive approach to all these problems requires relief not just from the defense spending but for other federal agencies. >> it is. the whole counter-isil thing is -- >> going back also to your question about northern command. northern command is critical to the defense of the united states but without a robust department of homeland security and and without adequate resources, the

fbi and for other domestic agencies, then you could be performing peak efficiency but the job immigration not done. >> that is true. we count on their support. we support. the as well. it's whole of government evidence. >> general dunford, do you concur. >> i do, sir. >> thank you very much. >> their, mr. chairman. let me start off by saying that we have rules in this committee that when we have witnesses coming in we're to get their written statement 48 hours in advance. now, we didn't get both of yours until 8:30 this morning. we did a lot better with the chiefs last week. in fact general hiden was in 72 hours in advance. so i think it's a good idea to pass on to others before they come in that we really do need to have that to conduct a hearing that is meaningful. when general gold was here he

described what is needed for defense spending and he talked about sufficient stable, predictable funding. y your statement, secretary carter, you left the word, sufficient, out, and i am concerned about this. during the clinton administration when there were actually trying to cut the 400 out of the budget, we in this committee, and sitting in here were able to put 100 back in, and you remember the famous chart we used at that time. general milly said last week -- i think he said it best. he said, quote, the only thing more expensive than deterrence is actually fighting a war. the only thing more expensive than fighting a war is losing a war and we're expensive, we reckons that but the bottom line is it's an investment worth every nickel. guess the question just for a short answer from each one of your our defendant funding levels kept pace of the

requirements of our environment out there? >> senator, i don't believe they have and that is why we have articulated an increase requirement in fy17 and we'll continue to reinforce the areas we identified in 17 for 18. >> turn over to -- >> i appreciate that do you agree. >> i agree with general dunford and what the chiefs said as well and insufficiency belongs with instability. i'm sorry we left that word out. nothing intended there. the point that they were making and that i would strongly echo is the effects of eight straight years of ending a fiscal year without an -- that has had a serious effect. we have tried to manage through it. we've done our best that is just not -- >> i understand. >> the way to run -- >> you have been a real stalwart when you're in support of each leg of the nuclear triad, have

stated the nuclear mission is the bedrock of our security. today we're spending three to four percent of our budget. however the long-term plan shows we'll move up wichita the decade or sometime in decade to 67%. the question i would ask is -- six to seven percent. the question i would ask, with russia and china actively modernizing nuclear weapons, delivery system, what is happening in north korea, do you think we should accelerate this so we would reach the six to seven percent earlier, like now? >> senator, i think as you know many of those programs it's not just a function of accelerate neglect tubbing, it's how much time it takes for development and i'm confident that the path we're on and the timing for the introduction of our new programs is about right. it balances both the budget but more importantly balances the operational read yaness of the systems to be crow suesed -- >> i think what you're saying if you had more enough wow could cot spend it wisely.

you've need the course we're on is adequate in your opinion. >> senator, that's exactly my -- >> all right. that's fine. i was in ukraine right after their parliamentary elects and i've never seen pour shen cow how prod they were not having one communist in parliament. and yet as soon as that happened they started killing the ukrainians and the -- i would ask you this, secretary carter. is deterrence of russia in europe a policy priority? >> it absolutely is. that's why we quadrupled the european reassurance initiative -- >> well, i would ask the question, why are we not providing defensive assistance to ukraine. >> that is still on the table. it's been on the table for quite some time -- >> more than on the table. we -- >> it's going to depend upon

what the russian does respect to -- i just melt with my ukraine counterpart a couple of weeks ago, great guy, with the way. has been doing this for a long time, and is very dedicated good guy to work with. and we talked about everything that we're doing with them. we have training now. we've moved from -- >> okay. >> dire the -- >> i don't want to be rude, mr. secretary, but my pipe is just about expired if. uy -- let me ask you, general dunford, if we were to change our poll circumstance what type of weaponry would be appropriate right now and we have the javelin anti-armor weapons. what would be the right weapon and you're both fully aware that in our defense authorization bill we addressed this issue because we support lethal defense weapons. general dunford. >> the critical capability areas the ukraine's identified include fire support, artillery

capability and antiarmory capability. >> do you agree wishes that's a capable gap, i agree with that. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thanks marx chairman. i want to join in thanking both of you for your extraordinary service and for your very forthright answers to our question. general dunford niksch doubt in your mind that russian planes were responsible for attacking the united states -- the u.n. convoy that was trying to deliver aid to aleppo? >> i don't have the facts. what we nor are two russian aircraft war in that area at that time. my judgment would be that they did. there were also some other aircraft in the area that belonged to regime at or about the same time so i can't conclusively say that it was the russians but it was either the russians or the regime. >> well, it sound to me like

you're saying that their responsibility was demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt. >> senator no doubt in my mind that the russias are in respond. just don't know whose aircraft dropped the bombs but i associate myself with the comment you made, yes, it this russians that were responsible. >> which is a war crime. i'm not asking for your legal judgment, knowing that you would probably disclaim your expertise as a lawyer, but you would agree with me as a layman, as a military person, that action constituted a war crime. >> it was an unacceptable atrocity, senator. >> would you agree with secretary kerry in intend that ought to be done is a ground are of all aircraft in certain areas of syria, including that one? >> i would not agree that coalition aircraft ought to be grounded. i do agree that syrian regime aircraft and russian aircraft

should be grounded. >> would you agree with apparently the growing straughn of thought in the administration that the syrian kurds should be armed? >> senator, we're in deliberation about exactly what to do with the syrian democratic force right now. he we have provided them support. they are our more effective partner on theground. it's very difficult, as you know, managing a relationship between our support for the syrian democratic forces forcesr turkish allies so we're working closely with our turkish allies to come up with the right approach to make sure we can conduct effective and decisive prayings in raqqa with the syrian democratic forces and still allay the kurdish -- the turkish concerns about the kurds' long term political prospects. >> the concerns can be allayed and even if they can't be allayed, would you agree that

arming the syrian kurds presents an opportunity for us as a military option to be more effective? >> i agree with that. if we reinforced the -- they've would increase the process of our success in raqqa. >> in terms of the russian responsibility for what you have absolutely correctly termed an atrocity, war crime, in that area, what can the united states do? what are some hoff this military options that the chairman asked about. >> nor, i'd prefer to talk to you in private about military openings that might bev being discussed as future options the president may have. think right now managing the russian problem is largely a political problem and that's what the secretary kerry and the president are dealing with. >> let me turn marx secretary

you mentioned that there were three areas. the fiscal, the overregulation, or micromanaging, and much needed reforms as you characterize them. could you give us your priorities as to what those reforms would be? >> i have a number of concerns. which i spelled out at great fleming a letter to the committee, and i really look forward to working with now to resolve that. there are a number of them. they're serious. concerns i have for provisions in the bill and i'd like to work all of these. i think where we have common intentions, work them to a place where i can support an ndaa that the president would sign. that's where i'd like to get with you all by the time you return in november.

>> i would welcome that opportunity. i'm just about out of time. this topic is immensely important because it involves the effective use of resources. we talk about what levels of resource choo be bit managing them effectively is very important, as to the syrian conflict, to both of you, i don't need to emphasize how desperately serious the humanitarian catastrophe is in syria, the chairman has rightly referred to the numbers killed, and displaced. it is, as secretary kerry rightly termed it, probably the biggest humanitarian catastrophe since world war ii and the united states bears a responsibility to use its military forces to stop the bloodshed and the needless and senseless killing of innocent civilians there. so thank you very much for your tonight.

today. -- your testimony today. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i would share that thought. the situation in syria is a colassal disaster. i do not believe that had to happen. i believe a wide statesman could have foreseen some of the difficulties we're facing today, and we should have been more cautious and careful in our declarations of how we expect syria to develop over the years. it hadn't developed like president obama projected, and disaster has been the situation. we regard to the sequestration issue. ...

is it your position and the president's position that he will not spend additional money for the defense department unless an equal amount of money is spent on the commerce department, the epa and other government agencies? >> what i can to support and phone support is anything that moves toward instability and that means the word sequestration. we submitted a budget that was khan -- confident in the budget. in the bipartisan budget agreement i don't control this.

-- >> leading the democrats not only do we have to bust the budget for the defense department, but in an equal amount for the nondefense spending that's the problem that we have today that's why we don't have a bipartisan agreement. there is a bipartisan agreement and that is what piece of it ats our budget in accordance with whatever eight months ago when the fiscal year ends. >> there's a lot of government shuts down and the leadership of the compromise has been reached we could have supported the defense without going further. mr. secretary, you have criticized our ally in europe about the unwillingness to even

meet the commitments to defense. i suppose you still believe they should meet those minimum standards? >> absolutely. but this reassurance initiative to why do they demand europe increase their defense spending at the same amount of the european reassurance initiative? >> why didn't you tell the europeans -- >> we don't have a commitment to match that amount of money do we? >> each of them has made a contribution to the reassurance but in terms of the aggregate spending, they have a commitment not many of them have met, but a

few have which is to spend 2% of the gdp and they are not even doing that. that is unacceptable. it means to many european too mn militaries have made it themselves incapable of independence. >> the last eight to 12 years they've continued on this and said it but nothings happened. >> let me ask you about the situation. it's such a disaster. i don't see an end in sight. they said he's not leaving anytime soon. five years ago, the president said he has to go and is going. he did not go into this was all a result of that.

we are making some progress against isis. what kind of agreement do you see, mr. secretary, for this disastrous conflict? how can w we cnn did to it and what is the goal? >> in the campaign in iraq and syria? the goal is to end the civil war that's been there for a long time. it is a political transition to the government that includes the opposition and can run the country.

>> they are not utterly destroyed. it's some sort of a peace agreement reached, some sort of cease-fire in the united states and others. can you assure us that the toughest meanest group won't be able to destabilize any government that might be put together. >> our counter campaign is not on the table or in the discussions of secretary kerry with the russians. that's about the russian activity and in that campaign we are conducting and will conduct and you are right we are making progress. >> i know what secretary kerry

is trying to do and as we sit here today, it is very problematic that what he is trying to do is exactly what you are calling attention to to end the humanitarian disaster by the civil war and to promote a political transition. they are not exercising that information. >> i believe we could have done a better job. i'm worried about the area in iraq. i've talked to you previously and personally about it. we need an active american policy, leadership in the world, but we cannot establish all these governments and run them and assure how they will come out in the end. and we can't occupy the countries for decades to try to assure that. it's not realistic. a statesman would have seen the danger.

a wise statesman would have seen the danger in libya and should have seen what could have been in egypt and except for 30 million egyptians going to the public square driving up the muslim brotherhood we could have a disaster. we've got to be more realistic in our foreign policy. we've got to know what he can do to affect the world and what we cannot do and we are not able to ensure the governments throughout this region of the world and we are now facing a colossal humanitarian disaster for a number of years there is no easy solution to get out of it. i wish there were, but there's not. >> i recognize senator cain. >> an observation about the budget, year and a half ago we

had a bipartisan agreement on the budget number and then allocations were made to the committee and they went through their process and i thought finally some stability. we could have appropriations. but i'm reminded of an old saying he's so dumb he could screw up a two-car funeral. he had the numbers and allocations in agreement and yet here we are in a continuing resolution. the author be clear about what it is that's gotten us here. there is a dispute pointed out on the numbers but that's the kind of thing we could be negotiating if there is the $18 billion added as the defense and barrels and increases in places like the fbi for example, that is a legitimate area people should be able to figure out. what's holding things up as i understand it are those that have nothing to do with the budget but policy preferences of the various individuals.

it's now being held up by the sage grouse that is stopping the finalization of the national defense authorization act. a very important issue to a lot of people. i know it's important in the west, but it should not be the thing that holds up the national defense authorization act in support of our men and women all over the world. so, i think we ought to be clear about what the problem is here that trying to load onto a love of political baggage to both the appropriations bills and national defense bill is what has gotten us to this place. the numbers have been agreed on for a year and a half if we want to increase them, let's discuss that and work out an agreement. that should be easy. but to hold up similar kinds of issues as my understanding

what's holding up the appropriations process we are doing the continuing resolution even though we've had a number agreed on for a year and a half. it's just this institution as senator lindsey graham pointed out last week is one of the greatest threats to american security. he went through a litany of more ships out of the ocean than any enemy has done by our inability to work out what ordinary people on the street would think people ought to be able to figure out in a relatively short period of time. if you can find a question in there you are welcome to it. >> one thing to repeat the basis of the bipartisan budget agreement and the stability of promised that we submitted our

budget and we figured that the best peca the country could do a bipartisan basis and the only way we have stability in the past. i'm asked about this proposal and backed proposal that would depart from that and my answer is in all seriousness with responsibility for trying to shepherd this institution is i have to look at what i think can be delivered on a stable basis. that's what the bipartisan budget agreement is coming and that is the foundation and remains the foundation for the budgets. we did a very good job in my judgment and this is the senior leadership of the department to manage responsibly in the budget. we've done that and that's what we submitted months ago and now the fiscal year ends so we played a very straight. >> we had a budget agreement and

we still can't get it done. >> we are going to be dealing with a veto of the bill that would allow people to sue saudii arabia so-called justice against sponsors of terrorism act. >> first of all i completely associate myself with the intention of this which is to honor the families perished so that is the origin of this and that is a worthy one. i have to say the ones that are dealing with the expert on it

but one thing i am aware of is the complication that would be a complication from our point of view, namely that we are another country to behave reciprocally towards the united states that could be a problem for some of our servicemembers. that is i'm told something that we in the department of defense should be concerned about and that is my understanding as we well. >> one that has been brought to my attention that is my concern as well. >> if you could give us more detail on that issue because we are going to be taking the decision probably next week and i want to make sure that i understand the full implications of that session not only on the victim's families but also other

united states interests around the world so i would appreciate if that could be made available in the next few days. >> thank you, chairman and i want to thank you both for your service and leadership to the country. just to briefly weigh in on this funding issue, what has been most disappointing is someone who supported the bipartisan budget agreement is that a defense appropriations bill passed within that cap set by the bipartisan budget agreement unanimously out of the appropriations committees of both parties agreed with the funding on the defense that came to the senate floor and it's been blocked multiple times because it is being held hostage to other issues. so just to be clear so it's disappointing to people like me and others here because the priority of defending the nation and having the funding for the troops and what you need to do should be our priority now

matter what so it's obvious we passed an appropriations bill that was completely bipartisan in the budget cap so why is it being blocked? i wish we could get it done for you and the men and women in uniform. i wanted to shift an cheers andk about iran. does iran continue to be one of the lead sponsors of terrorism around the world? >> they are a senator. are they continuing to test ballistic missiles that is troubling to us and our allies and i think in violation of the un resolutions? >> they are as well as in the golf. >> that's right, senator. one of the things i wanted to ask about we learned the

1.7 billion in cash relief has actually gone, the administration provided iran has gone directly to the revolutionary guard corps. i don't know if you are aware of that and in fact, the iranian parliament in the legislative body passed a law that essentially said if there was a legal settlement for a foreign country which is how the $1.7 billion has been characterized come and go directly to the military. does that trouble you they are taking the proceeds that we are giving and funding their military? i wasn't aware of it. it doesn't surprise me they would have a high priority for the funding inside of iran but it certainly is troubling the more funds they have available obviously the more effect if they will be in spreading the influence. >> one of the things as i look at this, they are testing

ballistic missiles, the money they are getting us into going to the iranian people, it's going to the revolutionary guard corps that we know from boats to serve as represent it undermines stability around the world and yet as i see the situation, i don't see us taking any steps that we showed in terms of being aggressive coming back to the ballistic missile program and the trigger was an issue so what should we be doing, general? >> first is to foster in the central command to detour iran and respond. also i expect you will see some of the requests in the fy15 teen budget. much of what we are focused on his dealing with what he

described in the desire to keep us from moving into that area and operating freely within the area and many of the programs from the cyber perspective on the ballistic missil ballistic e capability can strike capability are all designed to deal with the threat of iran in the region. >> something that needs to be addressed this is all post-agreement that they are doing this. >> absolutely and that is why we identified them as one of the state of challenges that we benchmarked against. >> one of the things i want to ask your thoughts on, general, we learned about the $400 million in cash that would be included and 1.7 billion that i referenced for the release of the hostages.

>> do you think it is a good idea that we should exchange cash to a country like iran that you've already confirmed as one of the largest sponsors in exchange for hostages because as i look at the situation they've now taken at least three more american hostages. i don't know what the nature of that money was in principle i would prefer we not provide additional resources to iran. >> in principle you would rather them not have more money. in exchanging cash with a country like iran, obviously it was funneled to the european countries and that in fact we are going to encourage more bad behavior from iran is and that's something that we should be concerned about? >> senator, whatever arrangement was made i am under no illusions of what iran is continuing to do

nor are we mindful of the capabilities developing as well. >> -introduced the sanctions and legislation on addressing the ballistic missile program. i think this ransom payment issue is just deeply troubling and is causing further bad behavior in iran. i hope this administration will step up and finally addressed the bad behavior. >> thank you gentlemen for being with us today joining in the discussion. i would like to start with a few quick yes or no questions. for secretary carter, did you know that the mastermind of the 9/11 attack and the mastermind and plan of the 1993 world trade

center attacks utilized the philippines is a safe have as ar their planning and training? >> i will try to answer your questions yes or no and in this case, though i was not aware. >> he did use it as a safe haven during the planning and training. general, did you know that the observation covered the philippines in order to train and assist the local forces in the philippines against the al qaeda terrorist organization's? >> decided, senator. >> and for both of you, argue both aware that isis released a video this year that can't get into head of the team's? spinnaker iem, yes.

>> just like we are witnessing in the middle east and we've heard much of the discussion to the focus on the middle east, general, i appreciate you spending time dealing with islamist extremist groups they are also in southeast asia and we are not spending much time talking about that. they are now bonding together beneath the flood of isis yet we don't seem to be focusing on this. the force is lost 44 of their special police in a single battle to these terrorist groups last year. 15 soldiers were killed in a single battle just last month. it's clear that this is a very real threat and president obama admitted that we have underestimated the rise in the middle east, and what i fear right now is we are completely underestimating the rise of isis in southeast asia before the

president went last month i sent a letter and encouraged him to visit how we can counterterrorism and isis in that region and i urged him to bring up this issue with the president and after that isis claimed an attack with 14 civilians. are you concerned with what we see as the rise of isis in southeast asia? >> i would say something and then i'd ask if he could chime in. when i talked about the metastasis of isis we are right to southeast asia clearly is a place they aspire to spread. i talked to the counterpart. we worked with them last weekend will be convening them in honolulu. on a number of issues of

specific security that one of them is good to be counterterrorism and i would say malaysia, indonesia, singapore you mentioned the philippines and other places but those come to my mind. i've spoken to the defense ministers andefense ministersane concerns about the possibility of isis could establish a foothold in some places already troubled and there are places in all those countries that could grab a hold. so it's very much on our agenda. last week i met with 29 in the pacific and hosted by the chief defense of the philippine armed forces and we discussed broadly the threat of extremism and what we need to deal with it. there were hundreds that came

from the philippines and other countries as well dealing with the issues. although it isn't a very visible, this is tantamount coming on to build a capacity of the partners in the pacific. pacific. we try to work with them to develop a framework which they can show intelligence and we have a significant maritime awareness that will help them understand the movement in bc bc for example significant cooperation between the philippines, malaysia, indonesia and associated in the movement as a part of this violent extremist problem so it is a different fight and i call it a requirement for the regional approach as opposed to the coalition. frankly the limit of the support that we provide is often what they are willing to accept politically. so we will bring any request for

support and i think as you know we are providing some support now for the philippine in intelligence support to help them deal with the extremist problem they have in the south. >> i just want to ensure that we are not taking our eyes off of that region. we seem to focus very heavily as we showed on the middle east and africa but we do have other footholds are isis. we have the basis for bringing to the philippines and i think it's important that we focus on the counter isys opportunities comcomes with thank you very mu. >> on behalf of the chairman, let me recognize senator shaheen. >> thank you mr. chairman and secretary carter and general for being here today and for your service to the country. general, at one point before the committee you indicated that you believe that russia poses the

greatest threat to the united states. do you still feel that way and if so, can you identify where you think those threats are most concerning? >> i was asked before the committee would've i think the most significant challenge in the united states was and of course we talk about all for state challenges and one violent extremist but when i look at russia's nuclear capability into the cyber capability, when i look at the development and the patterns of operation how often they are operating the locations it is a pattern of operations we haven't seen a ten over 20 years. when i look at mr. putin's activities in ukraine and crania into georgia, that causes to say that a combination of the behavior as well as the military capability again in some high-end areas would cause me to believe they pose the most significant challenge, potentially the most significant

threats to the national security interest. >> i very much appreciate you raising the european initiative as one of the programs that's threatened if we can't get agreement on the funding and share that concern especially because of the potential threats that russia poses in eastern europe. one of the things secretary kerry said yesterday was we should consider grounding all military aircraft in the key areas in response to what appears to be the russian bombing of the humanitarian aid that was scheduled to go in and they have denied of course but i think as we have seen in the past we can't really believe what they say. so i would ask you do you agree that is one avenue that we could

take and what would be the follow-up position if they continue to fly aircraft backs >> i can't speak for secretary kerry. there is a cessation of hostilities that means they grounding of aircraft and not continuing to use them. particularly in a clumsy way is the nice word. there can be no question of the aircraft that are conducting strikes against isis. we do that with exceptional precision and care and concern for civilian casualties that no other country can match and that is true of the whole coalition

and old strikes me conduct so we are not in the same category at all and we need to continue with our campaign to defeat. >> i don't know what the proposal is, the first author is no reason to ground the aircraft. we are not causing collateral damage and we have momentum as we have all discussed earlier today against isys right now and i think what the secretary is saying i fully associate myself with, we need to keep the pressure on isis. the number one pressure we have is disrupting their ability to conduct operations in the cost of taking pressure off right now exposes us to risk that is not acceptable. in the absence of some other action that we take along with our allies in that area do you

see anything changing the dynamic? i believe it's going to take some other intervention in order to change the direction of the war and right now there's nothing happening that would not. either one of you. >> i will start. the direction in which secretary kerry is trying to get the russians to move, which i understand is the protection they always should have been, which is two words putting the end and thought putting gasoline on it and not emboldening al-assad to be intransigent and conducting a campaign that doesn't adhere to the standard that ours does.

>> i appreciate what you're saying that it should have been the position all along. but we have had no success after five years of the civil war so what i'm asking is what other options do we have that might change the trajectory of what's happening? i think secretary kerry is trying to find a way to achieve those objectives as we sit here today they don't seem to be moving in that direction as said yesterday. >> thank you mr. chairman.

>> i share your regrets about the department store in the fiscaand thefiscal year with anr continuing resolution do you share my regret over that fact. in the bipartisan budget agreement just months after a two-year bipartisan budget agreement was agreed that's what we did but in my judgment the only way we could get through stability.

the appropriation math last for fy 17 would be good for the department of defense. i'm the secretary defense. i can't make all that happened but i know that is what has to happen in order for us to get in appropriation eight years in a row. >> i understand. my time is limited. coul.. he defeated a bill is passed out of the house of representatives as a larger increase than the nondefense discretionary spending the president should tt should sign that legislation? >> i can't speak for -- >> or not the secretary of housing and urban development. >> that is exactly where i was headed. if i can speak for the needs of

those departments i do not, they are out of the defensive [inaudible] it is not a matter of indifference to me whether the government as a whole was funded and it's not a matter of indifference to me whether and appropriation that can be supported by any appear so that it passes so there for them getting a budget and for the budget stability i observed him i'm not a participant, i am an observer that the only way that happens is not this proposal and that proposal. it's when a bipartisan budget agreement, that is the line we try to move to. >> i understand. you were the deputy secretary defense or secretary pineda is that correct? >> yes. >> page 374 key states intact as

my efforts to fight the sequester began to get some attention, but congressional democrats urged me to emphasize the danger and cuts of the programs. including members responsible for the budget largely stayed out of the debate have the urge to you to advocate for the increased domestic spending and defense spending? >> i should say you had the experience of a partisan budget management and i don't remember the passage in the memoir, but that sounds like his voice. i haven't found myself in the same circumstance but i am in the same circumstance he was and i guess i was 2013 facing the prospect of the sequester. he didn't like it and i didn't

like it and i don't think any secretary has liked it and it is not fair to the troops to do this again and again and again and that is what we have been warning about. i hope when we come back the congress will reconvene that we get an appropriation that everybody can stand behind and moves the country forward. are we great power competition with china lacks secretary carter or reagan great competition with china lacks one final question are you engaged in any planning deliberations were consultations of any kind transfer control of the facility at guantánamo bay to the department of justice? >> no i'm not. >> thank you.

>> i'm going to take a deep breath. i'm always proud to serve on the committee because it is an oasis of bipartisanship in the senate, and i hope we keep our eye firmly on the ability to lead in a bipartisan way to get the fund in for th the military that we y need including beginning on us about budgeting and not putting the base budget items so that we can pretend that you're not spending money because it is off the budget books. i think the chairman has done a remarkable job to try to keep us in an honest job and i respect him for his effort i efforts int regard and i know i speak for many on our side of the aisle including the ranking member we are going to continue to work as hard as we can to get your budget done and make sure we are not trying to come back and fun

a war effort because we played budget games. we got 1.3. how are we determining who -- one of our challenges who do we help and are they really the good guys and is very massive attempt to try to put together a force on the ground through training and equipping. testing them first and making sure they are doing the right thing if you can talk about how we are doing the screening process for those resources, i

would appreciate it. >> basically it is as you say. we have the same vetting process going on and i will ask the chairman to describe that. but the training and equip program that was a disappointment when it started is now changed completely in the approach and it is as described. namely not trying to create the forces that will be opposed to isis but identifying the forces that are independent enabling them and that has been successful but we are going to continue to do that. it doesn't involve vetting that the program has changed. it is now on a much more successful flipping.

the budge budget support in a ty way to request for that and we appreciate that as well and if i had asked the chairman also. >> some of the mechanics versed individuals that were working for the tribal leadership we do biometrics and detailed interview process and watch closely the behaviors. as the case may be the cases in iraq so the vetting process is sophisticated. the technology that we have available right now in the biometrics into some intangibles that include tribal leadership, behavior identification of those kind of things. >> to both of you in that area

of sexual assault i think we have counted up hundreds of changes we have made the last few years to the uniform code of justice. i did want to hone in on one area because as we look at the ports in the lasreports in the s of good. getting a standard definition i think is really important. we put in a provision to make retaliation and i wanted to find out what kind of progress are you making on trying to come up with a standardized definition of retaliation in this context i

want to thank you and all of the members for bearing down on this problem. i'm really proud of the way the forces conduct themselves but there are people that do not. we can't have it. it's objectionable anywhere in society. the retaliation is something that we have begun to realize as a dimension of the problem that was under attended. we have done good work on the law-enforcement part tending to the victims. retaliation the reason the definition leaves is complicated but we will get there. there's a number of different ways that retaliation takes place, some of them quite subtle

but serious. one of them is a superior that holds against somebody that they reported a -- a little more into practicinteractive people that e getting taunted on social media and so forth. so we need to define these in such a way that they are legally appropriate which you would understand but also that cover the full gamut of things that it would include so we are working tworkingtowards that and it is complicated, but we will get there. i believe that an update on this is to invite the end of the year and to the report that i submitted to you earlier this year we should be able to get that done and of course we will communicate that to the committee and get your views but i appreciate you sticking with

us on this issue. >> i would like to point out if it were not for the work of the women on the committee in a bipartisan basis, we would not have achieved the results that we have, and i am deeply appreciative of the bipartisan effort that's going on and continues to gro go on the comme to address an issue that you know is still with us maybe to a lesser degree that is still with us. senator. >> good morning, gentlemen. secretary carter, i want to go back to the comments that the senator made about i was someone else that supported the bipartisan budget agreement. very disappointed that on three different occasions the fifth appropriations bill has been filibustered. not talking about any other discussions on the appropriations you were familiar with our defense appropriations

bill, right? stomach the one that has been fostered on different occasions. do you think passing the bill would be helpful with respect to completing the motion? >> i'm going to go back to where i started. i am aware of three or four. >> are you aware of the measure on three different occasions? >> this is a specific thing we are trying to get in the chamber of the senate. are you familiar with the bill that passed out of the defense appropriation bills that we tried to get into chamber backs >> i'm aware of the one that came before. >> is anyone on your staff familiar with the appropriations bill we are trying to get on the chamber and what would they generally say about the passage of the bill with respect to you being able to complete your

motion of talking about any of the others. >> i think what they would say is if the senate and the house passed an appropriations bill. i'm not familiar with the details. >> do you know generally from the service chiefs that it would be helpful to pass that bill come have you received any feedback coming and this is a specific measure, something that's gone through the appropriations process and that we want to pass that gives you certainty that within the constraints of the bipartisan budget agreement. >> we do not ask the uniform to let terri for their opinion on issues that are political in

nature. >> if we can't get an answer on the political side i understand that. from the secretary on something this specific to helping provide the certainty that we want to provide the department, i want to go a completely different direction. general, maybe i will ask you. back in january, we had missiles fired within about 1500 yards of that hairy s. truman ended the same months we have patrol boats captured. i'm sure you are familiar with article two of the conduct from the members of the armed forces. do you think the commander that surrendered that under article two or were there other mitigating factors that prevented from doing that? >> i believe that it's being adjudicated right now in accordance switch would be appropriate to comment but the fact that it's going through obviously answers the question.

>> another subject that has to do with icc said we need to keep the pressure on and i know that was being answered in the context and probably iran but do you feel like we have adequately addressed keeping the pressure globally when you talk about libya and other areas they seem to be? do you feel like we have an adequate global strategy for keeping pressure on isis? >> we don't have an opportunity often to talk about it but we have ongoing operations in west africa. we have ongoing operations in libya and east africa. of course in iraq we spoke much about that today and we have ongoing operations in afghanistan and are involved in

that capacity building exercise and initiatives in southeast asia. we are also working -- i just met this weekend with a large group of my counterparts. we will have almost 50 chiefs of defense to discuss this. this is what you are suggesting that would require a global response. one of the key drivers will be a broad intelligence information framework within which we can harness the other nations that have information that would be helpful to us. am i satisfied or complacent with where we are, no. >> gentlemen, thank you for your public service. with either one of you like to characterize the resurgence of

the taliban in afghanistan? >> i will start. it is the fighting season in afghanistan. the afghan security forces have done well this season. the tablet and have been strong. but the afghan security forces are stronger this year than last year. they continue to gather strength. general nicholson is doing a great job helping with that. we made some decisions which gave the general a wider scope to advise the afghan security forces and the president made a decision to adjust upward the presence next year. we are continuing to go forward in the aviation and other enablers for the afghan security

forces. so to try to build the afghan security forces up to the point where they can maintain the security of their country in afghanistan doesn't become a place which terrorism arises. that is where we've been trying to accomplish. the progress we owe an important measure to the general when he was the commander of air. >> there's no doubt that the threats and challenges the past 18 months and we've gone through the training mission. our assessment as they continue to control about 70% of the country and they've taken more casualties than we are comfortable with and have more capability gaps in the operations. in the minister level and interior level that is our focus

to further develop the capabilities to mitigate i would call what is going on right now on the security forces and the taliban as a stalemate. it's made public in the spring of each year if we continue to commit and grow the capability they will be able to provide as importantly we will be able to maintain an effective presence in the platform in south asia in conjunction with our afghan partners. >> thank you, gentlemen. >> thanks to both of you for all

you do to keep us safe and keep the country free. your service and sacrifice are deeply appreciated. late last week there was a video that surfaced, a video that appeared to show the syrian army personnel from the trees. army threatening and insulting american service members and forcing them to leave the town where they've been providing assistance. analysts who studied the video believed the incident occurred because the u.s. is also supporting kurdish forces. secretary carter have you seen this video and can you confirm reports that it appears to have taken place? >> i've not seen the video. i've read reports on it. let me ask the chairman.

>> it took place. i'm familiar with it. i didn't watch the video. i've spoken to the commanders about it. i can assure you that group that has taken some action against the forces was a very small minority of the forces that we've are supporting and it was policed up by other part is and we view that to be an isolated incident not reflective of the relationship of forces have gained in fact i think the progress along the northern border is indicative of the relationship we have which is very effective. >> i think that was a certain distancgoes a certaindistance tt was my next question which was the level of tension that you are seeing between some of the groups that we were assisting on the one hand and on the other hand, the kurdish groups that were also supporting and is

there tension and could the reason that it engenders to threaten the security of the u.s. personnel? >> i would offer it as a testimony that professionalism of the forces that are there had been managed in this vermont sand months and the fact that we have been able to support the democratic forces and have them make the significant progress being made and continue to support the opposition forces what we politically managed in the relationship between turkey and the democratic forces in the united states it is all part of a complicated situation on the ground of your managing on a daily basis. i am not dismissive of the challenges but frankly we have been able to mitigate them. >> yesterday as i'm sure you are both aware o the senate debateda resolution to the sale of the u.s. weapons to saudi arabia.

there was some discussion of the broad support of saudi arabia intervention in yemen. this is the headline from 2014. they say they will continue their fight until al qaeda is defeated in the stronghold. secretary carter, you stated on april 8, 2015 regarding the new games being made by al qaeda in the peninsula aqap is a group that we are very concerned because the united states because in addition to having other regional ambitions we all know that aqap has the ambition to strike western targets including the united states. now, your quote was made i believe roughly one month after the u.s. supported intervention against those that four months before had been pushing back against the aqap.

now, i understand the complexity of the conflict and i completely appreciate the fact there are no easy answers when it comes to that conflict. mr. secretary, do you and other extremist groups operating still pose a greater threat to the u.s. security? >> i absolutely stand by what i said. we continue to watch very closely and to take action where we need to protect ourselves no question about it. >> and does the fight against the enemy does not threaten however inadvertently take the focus off of the aqap or isis? >> we've not taken our focus off, no.

>> i fully agree with the secretary in that we are focused on the aqap and we have the resources dedicated that we think are appropriate. >> are they sponsored by the iranian? >> they are certainly assisted in some respects, chairman, yes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> [inaudible] >> mr. chairman >> mr. chairman, would you like me to proceed? >> i want to get your input on something i asked the service chiefs last week. ..

suicide prevention month is this month, we have to decide in our service, we do believe suicide is preventable, that's what the doctors and specialists tell a spread this is something that is preventable and it belongs in the family of things we do to

take care of our troops and their welfare. we are spending more, and i can get you the numbers on that, but over the last few years we have increased our spending on mental health treatment aimed at suicide and trying to remove the stigma associated with seeking mental health care and emphasizing the need for other service members to watch out for other members. sometimes we've noticed others will spot the behavior that could lead to depression and odd things on social media so we are telling everyone else to watch out for their fellow service members.

>> i know many have the evaluation tools, i don't know know how many of the troops have received that yet but it's not something i pay attention to on a day-to-day basis but i have been very involved in the mental health issues over the past seven years. do you expect general dunford to see this implemented in the next year? >> i know it takes time to ramp up, i just wondered if you thought 2017 was the year this could get implemented. >> based on my previous experience as a service chief, i think that's realistic timeline. >> mr. secretary wes mark. >> i concur. we will need that timeline. >> i want to talk about broader

counter terrorism strategy. in four months we will have a new commander-in-chief. protecting our homeland and addressing the stability in the middle east will be one of the most important topic spirit how would you address this concern about our counterterrorism strategy and how would you inform that next commander-in-chief as to how to move forward at this time? as obviously there's a number of variables but how would you talk to them about our counterterrorism strategy as we head into a new administration? >> i will start and turn it over to the chairman. we need to continue to press on all fronts. we cannot let up, whether it is in the counter isil campaign, in syria, iraq, elsewhere, here at

home and our capabilities, military, law enforcement, homeland security, all of this which we have honed now in the years since 2001, this is not going to go away. we will defeat isil but there will be terrorism in our country's future. >> if i could ask you, i apologize i'm running out of time here, you may have answered this earlier, i had to come in and go out, but how is this moving forward in rocca? i know they have cut off a significant amount of the flow, where do things stand? are we moving forward? you see progress every day and

when do you see a time that a rock will be liberated? >> i do see progress, we are working with the syrian democratic forces, they are the group with which we worked with and they and others associated with them will be the force that envelops and collapses isil's control over that area. at the same time we are working with the turks, also the turkish military is our strong ally in the northwest portion and obviously they have difficulties with one another but in each case we support them. >> if you just give me 15 seconds mr. chairman, on behalf

of of everyone in indiana and others, when we went there, we lost some young men and women who were killed by isil. we want to have them come home. we don't want to leave anyone behind and we asked for your cooperation and assistance, all the parents and folks back home, we want them all to come home and we'd sure appreciate your assistance in making that happen. >> thank you for bringing the issue up, senator, they should come home. >> thank you both tear service, i will try to get through as much as possible, do you do you support the arms bill in saudi arabia? it's a bill that's being

proposed. >> i do, yes. >> do you general? >> i do, sir. >> are you concerned that we could be creating an environment where something like this bill could be used against our troops down the road? >> that is a law matter but we are watching it closely. >> do you support the president's veto. >> i'm concerned about -- >> fair enough, we'll let let everyone do it more in detail but i understand your concern. do you support arming the syrian kurds? >> i do support continuing to work with them, yes. >> not just work with them, providing them arms. >> yes, we have provided them equipment and arms. they are part of the syrian democratic -- >> i got you. the answer is yes, you support

arming the kurds more. >> whatever is required to help them move in the direction. >> which could be providing them more arms. what about you general? >> senator, it's important, i'd say a couple things about this, the the most effective force we have right now is the kurds and we need them. >> i appreciate that, do they they support removal of ashad. >> today that is not their stated political objective. >> now wait a minute, slow down, whoa, we have two objectives. to destroy isil and to remove ashad, is that correct? both of you? >> we have a military objective to destroy isil. i not have a military objective to remove ashad. >> the president has and objectives --

>> he has a political objective to remove ashad. >> to agree that ashad is winning right now? >> i think he is in a much stronger place than he was a year ago. >> thank you you have always been very honest with this committee. do you believe obama will leave office and ashad will still be in power in january 2017. >> i don't see a situation where he is not in power in january. >> so the only way a side is ever going to leave as if there's military pressure on him that makes the threat militarily more real to him. >> i think that's a fair statement. >> okay so if the main force inside syria is not signed up to take ashad out, where does that for some from? >> i can identify that force but i do want to distinguish between what you are suggesting with ashad. the reason why i support the s df is my number one priority is to stop the planning of activities and this is the way

to do that. >> let's look at it this way. i isil is germany and ashad is japan. can they liberate rocca and hold it? >> they do not intend to hold the area, no. >> what is the plan to hold rocca west mark. >> we's currently have 14,000 arabs that have been identified. >> up the holding force? >> that may consist of part of the holding for. >> do we have a plan to hold rocca? we have a plan, it is not resourced. >> okay i just want every buddy to know where we are in syria. we are making games against isil. the main force that we are using our kurds who can't hold rocca. the arabs have to come here apsley right about that. the kurdish force which is the main center of gravity inside syria, at this moment, moment, is not interested in putting military pressure on ashad. other than that, we are in a good spot.

i'm not blaming y'all. you didn't create this problem. years ago, most of you recommended -- we are wary we are. i just want everyone to know that what's going on in syria is going to be inherited by the next president and until we put pressure on a sod, this this were never ends. did russia bomb this convoy? >> senator that hasn't been concluded but my judgment would be that they did. >> do you agree with the secretary carter, we been friends for year and i'm sorry this is so contentious. you are a good man. what should we do about russia who was given notice about this convoy if they in fact bombed the un convoy delivering humanitarian aid. what should we do about that? >> let me put it even more harshly, the russians are

responsible for this strike whether they conducted it or not. >> i totally agree. >> they have associated himself with the syrian regime. what they are supposed to do is to get a truce of hostilities and get ashad to move aside in a political transition. >> they're not doing. >> that is what secretary gary is trying to achieve, that typical and doesn't look like that's the direction it's headed? he has set as much but that's what he is trying to accomplish. >> do you think the russians are being helpful? my time is up. do think the russians bombed this convoy west mark.

>> i do. >> last question, is there a plan b? if diplomacy fails, is there a plan b for for syria that has a military component? >> we have done and will continue to do a wide range of planning and should the president plan the change the policy objectives we will be prepared to support those. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you for your service. it is appreciated by all of us. secretary carter, you stated the united states will not ignore attempts to interfere with our democratic processes. i believe in reference to the recent cyber attack on political party candidates and election systems, by that do you mean that costs will be imposed on those responsible for these attacks? >> sadly, the reference is a

very broad one. i made it in europe. was speaking it to that audience very broadly to include the issue you stated, but which is a concern they all have and we have that nato, the broader categories called hybrid warfare and that is a concern that i was discussing with allies when i was over there. >> it's part of the way they will have to adapt to the world as it really is and yes we will have to defend ourselves. >> so cost would be imposed for cybertek? >> like any other attack. >> with regard to cyber, do you think this should be done in a public way so the penalties are clearly visible and to other potential attackers in the future? >> i certainly think that we

need to defend ourselves and then take action against perpetrators when we identify them and that is an appropriate way. the perpetrators of cyber attacks range from nationstates to cut outs to hackers to criminal gangs and it's quite a variety and that's why our highest priority and cyber including our cyber command is defense of our own network. >> right, it has been widely reported that russian hackers are responsible for the penetration that we've seen at the democratic national committee, those computer systems so when we look at leaks of the dnc e-mails and documents , i guess the questions continue to persist regarding the strength of that connection

between the hackers and russian officials and it is generally accepted that the affiliation exists. if this is true, that there is this connection out there, what is clear is that it's another very public instance, this time using cyber where russia continues their aggression toward this country and towards her interest and when we have an adversary who so brazenly strikes at the heart of our democratic process, i think that indicates how low they believe the cost of that behavior is going to be. in other words, i think we possibly lost the deterrence factor when it comes to cyber attacks. >> would you agree with that?

>> we can't lose. with respect to russia, one of the reasons, one of the empathy stresses that we made in our budget and by the way this is one of the reasons why we would appreciate having our budget passed as is, to get back to an earlier question is because it prioritizes something we have not had to do, as you are stressing, for a quarter of a century which used to be, we haven't had as a major component of our defense strategy countering the possibility of russian aggression. now we do. that is why we are making investments and arranges from cyber to the european reassurance initiative which is one of the things that we hope doesn't get affected in the budget. >> i apologize for interrupting you, the chairman is strict on

time, but dealing with cyber, when we look at cyber do you have plans that you have given to this administration or plans available to provide the administration with flexibility in dealing with cyber, specifically how do we address such attacks whether they are from a nationstate or organized crime or whether they are from individuals, are there plans out there on how these attacks are going to be addressed, whether through deterrence or actually actual actions and are those plans updated as we continue to see the expansion of cyber attacks on this country. >> those are very good questions, we are just discussing here because there are many aspects to the answer

to this but yes we have a lot of us cyber capabilities that we are developing and in cyber command and we are generally, for the russians, let me ask the chairman to add something. >> senator for exactly the reason you are raising, we are in the process of rewriting at, at the secretary's discretion and the reason why our national military strategy will be to classify documents because we are trying to get a strategic framework to deal with the full range of behavior that we might see from a state like russia, china, north korea north korea and iran. in some cases a cyber attack may not get a cyber response. we want to make sure our national command authority has a full range of options to deal with something that has been determined as a violation our sovereignty and attack in cyberspace. there's the strategic framework that were working on a were also working on a full range of cyber tools so we have the ability to protect our own network and to take the fight.

i would tell you that the issue that you're outlining really is being addressed in both a strategic framework as well as physical tools that we are developing. it's not just focused on cyber, it's focused on providing the secretary and president of a range of options in which to respond if there is an attack in cyber or anything else. >> thank you for that, and i think the deterrence aspect of cyber response is very, very important that we keep that and also that public response make an impression as well. >> thank you thank you, mr. chairman, gentlemen, last week as you know we had the service chief testifying and i began my comments complementing you for such high men and women leading our military and one of

the reasons is that they typically give this committee and the american people honest testimony. an example of that was last week , i asked what the risk level was, our nation face and being able to conduct a full spectrum of operations including one conventional conflict and each service chief said this would entail high military risk for their service. each service chief said that i found that remarkable. also distressing. general dunford, do you know if that has ever happened were all for service chiefs have stated that we currently exist at a state of high military risk for our forces? they described what that met which is a lot of death for our military if they have to go into this kind of spectrum. >> is this unprecedented? >> senator i don't know if it's

unprecedented but over the past several years i think all of our chiefs, i assume that responsibility had been articulated in the risk associated with the readiness challenges that we have had now that date back as far back as 2005. >> you agree with the assessment of each service chief that we face high military risk? >> i don't agree, i agree each of the services has high-risk, the one thing i would like to say and then answer your question, today we can defend the homeland, we can meet our alliance responsibility and we have a competitive advantage but i fully associate myself with the chief when they talk about the prime crime and casualties we would take as a result of our shortfall. >> to think high military risk is acceptable. >> i did not say that for one minute.

>> so what i want to do is communicate to those who are listening both in the force and our potential adversaries to make it clear that my judgment is that the u.s. military today can in fact dominate any enemy in a conflict. >> they talk about high military risk, again i thought that was remarkable. i don't know if that's ever happened, but it begs the question that we've been talking about in this hearing, if that's what they are saying, how can can we not, how can the president not support increased military spending. right now there's a new gallup poll saying for the first time since 2002 the american people support more military spending. if the service chiefs are each thing we face high military risks, how can we not be supportive of additional military spending? i just don't understand that at all. >> first of all, let me think

you and associate myself with the senior leadership of our department. we are blessed as a country to have such people serving us and they told it to you straight and i associate myself with what they have said. there is risk in the force. >> let me tell you because they each did that for you. it's different in each of the services but there are a few common denominators. one has been budget instability which is why i am and will continue with the idea that we need budget stability and that means everybody coming together. not this idea and that idea and that idea but one that everybody can agree to. we haven't seen that yet and it's the end of the fiscal year. >> let me finish.

[inaudible] eight times in a row. that will have an effect. >> you said them and i minority leader filibuster the appropriation bill not three times but six times in the last year and a half. >> we are trying to make that happen. >> let me go on, there's another thing other than the budget instability and that is the services, and i think you mentioned general millie, he is trying to move to full spectrum, exactly the words you use from an army that we dedicated almost wholly in terms of force structure to the coin fight that we had to conduct in iraq and syria. the army has been resource in them heavily. now he is trying to get his

forces trained for full spectrum combat and i think as he said to you, that is a match matter of budget stability, yes, but it's also a matter of time. he is is working on it. that is his highest priority and i agree with him for the u.s. army. he is trying to get all his brigade teams to go through. [inaudible] if we go to the marine corps, and i know general general muller spoke to about that, their highest readiness priority, which i also want to foot stomp as i'm sure he did, is in their aviation and a lot of different dimensions to that. one is the re- of their strike fighter. coming down the line with the navy it's mostly a matter of ship maintenance and double maintenance and they are working on that. in the air force, the air force continues to have readiness challenges which are associated

partly with budget instability but mostly with the high up tempo of the air force. we are working them really hard in syria. it's essential and important, but it means that they are constantly rotated in and out. when they come back they have to go back in for readiness training. in the budget we submitted for fy 17, readiness and resourcing was our highest priority. there's no question about it, there is risk there, it's accumulated over the years, we need stability and we need priority in order to work through it. we need stability from you, we will give it priority and i totally support the chiefs and what they told you last week. >> in just a second, the

impression given was that it comes down to readiness, training, spare parts, all the things that go when you have budget cut bats. we've seen the movie before so although as you point out, each individual service has some specific needs, it all comes back to funding for operational readiness and training which is always the first to go and that's obviously, we when we have u.s. pilots flying less hours. month than chinese or russian pilots, there is something fundamentally wrong and i know you agree with that. >> thank you, mr. chairman, thank you for being here and thank you for your testimony on the critical national security threats facing our country. the last seven years we have had

an administration that has many ways neutered itself and ignored one transgression after another. as a result our avid series continuing to increase their belligerence. iran has received no meaningful repercussions for illegally seizing american sailors and humiliating them and has since increased their aggressive tachy tactics and. [inaudible] for months russia has been ramping up the pressure on our military, previously flying within 30 feet of a u.s. navy warship and most recently fighting within 10 feet of a u.s. navy surveillance aircraft. instead of treating these as acts from an adversary, secretary kerry agreed to share intelligence in syria. these examples don't even touch

a rain in efforts to develop their programs nor the expansion of isis beyond the middle east. sadly this week's terror attacks in new york, minnesota, and new jersey once again demonstrated that rattle radical islamic terrorism continues to threaten our safety. by any reasonable estimate we can conclude that our national security interests are at serious risk. i want to thank both you for your service during such a pivotable and dangerous time in our nation's history and for your leadership of our men and women in uniform. i want to ask you, starting with iran, what is and what should be our response to escalating belligerence and threats? >> first of all, thank you very much for that, you hit them all, the five parts of our military strategy that are reflected in what we trying to get in our budget, namely counter isil,

ron, north korea, russia and china. all of those present very different but serious challenges that have a serious military dimension to them. with respect to iran, notwithstanding the nuclear deal which was good in the sense that it removed, if and plummeted faithfully which it has been so far, removed nuclear weapons from our concerns about iran, it did nothing to alleviate other concerns we have. their support for terrorism, influence in the region, this is why, to give you one answer to your question and alas the chairman to pitch in, this is by we have a strong ready presence in the golf. it's not just about isil. we have a big up-tempo to defeat

isil and we will do that, it takes a lot of force structure but also readiness consumed doing that and that's a good thing because were defeating isil but were also's denning strong in the golf, were defending our allies and their defending our interest and countering iranian influence. it is an enduring commitment of hours. let me ask the chairman to join in. >> from the military's perspective, i think there are three things we need to do. number one is we need make sure the inventory of the joint force can deal with iranian challenges that do range from ballistic missile to the influence they spoke about earlier. number two we do sure in our day-to-day operations we make it clear that we are going to fly and operate wherever international law allows us to do a we will continue to do that. we need to have a robust presence in the region that

makes it very clear that we have the capability to deter and respond to a rainy and aggression. those the three elements that we need to have from a military's perspective to give our president whatever options he may need to have. >> in your judgment, was flying $1.7 billion $7 billion in unmarked cash to give to the iranian government incentivizing positive behavior from iran? >> senator i'm not trying to be evasive, but i don't know the details of that arrangement and it really was a political decision that was made to provide that money. i don't think it's appropriate that i, on that. let me ask it this way. i spoke yesterday to a pastor who was one of the american hostages held in iran. he's described how when he was preparing to fly out his captors told them they were going to wait until the plane load of cash landed and if the planeload of cash didn't land, he wasn't flying out and one $400 million

touchdown million dollars touchdown in cash, they allowed him to fly out. now under any ordinary use of language, that would seem to be payment of a ransom. does it concern you if the united states is now in the business of paying ransom to terrorist governments for releasing americans, the incentive that we face for future terrorists and governments to attempt to kidnap and hold for ransom americans. >> senator, let me just jump in here, we were not involved in this. this was the settlement of a legal case and the long-standing, i don't know all the details of it in the chairman and i were not involved in that. it is a decision that was taken by the law enforcement in the diplomatic.

>> i appreciate that, but i would like an answer from general dunford to the military question of whether in his professional judgment it concerns him the precedent of paying ransom for americans to terrorist governments. >> without commenting on whether or not that was ransom because i don't know the details, our policy in the past is we don't pay ransom for hostages and i think that has held us in good stead in the past. again i don't know the arrangements that were made in this particular case and i can't make a judgment as to whether or not that is what we did. all i have done is read the open source reporting. >> thank you give general sullivan a chance to ask one more question. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i am and i turn to the issue of the south china sea and the international ruling that put china on the defense and a number of us at the shangri-la dialogue have been supportive of your efforts and i certainly want to give the administration

credit for sending carrier battle groups to the region together recently but i think a number of us remain concerned about the likelihood of the ongoing militarization which was declared is not being within china's territorial realm. what is the strategy to deter future chinese activities in the south china sea and what's the plan to respond to ongoing militarization of the land they have already claimed? >> thank you. i will start in the chairman conjoined. >> i'm glad you raised the issue. we haven't talked much about the asia-pacific but you know a great deal about it and i appreciate that they always

leave the delegation out there to shangri-la because it shows the persistence of the american presence in that region and the centrality of our continued presence there. now, what we have stood for their now for many, many years and we continue to stand for and the reason why so many countries there associate themselves with us and increasingly so is we stand for principle. one of those principles is the rule of law. the decision did come down and we didn't take a position but we do support the decision of the court. china's rejection of that is having the effect of causing countries there to express their concern by wanting to do more

with us. we like building the security network, we are not trying to do that against china but if china chooses to exclude itself in this way, this is the development that occurs so we are working more with each and every country there and we find them coming to us and we are continuing to operate there as we always have and always will and last, we should say in terms of investment, in addition to putting a lot of our structure there, which you are very familiar with we are making a number of qualitative investments and that's one of the thing that is reflected in our budget and one reason why we hope that in addition to funding our budget nobody shuffles around in our budget stuff that we knew that is oriented toward

the high end for old force structure and we've seen a tendency toward that. we are reacting in a number of in terms of our own activities and investments for the most important thing that's going on is in the region itself. let me ask the chairman to add. >> i think a response to the challenge you identify will require deck diplomatic, economic and military action. i think from my perspective we need to do a couple things. number one militarily we need to recognize the implications of the militarization of the south china sea and our plans should be adjusted accordingly. number two we need to fly, sail and operate wherever international law allows and make it clear that were doing that on a retained retained basis and number three we need to make sure our position in the pacific assures our allies that if there is any potential aggression makes it clear that

we have the wherewithal within the alliance and as well as u.s. capabilities to do what must be done. i think if we provide the president with clear options, i think we will have done our job but primarily right now, i think the president has had some diplomatic issues that will also contribute to moderating china's behavior. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you and let me say that i hold both of these witnesses in high regard and i appreciate their distinguished career of service. i do have a statement for secretary carter followed by a question. mr. sec., in the farewell speech to the un general assembly on tuesday president obama said there is no ultimate military victory to be one in syria. as a member of this committee for many years, i find this assertion to be astounding. our chairman and i along with other members of this committee have made repeated admonitions

over the years that decisive action needs to be taken against president a thought. in august 2012 the president delivered his now infamous redline statement. he said we have been very clear to the aside regime that a redline for us is if we see a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around are being utilized that would change my equation. now mr. sec., a year year later, disregarding the counsel of your predecessor, the president canceled airstrikes against a side who had unleashed searing gas on his own people outside damascus and continues this use of barrel bombs on civilians. this demonstration of weakness by the present left a vacuum that was quickly seized by president vladimir putin. we are now faced with a quagmire. his stunning remark that there is no ultimate military victory allows the reality of the obama

foreign-policy that has ignored and belittled the advice for leaders in the department of defense. to add insult to injury, the president issued a memo yesterday ordering you and general dunford to consider climate change during a military planning process. last weekend we dealt with multiple terrorist attacks on our shores, last night we heard the isil may have launched a chemical attack on our troops, it boggles the mind that the president would issue such an order during this critical time in our history, 400,000 civilian deaths in syria, i wonder what the carbon footprint of these barrel bombs would've been that we could've prevented had we acted decisively. mr. sec., i have the highest regard for you as an individual as i have already stated in a thank you for your service. i just wish you had been given the appropriate authority by the president to turn this

administration's misguided policy around. now i was here when this hearing began at 930, you have all been very patient with your answers and i know you've discuss this our mr. secretary, but at this point toward the end of this hearing, is there anything else that you would like to add in response to what i have said. it seems the president is more resolved than other to forget 2012 promises. what is your recommendation as to the future of the aside regime, what about your statement during confirmation that as the president has said, i'll aside has lost his legitimacy and cannot be part of the long-term future of syria. is that statement still operative? >> i think it is. i'll just give a general answer to your general question, it was

discussed earlier and even though we are going to be successful against isil, in so far as the syrian civil war, the violence can't and until there is a political transition from ashad to a government that is decent and can govern the syrian people and put that broken country back together. insight, it is what we talked earlier about secretary carry trying to make arrangements to promote, but it is necessary for the resolution of what is a very tragic situation. >> let me just ask this, if you don't mind, it would help if the

barrel bombing ended and i spoke to a democratic colleague of mine today and i've been calling for a no-fly zone to stop the barrel bombing and i asked this colleague of mine on the other side of the aisle if he would support that and he said yes, i want to call it something else rather than a no-fly zone, but at this particular point it is a fact that the senator has now changed his position and would like us to take action to prevent the barrel bombing. what is your position about that and wouldn't help if we took decisive action and ended this carnage. >> i don't know the specific proposal of which you are discussing with your colleague, i'll make one, and see if the chairman wants to add. >> i think he was talking about a no-fly zone that was described

in more palatable term. >> there are a number of different proposals that have been made but the one that i think we are focused on right now is the one secretary carry is trying to promote, namely a no-fly zone for the russians and syrians who are attacking the syrian people. if they're talking about a no-fly zone for american aircraft fighting isil, needless to say, that's not going to get any enthusiasm. >> it's not called that but secretary carry is trying to get a standdown of the syrian and russian air force and if he is successful, that would be a good thing. >> is the situation on the ground changes, we have a responsibility to make sure the

president has a full range of options. we have discussed that issue in the past under certain conditions, the conditions on the ground will change and will continue to look at those options and make sure they're available to the president. >> what about the option of controlling the airspace so barrel bombs cannot be dropped? >> right now, for us us to control all of the airspace in syria would require us to go to war. >> that's a pretty fundamental decision that certainly i'm not going to make. >> to impose a no. >> could i say. >> that's not what i said. >> go-ahead. >> with the senator asked me was >> what he asked was should we have a no-fly zone so we can protect these people from being slaughtered. >> that's what were all talking

about. >> that would not require going to war full-scale. >> not necessarily. i'm sorry but i tried to answer the first question first and then i was responding to the second part of the question. >> i did not mean to say that imposing a no fly zone would require us to go to war. >> thank you thank you both for testifying today, i want to continue some of the issues that senator fish fisher brought up about cyber. in the past year we have learned about a number of cyber attack weather was against the dnc or nsa for the office of personal management. these attacks have demonstrated the integrated nature of our networks and how targeting one system can have a broader effects. whether it's critical infrastructure or political party networks, we need to have much more integrated response to these attacks. how can we create an integrated framework for response and what

is dod's role and are the processes and authorities now in place for authorities to respond in a systemic way rather than ad hoc to each task? >> i will start and you used the phrase, which is an integrated approach. you don't necessarily know at the beginning who the perpetrator is and there's a whole spectrum of possible and actual perpetrators ranging from criminals and kids right up to nationstates and you're right, the defense department shares this responsibility with law enforcement and homeland security and intelligence, but we aim to play a big supporting role. our first job is the defense of our own networks. that is our highest priority within the dod cyber system because we defend depend so

objectively on those systems for the performance of our military. all are soldiers in salmon's, with their network together, in order to function as well as they do, those networks networks need to be secure. that's our first job. we also do develop cyber offense, we've acknowledged that in the last year to. >> i deeply appreciate the work you're doing that you started and has now expanded is really exciting and i would actually like to look at your next site because we have so many venture capital developing their. >> i appreciate that and the committee's support. it is one of many things we're trying to do to continue to

connect our defense department to the most innovative parts of american society, get good people to want to join us or our defense companies, good scientists and engineers and let them feel the meaning of contributing to national defense. we have to work extra hard at that because generationally, a lot of young people haven't served. they may be cyber experts but they've never served or worked with or for our department and so we are really working hard to draw them in. i just opened up a branch in austin and there will be more and i appreciate. >> if there is any further authorities or resources you need to continue to develop the strongest cyber force you need, if you could give it to me i'll put it in the next mda a because this needs thoughtful and continual thinking and resources

>> thank you. it is strongly represented in our fy 17 budget because we gave it a lot of priority. the reason it was possible to give it priority is not just because of the importance, but because it's not just a matter of money as you indicated, the matter of good people. they are the hard thing to find and cyber. >> lastly i just want to continue on, we've been looking at this issue of retaliation for a long time but the 62% of retaliation being reported over and over again is very, very challenging. those being reported, there view is from above them in the chain of command more often than not. it's a perception not necessarily a defined crime. i fully understand that. have you done any prosecutions of retaliation this year. have you actually taken any cases to court-martial yet?

>> i cannot answer that question. i believe the answer is yes and i'll get back to you on that. can i just think you for you, among others were the ones who really tuned us into retaliation as another dimension of the sexual assault problem that we needed to combat. you're right, sometimes it's higher up but sometimes it is laterally. >> all of those reasons, whether it's lateral or higher up as one of the reason why survivors don't report. we still only have two out of ten survivors reporting. we are not where we need to be. it's not good enough. i look forward to your continued efforts. >> thank you. >> i can assure the senator of new york, as long as we are chair of the committee we will not take away the responsibility of the commanding officer, as hard as she may try to remove that. do you have anything else? >> just one quick question to follow up on this line of questioning about cyber,

gentlemen, do you believe that we should separate, i'm sorry that cyber command should be elevated to an independent combatant command? >> that's not a decision we've taken yet, but i think that could be a natural evolution for us and is going to be part of the natural evolution of our cyber force in giving this new priority. we are looking at the various managerial aspects of cyber, we've discussed it frequently with our colleagues in the intelligence community with which we share a lot of responsibility. ultimately something that involves combatant commanders will be a presidential issue. we look forward to working with you as we make that evolution but yes we are thinking about

it. >> i just hope it takes a little less time than the evolution of human beings. >> i think it will. >> it's been a long morning for you and general dunford but i would just like to ask one additional question. this news of what appears to be a chemical weapon yesterday, can can you tell us what you know about that and any conclusions you may have reached on that. >> absolutely we can, go ahead. >> chairman, we assess it to be a sulfur muster blister agent. we don't assess it has a very rudimentary tape ability to deliver that. it went on one of our bases and we have effective detection and equipment and we can decontaminate. were also tracking the number of targets. when we struck last week which was a pharmaceutical plant which

was part of the chemical warfare that isil has paired we have been tracking this and had 30 strikes over the past year against emerging chemical capability. none of our folks were injured by this particular incident and it wasn't particularly effective but it was a concerning development. >> it is concerning because we have known that they have had some kind of chemical weapons facility there and as you say, we have struck it but it is concerning, particularly those people who don't have the protective equipment as well. it's i think the witnesses. i know it has been a long morning and i appreciate them being here and we look forward to a lame-duck session and hope to get them what they need to carry out their responsibilities

i think the witnesses, lord, god , god, god.

[inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] >> she joins us, she is a reporter and the status of the continuing resolution and kelly you tweeted about this. they had only eight days to go. it's 160 pages. let's focus on two things, the length of it which would focus the government through december 9 and also the zika funding. >> so basically, with the continuing resolution, it keeps funding levels at 2016 and active levels. last year's levels. levels. last year's levels. because of some changes in mandatory spending programs and other types of revisions in past years, basically we had to reduce funding by a little bit

of half a percent. that is in order to meet current budget law which requires that spending be kept under certain cap. in addition to the cr language, there is $1.1 billion in aid to combat the zika virus which has raised a lot of concern in the public and among lawmakers since it has been linked to serious birth defects whose mothers were affected while pregnant and now there is transmission in florida which is creating even more worry. they did manage get the two things in the package that was released today. >> hot what do you know about how they are dealing with planned parenthood and zika funding? >> lawmakers have been saying for days that the issue had been resolved in the details are little bit complicated, but the large contours of the deal, essentially it changes the zika funding so they reimburse providers. instead of naming the types of providers that would get the funding.

: flood relief for certain states. there's a heightenethere is a ho implement recently de- authorization a big victory for senator rob portman.

for the flood affected states that includes, that would include funding for louisiana but there's also been serious flooding this year in texas and west virginia and maryland even though it's not considered a final deal there was a mosquito provision that environmental groups were completely upset about. when they see that as one chip off of a larger kind of attempt to just get rid of this permit entirely. other problems remain. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell has been adamant that

there should be a continued to walk on the rulemaking by the securities exchange commission. the continued resolution of mcconnell introduced in the senate today doesn't make any changes related to that provision. so democrats have already cried foul about that. the senate appropriations committee barbara mikulski is also upset there was no aid. flint michigan is dealing with this lead contamination crisis caused by the switchover in the water supply and democrats have been emphasizing that if there is going to be money for louisiana flooding and money for flooding in general there should be money for flint and clearly that battle wasn't one.

>> what are they planning on doing about those and other issues that didn't get into this continuing resolution? >> the majority leader and the senate to set up a procedural role and -- whirlwind that they don't understand the mechanics of. there's less ability for an individual senator to slow down movement on this continuing resolution. senators and houssenators and hd the white house are going to engage in negotiations over the weekend, and a procedural senate set up the possibility of a vote to move forward on some type of deal. it's been known as martial law put in place in place last night and it's basically a rules change that allows the bill to be considered by the full house immediately after the rules

committee that controls all legislation that comes to the floor. it immediately goes to the rules committee and right after that they could vote on the continuing resolution and send it to the president and get out of town because everybody wants to get home to campaign. >> you helped out on an article. one of the highest ranking barbara mikulski is putting on her lipstick while senator mcconnell is doing all this filing. what is the view of senate democrats and what is her take on it on the approach they are taking? >> that is a classic moment she takes out her lipstick sometimes before press conferences and

it's just one of the things she does before she's about to speak publicly that it was kind of an interesting moment. it takes a long time to lay out just verbally but everybody's going through the motions and mikulski was armed and ready to stand for her fellow democrats and talk about the things that are not included in the tax that's been laid down. but there is a significant move and there is a degree of cooperation that you can sense between the republicans and democrats because the stakes are extremely high. if there was to be a government shutdown that would occur after midnight on september 30, that could have a ripple effect with constituents who are trying to decide who they want to be elected to congress in november. congress is down to the wire on how they want to fund the

government and a lot of it comes down to these political battles of other provisions of tucson td the federal government until december 9. the flood relief money for louisiana, west virginia and maryland. the senate majority leader mitch mcconnell and senator barbara mikulski spoke about the funding resolution on the senate floor. >> there have been requests for the continuing resolution so that's what i just offered.

it's the result of many hours of bipartisan work on both sides of the aisle. it's a fair proposal that funds all government operations through. there's the epidemic as well as the bill that contains flood relief fo from many states including maryland, west virginia and louisiana and includes important resources to support our veterans and to combat the zika. before any of the votes were taken in relation to the issue we expect the president to find or set up the message by

tomorrow. beginning the process today will ensure that there is adequate time to finish. then we can turn to the veto override. i look forward to continuing bipartisan cooperation to weaken and complete the work on the funding that will fund the 9. government through december 9. >> mr. president, the ranking member on the appropriations committee to come up with a govr continuing resolution that keeps

the government opened through december 9 getting the congress time to complete an appropriations process. our goal was to respond to theo needs, zika, flint, floods and louisiana and also the national security are as well as those things that are important to the economy of the united states of america. we wanted to be sure it didn't include those that did contain funding for veterans and military construction. to complement the other side of the aisle for professionalism and civility we are now down to a handful of issues that they are down to the real issues.

now the republican majority leader has filed a republican bill that has been placed before the senate today.bstitute he cannot vote for the senate for that substitute and urge others to vote against it. what we want to be sure is that we avoid a government shutdown antigovernment showdown and continue the constructive talks that we have had with the substitute offered by the republican majority leader fell short. what is wrong with the bill before us? it fails to help the people in flint michigan. 100,000 people in michigan are still waiting for their water to be clean and safe. 9,000 have already had lead

exposure that can cause permanent and irreversible damage. it tells michigan to keep it waiting in line. by now we know that the people of louisiana have been hit by terrible floods. we don't just want to give lipservice in response to their need. and we need an america. to be clear we do want to help the people incline.ater res deve bill has made no commitment to help in that bill. they haven't even brought water for the action.

the people need help now. they actually needed help nine months ago. remember they are in a jackpot because of the budget cuts and our failure to enact ae comprehensive infrastructure built where cities like flint, baltimore could do something about their aging water infrastructure int and at the se time create american jobs in our own urban communities. w the senate passed funding on the bill 95-3 last week so why waitt it's paid for, we have a framework for the proceeding. let's just do it. also, democrats continue to fight. we will not stand by on partisan policy writers in the ten week funding resolution.

i know that 300,000 that worknt for the federal government. i want them to know we are working very hard to keep the government open and to avoid a shutdown or a slam down. we need to make sure we help our veterans and we need to make sure we have the fun to help fight terrible challenge. the lifelong permanent handicaps doing more to help flint and most of all, we know that in a trillion dollar budget that funds both of domestic and military that we have a framework to move ahead. work has been done here on national security. the funding of the department of defense under the funding of other agencies that contribute

whether it's the state department and their diplomatic efforts, whether it's homelandig security and good they did a good job responding last week to the challenges but in every community we face and at thee at same time like the national institutes of health, we want them to keep the lights on so that they can keep the light of hope going on to make sure we find cures for disease. we will say more about this and appreciate the republican co majority leader in genuine - conversation with us. we are a work in progress. let's get back to work. let's continue to make progress. we are taking steps forward.

let's not take steps sideways we are taking steps backward.oison let's continue making progress and get rid of that poison pill writers and come to an agreement to resolve some of these other issues. we look forward to the conversation, more constructive conversation at our side of ther aisle stands ready to engage in those conversations ands to ki negotiations and i urge my colleagues to stand by and wish us well so that we keep doing the job we were elected to do. i've concluded my remarks. we need to go into make war -- quorum? i note the absence.

>> more leaders are meeting for the un general assembly session. coming up, we will hear from the palestinian president, the israeli prime minister netanyahu and followed by the iraqi prime minister. we will have a government of, by and for the people. >> we are stronger together and

remember this, love trumps hate. a:30 the briefing for the audience. at 9 p.m., coverage of the debate followed by viewer reaction. the 2016 presidential debate. watcwatch anytime on-demand at c-span.org or listen on the c-span radio app. they continue

[applause] in the name of god from your excellency of the general assembly your excellency, secretary-general of the united nations, excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, peace and blessings be upon you all. i had hoped i wouldn't be compelled to deliver this statement today had the coals of

my people been justly resolved, genuinely heard and the hearts and minds would have acted as u. r. all well aware, we have accepted the international law and the resolutions of the legitimacy and made a historic sacrifice when they accepted on the fourth of june, 1967 borders with east jerusalem and its capital. what more can be asked of us. the agreement reached in 1993 it

must seize all of its activities and oppressions against our cities and refugee camps. it's the extra judicial executions and the arrest of our people in addition to releasing the thousands of prisoners and detainees. must also seize its aggression against the mosque for all of these practices in which peace can prevail in our region. how can anyone seeking peace commit such actions?

in this regard we reaffirm that we cannot accept the current situation and we will never accept the humiliation of our people. we will never accept a temporary solution. our people will never accept the national institutions and achievements that having obtained them through sacrifice and pain. we will preserve the independence of the palestinian decision-making and act to fulfill the aspirations of our people by the political and diplomatic means while relying on international law, the legitimacy of international resolutions by the united nations and all international forums. forums. we will seek to mobilize the international efforts towards achieving this end. we will not accept the situation

and the current situation. the 1993 accord was intended to end the occupation. to achieve palestine within five years, yes israel renounced the agreement it signed into this moment it persists with its occupation to stand it's illegal settlements which undermine the realization of the two state solution on the basis of the 1967 borders. israel wants one state despite the adoption of 12 resolutions

by the security council condemning the settlements in the occupied territories. none of these resolutions were implemented by this encouraging israel to continue its plans for the west bank including east jerusalem with impunity. the actions of the israeli settlers had gone as far as the formation of terrorist groups that sent entire families, told them, destroy the properties and across the treaties that are the livelihoods of palestinian families.

and this of ours to the -- the settlers it has led to the israeli minister. it constitutes the ethnic cleansing. all such attempts are null and void and it would constitute a violation of international law. so who then is practicing ethnic cleansing? in this regard i am compelled

again in pursuit that will destroy whatever possibility is left for the two state solution along the 1967 border [inaudible] to continue to exert all efforts for the adoption of the curity council resolution on the settlements and we have extensive consultatis with other countries on this matter and we hope that no one will

cast a veto against the resolutions. to favor the occupied land including granting them perts the residential construction well as ftories come economic projects. it's from developing their economy.

in the jordan valley and it continues with its illegal blockade and continues to alter the identity in the occupied st jerusalem. [inaudible again, it amounts to playing wi fire. no one knows what will happen if these continue. all of these policies, actions andeasures are the reasons behind the failure to follow

efforts and those of the international quartet over the past 13 yearsust as israel had saboged the administrations over the decades. here i must once again appeal to you to provide international protection for the palestinian people suffering under occupation since 1967 in the west bank including east jerusalem and the strip. i extend my deep appreciation to the security council members who convened the meeting of the council to explore the options for international protection and

i urge that these efforts continue. if you dnot ensure our protection, then who will? who can provide us with international protection if the united nations is unable to do so? mr. president, ladies and gentlemen, israel today continues its attempt to evade an international conference for peace which is a proposal by france, a proposal that received the support of the majority of the world's country in june of this year ended the meeting was held in paris to prepare for this conference was attended by 28 countri along with three

governmental organizations. it remains our hope that such a conference while lead to the establishment of a mechanism in this timeframe in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the international community, the principles of land for peace, the peace initiative and o solution fothesolution for the n refugees in accordance with resolution 194. we hope that all states of the wod will support the convening of this international peace conference before the end of this year. if there ino international peace conference held anno direct negotiation between us then how can peace be made?

how can we speak about peace and make peace? >> mr. president, ladies and gentlemen, instead of israel acknowledging the atcities that have committed and continues to commit, the protester has the audacity to criticize the statements because we referred to the declaration. say to him today. in 1993 the recognition that remains valid to this moment is not a complementary recognition.

israel must reciprocate with a similar recognition of the state of palestine. we recognize israel and continue to recognize israel however they must recognize the state of palestine and put an end to its occupationf our land so that the state can coexist alongside the state of israel in peace and security as good neighbors. while each within a sere and recognized borders. mr. president, ladies and gentlemen, there is no conflict between us and the jewish religion and its peopl not at all. our confct is with the israeli occupation of the land.

we respect the jewish religion and the jewish religion fully. we respect it just as other religions and come them in this regard theisaster that befell the jewish people during world war ii and europe, the holocaust and we view it as one of the most heinous crimes. the reconciliation between the palestinians and the israelis required that israel acknowledge its responsibility inflict on our palestinian people and is

still to this ry day this would open a new era of coexistence and would serve to build bridges. i believe that the initiative presents a reasonable solution, yet israel continues to insist on being selected picking and choosing from this initiative such as the establishment of relations with the country's first without ending its occupation of palestinian and arab land first. this is definitely a recipe for more conflict in the region.

mr. president, ladies and gentlemen, by the end of this year, 100 years that have passed since the declaration. 70 years since the palestinian people and 50 years since israel occupied the west bank including east jerusalem and the strip. 100 years has passed since the declaration by which britain gave without any rights authority or consent.

this paved the way for their dispossession and displacement from their land and if this were not enough, they interpreted this declaration into policies and measures that contributed to the most heinous crimes against peaceful people in their own land and people that never affect anyone in the war against someone. therefore, we ask great britain as we approach 100 years since this infamous declaration to draw the necessary lesson and to bear its historic, legal,

political, material and moral response ability for the consequences of this declaration including an apology for the catastrophe and injustice that this declaration created and to act on these consequences including the state and palestine as great britain can do. since 1948, they've persisted on the legitimacy by violating the

general resolution 181 to 182 in the resolution which called for the establishment of the two states according to a specific plan. the israeli forces seized more than those eluded to it. in the united nations charter in the preamble of the resolution 181 and the partition resolution in paragraph c. of the preamble to. the security council determined

as a threat the breach of peace or act of aggression in accordance to alter by force of the settlement. regrettably, however, the council is upholding its responsibilities to hold them accountable for the territory to the palestinian state. it was overtaken by israel. again it is not upholding its responsibility to hold israel accountable for the territory to

the coast palestinian state. read this resolution again. mr. president, ladies and gentlemen, we continue to build the foundations of the culture of peace among our people. we stand firm on all of its manifestations and regardless of its source, the reason is a victim of two covers on and through many years we support the unity of people and as practical solutions for all of

the conflicts in iraq and elsewhere. we also support the efforts of the kingdom of saudi arabia to the foundations of legitimacy in yemen and the efforts to overcome terrorism and violence. this stands united against terrorism that knows no religi religion. in this context, i wish to reaffirm that there is no way to defeat terrorism and extremism, no way to achieve stability in the region without ending the of

palestine and insuring the freedom and independence of the palestinian people. so, fighting terrorism and extremism begins when we end the occupation and as such will end. mr. president, ladies and gentlemen, when we continue our genuine and dedicated efforts to achieve the palestinian reconciliation with the formation of a national unity government in accordance with the political reform and the holding of the presidential and parliamentary we are committed through reconstruction to alleviate the hardship of our people and to lift the blockade

imposed on our people. mr. president, we extend our hands to those that wants to build peace but the question remains and persists is there any leadership in the occupying power that desires to make true peace is there any leadership that will abandon the mentality of the colonialism of the end of the historical injustice among them it is the breach of the agreements and its failure to comply with the occupations that have led us to the deadlock and the stalemate we remain in now.

it's a state under occupation. 138 countries supported the state of palestine to becoming an observer states and the united nations. the executive committee for the sole legitimate representative of the palestinian people wherever they may be act on behalf of our people and the palestine national council is the parliament of the state which was in accordance with the general assembly resolution which was issued november, 2012. we rely on the international community. we haven't lost hope yet. we rely on the international community who shoulder its

responsibility. we call on those countries to rectify this injustice and moreover we appeal to the countries that haven't recognized the state of palestine to do so. hispanic mr. president, ladies and gentlemen, in this session of the general assembly i call on you for declared international year to end the israeli occupation of the land and our people.

in june of 2017, half a century this would have passed. i also appeal to you in a follow-up to the resolution 67/19 with the adoption of the resolution to enable israel to present and cosponsored resolutions i call on you to support the efforts to enhance palestine's legal and political status and granting additional responsibilities to the chair committees and international groups as we continue our efforts thanks to your support

for the membership in the international organizations to be granted full membership in each. based on the international community has called upon now more than ever to exert all efforts to bring an end to the occupation of the land of the state of palestine. as you know, this is the longest and last occupation in contemporary history. the international community's ability to advance the rights of our people and ensure those very same rights and to end the oppression imposed on our people for seven decades would be a unique opportunity in our region and in between the palestinian

and israeli people. this will create a better future for the current generation and generations to follow. it will be ththere will be the d at the basis for ending extremism and violence in the region and in the world. thank you for your attention in light of the occupation of the land will end up that we can defeat terrorism and conflicts will come to an end and peace will prevail in the region and around the world. they will continue to open the doors for peace.

we will remain steadfast on our land and work to ensure the future of the next generation. mr. president, ladies and gentlemen, it is my hope i will not have to deliver this very same statement again next year. it is our collective responsibility to ensure 2017 is the year ending th of ending the occupation. well you uphold this responsibility, i truly hope so. peace and god bless you all. [applause]

i have great pleasure welcoming the prime minister of israel your excellency benjamin netanyahu and i would like to address the general assembly. [applause] mr. president, ladies and gentlemen what i'm about to say

is going to shock you. israel has a bright future at the un. now i know that hearing that from me must shortly come as a surprise because year after ye year, i asked this very podium and slammed the un for its bias against israel and the un deserved every scathing word for the disgrace of the general assembly that last year passed 20 resolutions against the democratic state of israel and a grand total of three resolutions

against all the other countries on the planet. israel, 25 the rest of the world, three. and what about the joke called the un human rights council? which each year condemns israel more than all the countries of the world combined. as women are being systematically raped, murdered, sold into slavery across the world which is the only country that the commission on women chose to condemn this year? you guessed it, israel. they will lead to major corporations, head up

universities, preside twice over the supreme court and serve as the speaker and this continues at unesco. the un body charged with preserving heritage. now this is hard to believe that they just denied it to 4,000 year connection between the jewish people and its holy site. that is just as absurd as the connection between the great wall of china and china. ladies and gentlemen, the un began as a force has become a

moral force. when it comes to the un, you probably think nothing will ever change. everything will change. and a lot sooner than you think. the change will happen in this hall because back home your governments are rapidly changing their attitudes towards israel and sooner or later that's going to change the way you vote at the un. more and more in asia, africa and latin america, more and more see israel as a potent partner in fighting the terrorism of

today, a partner in developing the technology of tomorrow. today there are diplomatic relations with over 160 countries. that's nearly double the number that we had when i served as the ambassadors from 30 years ago. the thai ties are getting broadd deeper every day. world leaders increasingly appreciate that israel is a powerful country with one of the best intelligence services on earth because of our unmatched experience and proven capabilities in fighting terrorism. many seek ou your help in keepig the country safe. many also seek to benefit from the ingenuity and our culture

and in the fusion of the dictator and connectivity and artificial intelligence that is changing our world in every way. you might consider this they lead the world in recycling wastewater. we recycle about 90% of our wastewater. how remarkable is that? given that the next country on the list only recycles about 20% of its wastewater, israel is a global waterpower. so, if you have a thirsty world coming and we do, there is no better ally than israel. how about cybersecurity clacks that's an issue that affects everyone. we attracted some 20% of the

global private investment in cybersecurity. i want you to digest that numb number. there's a whopping 200 times above its weight so israel is also a global cyber power. they are targeting the power grids, just about everybody else. israel can offer indispensable health. they are changing their attitudes because they know that israel can help them protect their people and help them better their lives. this summer i had an unbelievable opportunity to see this change so vividly during an

unforgettable visit. this is the first visit in decades. later today i will be meeting with the leaders from 17 african countries who discussed the efforts to transform their countries. in africa things are changing and china, india, russia, japan have changed as well. they know that despite the small size it can make a big difference in many areas that are important to them but now i'm going to surprise even more. the biggest change in attitudes

is taking place elsewhere. it's taking place in the arab world. our peace treaties continue to be anchors of stability in the middle east by have to tell you this for the first time in my lifetime than many other states in the region recognize israel is not their enemy. they recognize that israel is their ally of common enemies of iran and isis, the common goals for prosperity and peace. i believe that in the years ahead we will work together to achieve these goals, work together openly.

so israel's diplomatic relations are no less than a revolution but we never forget our most cherished alliance entity is friendship is with the united states of america the most powerful and the most generous nation on earth. [applause] ..