>> 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, --.

the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: there have been broad requests for a clean continuing resolution, so that's what i've just offered.

it's the result of many, many hours of bipartisan work on both sides of the aisle. it's a fair proposal that funds all current government operations through december 9 while also providing funding for the new legislation we've just passed overwhelmingly and that the president has signed. that's legislation to address the heroin and prescription opioid epidemic as well as the tsca bill. it contains sufficient down payment on flood relief for many states including maryland, west virginia and louisiana. and of course it includes important resources to support our veterans and to combat zika. these are resources needed to help develop a vaccine and promote mosquito control. members will have the next four days to review before any votes are taken in relation to the issue. further, we expect the president to either sign or send up the veto message on jasta by

tomorrow. beginning the process on the clean c.r. today will ensure there is adequate time to finish before the override vote and before the current government funding runs out next week. then we can turn to the veto override. i look forward to continuing bipartisan cooperation so is that we can complete our important work on zika veterans funding and the clean c.r. that will fund the government through december 9. ms. mikulski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: mr. president, i rise as the ranking member on the appropriations committee. i just want to say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle over the past few weeks we democrats have negotiated with the republicans to come up with a responsible continuing funding resolution that keeps government

open through december 9, giving congress time to complete an appropriations process. our goal was to respond to compelling urgent needs: zika, flint, floods in louisiana, and also our national security as well as those things that are important to the economy of the united states of america. we wanted to be sure it did not include any poison pill riders but did contain the continuing funding for veterans and military construction. our negotiations have been cordial and productive. i want to compliment the other side of the aisle on their professionalism and on their civility. we are now down to a handful of issues, but they are down to the real issues. now the republican leader, the

majority leader, has filed a republican-only bill, the substitute that has now been placed before the senate today. we democrats cannot vote for that senate -- for that substitute, and urge others to vote against it. what we want to be sure is that we avoid a government shutdown and a government showdown and continue the constructive talks that we've had. but the substitute offered by the republican majority leader falls short. what is wrong with the bill before us? well, one, it fails to help the people of flint, michigan. 100,000 people in flint, michigan, are still waiting for their water to be clean and safe. 9,000 children have already had lead exposure that can cause

permanent and irreversible damage. it tells michigan to keep waiting in line. now, we know that the people of louisiana have been hit by terrible floods. we don't want to just give lip service in response to their need, but louisiana is not the only needs in america. and we believe that the people of flint, michigan, the people of flint who have been waiting for more than one year should be included in this continuing resolution. i want to be clear, we do want to help the people of louisiana, but we do want to help the people of flint. the other side of the aisle says flint can be handled two months from now when a bill called wrda, the water resources development, the water resources development bill but the house hadi no commitment -- has made no commitment to help flint in

that bill. the people of flint need help now. they actually needed help nine months ago. remember, they're in a jackpot because of flawed budget cuts and our failure to enact a comprehensive infrastructure bill where cities like flint, baltimore, and so on can do something about their aging water infrastructure and at the same time create american jobs in our own urban communities. the senate passed the flint funding on the wrda bill 95-3 last week, so why wait? it's paid for. we have a framework for proceeding. let's just do it. also, democrats continue to -- while we continue to fight for flint, we will not stand by on partisan policy riders like the s.e.c. political disclosure to a ten-week continuing funding resolution.

i know 300,000 marylanders who work for the federal government want to stay on the job. i want them to know we are working very hard to keep the government open and to avoid a shutdown or a slamdown. but we need to make sure we help our veterans. we need to make sure we have the funds to fight zika and the terrible challenge of children being born with the most horrific and lifelong, as short as their little lives might be, lifelong permanent handicaps. and we want to help flint. and most of all, we know that in a $1 trillion budget, that funds both domestic and military, that we have a framework to move ahead. really, serious work has been done here on national security. the funding of the department of defense, the funding of other agencies that contribute to our

national security, whether it's the state department and their diplomatic efforts, whether it's homeland security. and, boy, didn't they do a good job responding last weekend to the challenges in new york? but in every community we face these, and at the same time when you look like at the h.h.s., an agency 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'll say more about this. we appreciate the republican -- the majority leader for continuing conversation with us. we've taken -- we are a work in progress. let's get back to work. let's continue to make progress. we've taken steps forward.

let's not take steps sideways or take steps backward. let's continue making progress. let's get rid of the poison pill riders. let's come to an agreement on how we can help louisiana and help flint and resolve some of these other issues. so, mr. president, we look forward to more conversation, more constructive conversation, and our side of the aisle stands ready to engage in those conversations and negotiates. and i urge my colleagues to kind of be on stand-by to wish us well so that we keep doing the job we were elected to do. mr. president, i have concluded my remarks. is it -- do we need to go into a quorum? i ask the