the coalition has again and to discredit where more work remains to be done but by no means are we complacent. as the joint force addresses the challenges we recognize the need to invest in the future. . .

>> 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 me 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