is about connecting ends and means. and the end here is the defeat of isis and the sustained lasting defeat of isis. and to achieve that lasting defeat of isis we are trying to rebuild the moral and power of the iraqi military and the confidence of its government in a multisectarian approach so that we don't revisit the mall ki experience which led to the disintegration of the iraqi forces. so on that side of the pordborder the lasting defeat will be made lasting by an iraqi security forces and associated forces in iraq that are rebuilt. one enemy two locations fop get to other location, syria i believe the approach there similarly needs to be to inflict

a lasting defeat. and in order to do that we need a partner. and we are trying to build that partner in terms of a moderate syrian force and local forces from the region that can -- with our air power and other kinds of assistance, inflict defeat on isis and then make it a lasting defeat. that's how i would characterize what i see. i'm obviously not in the councils of comfort. that's what i infer. >> when you were in my office we talked about i having just returned from ukraine. when i first walked in senator heinrich was talking about lithuania. their concern was that all of our attention seemed to be in that part of the world concentrated on i crane. it's true. we've never had -- i happened to be there when they had their

election for the first time in 96 years. they don't have a communist in their government in the ukraine. we have that problem at the same time as the others you're addressing. what do you think about our european strength as it is right now? are we adequate? are we becoming inadequate? >> i think that our strength in europe is our alliance with nato and the political solidarity that that represents, which is very important when it comes to the baltic states. and also the response in ukraine, which while not a nato nation is certainly a european nation. and european unity is a part of that. one of our strengths is that. another strength of course is our military strength. and there i understand that we

are adding forces, rotational force to the baltic states as a presence there as a deterrent to any russian kind of adventurism on the part of russia in those states. i support that and if i'm confirmed i would want to look into what more we could do to do that. i would also say i wish the european states and many secretary of defenses have said this over the years, were investing more in their own defense. >> lastly, i'm out of time but for the record, if you would submit this for the record to me, in the event we are able to get the perpetrator of the horrible crime that took place would you examine the expedition nair legal consequence we have? will you at least consider that? >> i'll learn more and respond.

>> senator who roen no. >> thank you mr. chairman and dr. carter. thank you senator lieberman for your continued presence. i appreciate you acknowledging at this hearing this importance and the seriousness of sexual assault in the military. and in response to questions that have been submitted to you, you said that you would take a personal role in addressing the prevention and dealing with this scourge in a much better way. i will have a continuing interest in seeing how you do in that regard. i also agree with you that the security of our country is very much dependent, i would say on maintaining the stability in the asia pacific area. so of course, we need to continue our commitment to the rebalance and, at the same time be able to deal with the

instability in other parts of the world. now, president obama recently visited india and announced a series of bilateral agreements with prime minister modi. can you talk briefly about the future of the u.s. india relationship in the context of our rebalance commitment? >> thank you, senator. the rebalance is a rebalance not only within asia -- i mean to asia to the asia pacific area but within it. our historic focus has been east asia. and i think that your question points to the importance to pay greater attention to south asia as well. india is, in my view, test tinned to be a strategic partner in the united states. it's a large democracy, shares a

lot of our political values and values of pluralism. and so i am -- i think that destiny will bring us together. but i'm for hastening that. and in the military to military air and the defense cooperation and technology cooperation areas, i think there's a great deal we can do with india. and if i'm confirmed i would take a strong interest in doing that. >> thank you. do you view u.s. energy security as a vital component to our overall national security, and clearly on the military side? so what role if any do you believe that the department of defense has in supporting efforts to increase u.s. energy security? >> i think energy security is an important part of national security.

and the defense department does play a role, not a central role but a role in energy security. i think every dollar we spend of the defense budget we need to be able to justify on defense grounds. and we make some investments in energy technology because they pay off for the defense budget and for the soldier, we make investments in batteries for example, solar cells things that are -- insulation, buildings, making them for energy efficient so we can save money. so in some ways the department of defense like other large institutions in the country, is investing in energy efficiency in the future. i think that's an important thing to do. >> dod is the larger user of energy in the federal government. regarding acquisitions with your experience in the defense acquisition process including

the time in which you let the acquisition technology and logistics director at the pen gone. as you review the dod acquisition program with the various cost overruns, delays, et cetera, which others have noted including the chairman what would be your first priority to improve the acquisition process? for example would you look at the kind of contracts that we enter into training, requirements process? what would be your first priority to improvement? >> all of those are important. to take the point you made about contract structure, contracts are a way of providing incentives to industry to control costs and meet schedule. that's an important part of negotiating a strategy. to get to your other suggestion in order to negotiate those contracts well, we need people in the government side who are capable who understand

acquisition and who understand industry. i am in favor of introducing -- reintroducing to the acquisition system the role of the customer, which is the chief of the military services. i think that's been a proposal made by others with which i associate myself. so there's no one silver bullet. there are many things that we need to do to improve acquisition. >> thank you. >> senator fisher. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you dr. kartcarter for your service and your willingness to continue that service to our country. i appreciated our frank conversation that we had in my office the other day, and look forward to many more in the future.

in that conversation and today also you talk about the deterrent, our nuclear deterrence in this country as being the bedrock of our defense. i appreciate your views on that and i agree with your views. we also talked about modernization and the importance of modernization and how, as a country, we need to step forward and really see that through if we are going to continue to enjoy the security that we have as a country. so thank you for your comments on that. in 2013 you led the strategic choices and management review. and in that review, one of the decisions was to reduce major headquarters budgets by 20% by

2019. that plan was required in our ndaa and fy 2014, but the gao has issued several reports that really casts doubt on if that is going to take place. and even if we have an accurate picture on what the full resources that currently are devoted to that headquarters staff. a couple of questions here. will you if confirmed maintain the goal of the 20% reduction in headquarters budget and staff? how are you going to accomplish it if we don't have any idea of what those numbers are? >> i certainly think it's important to diminish headquarters staff and other forms of overhead. i think the 20% goal was a sound one. i do not know where it stands in terms of everyone mentation now. but if i am confirmed i'll get

back to that and try to meet that goal. because we've got to get rid of the overhead here so we can spend the dollars we have on the war fight cher is what it's all about. >> have you seen the gao report questioning if those numbers are even out there, if they're even available? and if you believe that, how are you going to get the numbers? >> i have not seen that gao report, but if i am confirmed, i'll find out where the department stands in terms of implementing that goal. and if they're off track, try to get them back on track. i think it's a good goal. >> do you think now is the time that we should look at elevating cyber to its own command or even with the commission that we had yesterday, there's a recommendation in that commission for a joint readiness

command. when we look at overhead and administrative costs what would be your initial response to those, those that are promoting ideas for additional commands? >> well i'm all for paying much more attention to cyber and think we need to do that. but the creation of new commands and new headquarters in this budgetary environment is something i think we need to look at very closely and very cautiously. >> as you know, our chairman, senator mccain is interested, as we all are, in gang more knowledge about the information sharing with regards to our cyber security threats. that's one area that i believe has broad support. we know there is support not just from members of this committee and members of congress but also the president

has discussed the need for information sharing on those cyber security threats. i agree that information sharing and better defense is a first step. but do you think that we can achieve relative cyber security simply by improving those defenses or do we need to perhaps, go on the offense and impose more i guess you could say, visible costs with regards to our actions on cyber security? >> i think both are important. we need to improve our defenses. but we also need to improve our abilities to respond. and those responses can be in cyberspace or in other ways. but certainly they should include the option to respond in cyberspace. >> and the option to respond,

would you say that would include demonstrating that we have the capability to do so? is that part of our deterrence when it comes to protecting our country, our agencies and private businesses when it comes to cyberattacks? >> i agree with you. i think deterrence requires that a potential aggressor know that you have the capability to respond and they obviously can't know all of the details of that or they may be able to counter your response. but they certainly should know that you can respond. >> and would respond if necessary? >> absolutely. >> thank you, dr. carter. thank you chairman. >> senator mccaskill. >> so many questions so little time. i want to associate myself with remarks by the chairman about the weapons systems. you are in a special position because you have been in the weeds, so to speak, on all of this in your previous position and we work together on warm time contracting reforms which

now are in the thatstatutes. i also want to address a question to you for the record on the murky line of responsibility on the building of infrastructure in theater. while we're fighting. what we've learned through the inspector general's reports is that this line of passing back and forth responsibility for building roads building highways building grids building health centers, building water systems building power plants between aid and defense has made it very difficult for us to really hold everyone accountable that needs tore accountable for dramatic failures. and on that note i wanted to specifically talk about the inspector general's reports. last week i learned that for the first time in six years the special inspector general's reports, as to the way we are accomplishing our mission in

afghanistan for training and equipping the national afgan security forces and afgan police was going to be classified by general campbell. this has never been done before. those reports are essential will robust oversight. i kicked up dust last week about it and on monday it with us announced that general campbell was evidently reversing his decision. i want to ask your commitment to make sure that throughout the chain of command there is an understanding that the decision to classify is a very very precarious decision. because if you don't do it when it needs to be done it's a problem. but if you overclassify it removes the ability of us and the taxpayers to hold the military accountable. and i wanted to bring that up to you and ask you for your commitment in that regard. >> i give that commitment. >> testimony from earlier today, the hearing is about to gavel back in. the witness -- the nominee

ashton carter back at the table and the hearing getting underway live here at c-span3. >> as usual with the efficiency of this well-oild machine we have a vote now starting now. so we will be going back and forth. and senator king is here, and so i'd like to recognize him at this time. senator king. >> thank you, mr. chairman. dr. carter i am going to revisit a little bit of the ground that we covered this morning. but i want to make a suggestion. i would urge that you, upon your assumption of this position, undertake an all-agency review of the policy with regard to the leaving of afghanistan and talk to general campbell, the military people, the intelligence people the state department, because, like many of the members here, i'm gravely

concerned that we will miss an opportunity to preserve what we've gained in afghanistan. i was going to say we're in danger of fumbling the ball on the five yard line. i think a better example might be we're in danger of throwing a pass when you have lynch in the back field on the one yard line. we've gained a lot. and to lose it in the end because of an accelerated departure schedule that doesn't really fit the requirements on the ground i think would be tragic. we have a partner that wants to work with us now. we have the security forces that are standing up and taking casualties. but they're going to need some additional support particularly in the authorities under our air system. and i would urge you to be -- to have such a review and to really be very strong with the white house. you mentioned that you will be candid. i hope you'll be candid to the

point of being annoying. and what's the worst thing they can do? appoint you to be secretary of defense. i mean you know. so please, this is -- i think this is of some number two, in answer to a question, you said you were inclined to give additional arms to ukraine. i share that position. we don't live in a static world. and the danger is, we supply arms, putin sees those arms and matches them and raises us to some extent. and i wonder with your history of studying geopolitical issues strategy and the like, if you could elaborate a little bit on that challenge. if we could -- if we could arm the ukrainians and give them some strategic advantage, i think that would be great. the problem is, we can't rely on the russians not responding and

then you're in an escalation situation. your thoughts, please. >> thank you senator. and i like and remembered and i think i have used subsequently your expression, fumbling the ball on the 5 yard line. that was superseded by the super bowl. but i -- this is a war that we have carried all those yards. and so i will -- >> with very substantial progress. >> well very substantial progress. we now have a partner in ashraf ghani so i will keep an open mind. with respect to ukraine, you raise an excellent question. and i think it is true that in strategy and working on these

international problems, you always have to ask yourself not the next step but what's the step after that. so, what happens after? and to your question, two observations, senator. one is that i think much in the direction i indicated this morning, the economic and political pressure on russia has to remain the main center of gravity at our effort of pushing back. and the europeans are critical to that. so european solidarity and nato solidarity are critical in this regard, as they are to all of european security and to dealing with the problem of putin. the other thought that comes to mind is that this is -- as i

consider what kinds of assistance we may give to the ukrainian military, one needs to think two and even three steps ahead in this matter. so your point is very well taken. >> i would suggest an article in yesterday's "financial times" that suggests just this issue that i think you would find interesting and informative. i'm not expressing an conclusion, but i think we have to think hard about, as you say, one, two and three four steps down the chess game. final point, and i'm close to out of time. i want to reiterate i think senator shaheen mentioned the chairman very articulately expressed the concern with procurement and money. i'm also focused on the issue of procurement and time. senator inhofe had a chart recently from darpa that showed in 1975, it took about the same amount of time to bring a new automobile, a new commercial aircraft and a military aircraft from concept to operation, about

six years five and a half, six years. today those lines have wildly diverged and the automobile is down to two years. commercial aircraft is up to about seven. but a military aircraft is up to 23 years. and that just won't do in terms -- we're going to be building obsolete technology. i urge you as you focus quite rightfully on cost to also look at how do we bring these products to market, if you will, or to opability one so we can meet the needs of the moment and also so we're not getting obsolete technology just because of the lapse of time. and i know you're aware of this. i just urge you to focus on that as well as the costs. >> i will do so. i completely agree with you. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you senator king.

dr. carter, every member of this committee signed a letter to secretary hagel and secretary kerry concerning this issue that's been raised with you about the jordanians and the needs that they have. believe me, every member that met with king abdullah was deeply moved by the requirements that he has and his inability to do so. and i guess finally on the issue of ukraine, what does it take? do they have to -- do they have to send in more, hundreds of tanks thatd ukrainians have no weapons to defend themselves? there's 4,000 dead now. how many more do you think before we at least do them what seems to me, common decency giving them the ability to defend themselves. certainly vladimir putin has gone literally all in. and there is some lessons of history, sir, that if dictators

and bullies and who have troubles domestically have a history of striking out and being more aggressive in order to divert attention. this is reminiscent of the 1930s to me. and neville chim chaimamberlain might be proud. senator tillis. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, dr. carter. first, i think it's very clear with the questions being asked today, this hearing really isn't about ash carter. i think there's a lot of confidence in your ability and i think there's a few public servants qualified for the nomination. i think you and your family should be very proud. you know, i appreciate the time you and i spent in my office. i think we've already got several points of agreement whether it's acquisition reform, training modernization of business practices in the pentagon. i look forward to working with you on that. and making progress.

i also think that you know, defense is an area where you even see in the questions, where there seems to be a consistent message for most of the members up here about our concerns with the safety and security of america and the need for us to work together on a bipartisan basis, because if we don't, we fail thousands of young men and women who volunteer to defend our freedom. before i get to a question, i do want to probably echo in slightly different terms what senator sullivan said this morning. there seems to be a disconnect between the reality of the threat that we face right now and the way the president portrays it in many instances. most recently with the state of the union. we have ukraine is ablaze, i think isis and al qaeda are strong as ever. you have chinese generals talking about maybe wanting to settle some millennial scores with their neighbors in the

pacific rim. we have a situation where i think israel feels abandon. and i think the prime minister being called a coward by someone in the white house is unacceptable. we're in a very dangerous time i believe, and you said it very well when you said the number and severities of the threats we're facing is probably as great as our lifetimes, as any time in our lifetimes. and i believe that you may go into your position maybe in a way to where you can work with people in the white house and the national security council to get them to work with you to help us address, i think, these safety and security problems across the world. my first question for you also goes back really to the state of the union where the president continues to refuse to call the enemy what they are. how can we fight an enemy with an administration that refuses to name them? a president who refuses to

recognize that there's a huge difference between the muslim religion and the islamic terrorists that we're facing today? do you agree with that strategy or can you rationalize for me why the president seems to continue that position? >> senator i agree with you that there is a difference between the muslim religion and the kind of extremism that leads to terrorism. that is the threat and the enemy that we're countering. if i understand the reference you're making, it's to the president's statements of a few days ago, which i interpreted as saying the same thing. namely it's important for americans to make a distinction and show that they know how to make a distinction between the religion of islam on the one hand and extremists and

terrorists on the other. i don't think in my judgment that is to minimize what is up the -- one of the motivating ideologies of the enemies we face. which they will say is tied to their islamic religion. but i don't think that we serve ourselves well as americans by con conflating this barbaric extremism with an entire religion. >> i have another question. it really has to do with you in relation to your predecessors. how do you -- the -- how do you feel you can break through the barriers that gates and panetta panetta -- we spoke about the book secretary gates wrote. they both seem to have a great deal of frustration in their time in position you'll be confirmed with the white house national security team and the

pentagon. and they left -- they seemed to have left in part in frustration with that i think senator gates and his book maybe even called it amateur hour at the national security council. how are you going to be different in relating to the pentagon and the president's national security team? >> well i intend to be what i've always been in all the decades i've worked in the department of defense which is i'll be entirely straight and up front. with the president. and make my advice as cogent and as useful to him in making his decisions as i possibly can. that's what i can do. that's what i've pledged to do. that's what i will do. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chair. >> thank you. senator brown. >> dr. carter i appreciated the

opportunity to visit with you last week. one of the items we discussed was the need for the long-range strike bomber. we discussed it would be, what, ten years from now under best circumstances it may be operational? fair estimate of time? >> yes, although i'm -- in answering your question, i'm mindful of what senator king said just a few moments ago. i would rather say as soon as possible. >> i understand. in the meantime we have challenges that have to be responded to with other existing platforms, one of which for conventional terms is the b1b bomber. i think we have 62 or 63 in our fleet that are operational sometimes. i'm concerned about readiness right now the mission capabilities of those platforms because those are literally on the front lines as we speak, because of their capabilities where multiple types of weapons to be delivered out of that same platform, they're being utilized

and they're being worn out. i think mission capability is somewhere under 50%. i don't have the exact number but in terms of those platforms i would like to you talk just a little bit, and i would like to give you the opportunity to talk about what sequestration has done in terms of mission capability, the need we have for that platform to get to us the next generation of strike bombers. what your thoughts are on getting back to where we need it and what the appropriate number of operational aircraft should be. >> thank you, senator. and you're right. i don't know the specific numbers on the b-1 at the moment, but in general sequester has hit readiness very hard. in the air force, i know. for example, in the summer of 2013 i remember very vividly the nellis training range air force's premiere training range closed in the summer. first time in my entire professional life i'd ever seen

that. so, the first victim of sequester has been readiness. and so i can well believe it has affected b-1, which is an essential part of our arsenal as you indicate. >> in your role, and i believe that you will be confirmed, what i'm looking for is a commitment that these men and women that are literally tasked with keeping these aircraft operational, that they've got your full support to get the numbers back up to where they ought to be. and that there's going to be literally right now they're taken out of the bone pile to literally harvest parts off to keep those aircraft flying today. but there's got to be a better way to do it. if we're going to continue to do it for, perhaps, the next ten years, that you have an understanding and a clear commitment that you're going to help them get the parts necessary to keep these aircraft flying. >> i have the same understanding of same problems and same commitment you do. it's going to take more

commitment and ultimately relief from sequester to deal with these kind of things. but i see the picture the same way you do. >> but you're prepared to step in and to assist in making sure that those resources are available. >> i am. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you. >> thank you, sir. >> senator rounds, we have concluded all the members present with the first round and i'll defer any comments i have until the chairman has a chance. but senator wicker you're recognized. >> thank you. how you feeling, dr. carter? >> thank you for asking. i'm fine. appreciate it, sir. >> you're doing well. and we appreciate your willingness to serve. according to nato guidelines, we ask our nato allies to devote at least 2% of the gdp to defense. this has been a stunning failure, actually. only four countries spend that much -- spent that much in 2013. estonia, the united states, the

united kingdom and greece. do you have any ideas about how we can do better in this regard? >> secretaries of defense that i have served for almost as long as i can remember have pleaded with the europeans to spend more on their defense, our nato allies, with very few exceptions. those pleas have not been fully heeded. one doesn't wish adversity on anyone but one would hope when they look at russia, when they look at "charlie hebdo" incidents, that the european public will come to share the view they need to be part of their own defense and continue to play the role with the united states and keeping peace and

order around the world. so i don't wish adversity on anyone but i hope it reminds everyone, you don't get this stuff for free. security doesn't come for free. have you to pay for it. >> one would hope. i hope you will going forward, help us think of perhaps carrots and sticks and incentives to have our allies shoulder their part of the burden. you know i was talking, we had a great discussion with general scowcroft the other day, and i asked about what we would do with -- about a russian invasion or incursion into the baltics.

you know, we -- we were a treaty -- we are a treaty ally of ukraine. we were unable to do anything. we were unable to do anything when the russians moved into georgia, but with a nato ally, it really is different. general scowcroft mentioned trip wires, stationing troops in the baltic countries, both from the united states and from our nato allies. what do you think of that concept? is it anything you've given any thought to doctor? >> i have. it's one i support. i believe it is the intention -- again, i don't know this. i'm not in these deliberations. i think it is the intention behind the rotational introduction of u.s. and other nato forces into the baltic countries to re-enforce deterrens and that is nato. article 5 of the nato treaty says an attack on one is an

attack on all. >> absolutely. >> that's a very important principle and we need to stand behind that and show we're going to stand behind it. i think that's the meaning of the trip wire concept that general scowcroft was speaking of. >> if we don't stand behind our word on that article, then our word really does mean nothing. let me ask you this in con conclusion, how was cap weinberger to work for? >> i enjoyed working for him. i wasn't at a very senior level but what i did for him was advise him on space missile defense, nuclear command and control and the early days, in those days of what are called the continuity of government efforts, which still -- still continue. we were just beginning to put them together at that time. >> what do you think he would say about our defense posture at this point? >> secretary weinberger was an

enormous backer of defense spending and of the defense budget. he was tireless in explaining the need for an adequate defense. in that respect he was a lot of fun to work for. >> he wouldn't be overly delighted with sequestration and with the current funding level and proposed funding level going forward. >> not at all. >> thank you very much. good luck to you, sir. >> thank you, sir. >> senator king. this is the second round, senator. if you have any additional questions. >> oh, i'm sorry. i was surprised to get called upon so soon. let me go back to the question we ended with about the timing of weapon systems. you were one of the fathers of the mwrap program, were you not? that seems to me could be a model for what you're talking about. could you share lessons learned

in that project that might be applicable to other procurement projects? >> yeah, i think you put your finger on it when you pointed to the critical variable in a program being the -- its duration, that's important for two reasons. and you indicated this already, senator, but just to reiterate, time is money. so, a 15-year program is going to cost more than a ten-year program the way we do things. so cost control is essential. the mwrap program shows us technology changes very quickly. our enemy changes very quickly today up. don't have to be in a war, which the mrapp occasion examples, that we need to be able to turn the corner, add new technology to systems, field new systems more quickly than our opponents

are doing the same. if we have a 15-year timetable and we're competing with any modern economy around the world the same thing's going to happen to you if you're a commercial company that has a 15-year product psych. you're going to lose. so i think it's very important not just for cost control but in order to remain the best military in the world that we turn the technological corner more quickly. and and the mrap example in the war's example gave me at least a lot of ideas about how we can do that even in peace time. >> i think part of it is instilling a sense of urgency and all the way up and down the line. i mean the accomplishments of this country during world war ii under extreme duress in terms of production were astonishing.

where i live near bath maine, but i think they turned out a destroyer in world war ii something like every 17 days, which is unbelievable. granted, it was a much simpler machine then than now, but and the story of the bombers in world war ii is also quite extraordinary. i think there has to be a sense of urgency. we are if not directly at war, we are certainly close to war footing on a number of fronts. and that should inform -- as you pointed out, this isn't the cold war where can you do things with a 5, 10 or 15-year lead time. and our asmet rick advantage is technology. we're basically losing that advantage. again, i very strongly ushlg you to follow on that. by the way frank kendall who is in your office, is a star. and i think he -- and i hope you're going to keep him --

>> i can't resist seconding that emotion. frank was my principal deputy when i was under secretary and we're very lucky to have an acquisition like frank. >> hire good people and take credit for what they do and frank falls into that category. how do we get more value out of our allies in terms of support for the work we're doing? i understand in many countries of europe, a share of gdp is actually going down which it is here, too, but it's going to less than 2%. is that part of your mission is to encourage our allies to be more -- to contribute more to this -- what is really the common defense? >> i think they need to spend more on their own defense

because their own defense is our defense. that's what being an ally is about. so, i would like to see them carry their full wait of being an ally. as i indicated earlier, i don't see how any american can be satisfied with the general level of defense spending among our european allies. i think it should be higher. >> finally, and i realize my time is running short but it seems to me one of the great strategic challenges of this moment is to enlist muslim countries and arab countries in the fight against isil. they have to realize and i think the events of yesterday may be a galvanizing factor but they have to realize that this has to be their fight. if it's our fight, that's what isil wants. they want to this to be the west against islam. but the fact that they did this horrendous murder yesterday of one of their brothers, of a

sunday ni muss sunny muslim i hope will be a wake-up call to the world that they've got to deal with these guys most directly. not simply by holding our coat but by contributing and being involved on the air, on the ground. this has to be their fight ultimately. it's not one we can carry on by ourselves. >> absolutely. >> senator cruz. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> likewise. >> i appreciate your many years of service to our nation. >> thank you. >> and your willingness to serve in this incredibly important role at a time of great challenges, great threats, and also at a time unfortunately, when the defense department faces significant challenges internally. i have for some time been critical of the obama administration's foreign policy.

that it has lacked a steading mooring and a focus on the real national security threats facing the country. i would like to take the opportunity to briefly discuss a few threats with you and get your thoughts on them. and i want to start with the threat of the iran acquiring nuclear weapons capability. in your judgment, what would be the national security implications to the united states if iran were to acquire nuclear weapons? >> thank you, senator. in a phrase, exceptionally gravy.gravy grave. that for two reasons. first of all they might use them but second, their having them is likely to stimulate others to get them. so for both those reasons very grave. >> let's, perhaps, expand on each of them 37. what is it about the regime in

iran that poses a significant threat of them actually using nuclear weapons if they had them? >> if you take at face value what they say, they have the ambition to wipe off the map other states and regions, namely israel. they have a long history of behaving in a disruptive way, of supporting terrorism of trying to undermine other governments of operating around the world. so, i think they give abundance evidence that they're not the kind of people you want to have having nuclear weapons. >> and would you agree as well that with radical religious extremism, ordinary notions of deter deterrents and cost basis analysis and not always apply? >> i'm concerned about that,

yes. >> dr. carter, you talked about the threat of nuclear proliferation. in particular the threat other middle east countries in response to iran acquiring nuclear weapons capability would then feel the need themselves to acquire the same. you know what does it tell us for some decades it has been a matter of pretty widespread public knowledge that the nation of israel has nuclear weapons capability. and yet throughout that time israel's arab neighbors have expressed no burning desire to acquire their own nuclear weapons apparently because they don't perceive any meaningful threat that israel would use those weapons in an offensive manner. and yet the arab neighbors of iran are reacting qualitatively different to the prospect of khomeini of acquiring nuclear weapons. they're saying without exception if iran would acquire those weapons they would immediately

need to get their own. what does that say about the judgment of saudi arabia and other countries in the region about the magnitude of the threat posed by iran. >> i think it tends to re-enforce what we were just saying. namely the prospect of iran having a nuclear weapons a pretty fearful matter just to be an american or israeli to get that idea. >> would you agree the consequences of getting the negotiations that are wrong or the consequences of these negotiations facilitating iran to acquire nuclear weapons capabilities would be severe, both from the prospective of the middle east and our allies but also from the prospective of our own national security. >> yeah. the negotiations have precisely the opposite objective. >> let me ask you also briefly

about isis. how would you characterize our objective right now with regards to isis? >> to inflict a lasting defeat upon isis. i only add the word lasting to reinforce the idea that once they're beaten, they need to stay beaten, which means you need to create the conditions in this case iraq and syria, so that they stay defeated. >> and a final question. in your professional judgment, what would be required mill tearily to destroy or as you put it inflict a lasting defeat on isis? >> militarily it would be the dismantlement of their forces and their networks and to get to the point about lastingly, to --

there's a political ingredient of this which i need to add, which is to have them replaced in iraq and in syria with a government that the people want to be part of. and so they don't have to be governed by maniacs and terrorists. >> thank you dr. carter. my time has expired. >> senator blumenthal. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your long-standing and extraordinarily valuable service to our nation. >> thank you, senator. >> i'm prepared to overlook you desserting the kennedy school at harvard to go to stanford and i hope you'll let us know if your back requires you to stand up or take a break. >> i'm fine thank you for the consideration. >> i'll take it out of my time. i want to begin with a couple of questions and i hope i won't cover the ground you've already

covered. from the conversations we've had, i assume that you will continue to back the current full support for two submarines a year in the construction of our virginia class submarines and the ongoing r & d and other programs necessary for the ohio class. >> i will because under" c" superiority is one of our advantages. >> we need to be on a war footing because we need to be prepared and ready and the surveillance and intelligence functionses as well as the deterrent capability are essential to our national defense, am i correct? >> absolutely. >> let me move to another area that is very close to my heart. again, i want to thank our chairman, senator mccain, who joaned -- joined with me in the clay hunt suicide prevention

act. suicide remains a daunting problem not only among our veterans, 22 every day commit suicide, but also in our active military and you and i have talked about this problem. i believe you're very much atune to it. and i'm hopeful thaw will continue the military's commitment and the department of defense's commitment to provide the mental health care necessary to help our warriors deal with these invisible wounds and demons that come back from the battlefield with it. >> i am atune to it. there are people and we need to care about them and care for them. those who are having these kind of thoughts need help. >> on the issue of our veterans who have suffered from post-traumatic stress as, again, you and i have discussed, your predecessor, secretary hagel worked with me responded to my urging him to establish a new

policy guidance on september 3, 2014 that finally directed proper consideration of post-traumatic stress by the boards of correction and military records when considering upgrade requests post-traumatic stress was unknown in the vietnam and korean eras. not unknown because it didn't exist but unknown because it wasn't diagnosed and so this new policy gives proper recognition to a medical condition that simply was never diagnosed at the time but may have caused less than honorable discharges. and i hope if confirmed you'll ensure full and forceful implementation of this policy and continued outreach because it's so vitally necessary. outreach to anyone who may be eligible to apply under the new guidelines.

>> i will. we've learned a lot about that sadly, in recent years and understand better now that it truly is a malady that we can and need to address so, yes, thank you for taking an interest in it about the welfare our troops and so many ways. in the course of the war, i was always grateful to your attention to the well being of the troops. thank you. >> thank you very much. i should probably stop there but i do have a couple more questions. i appreciate your kind words. on the interoperability, i am ranking member of veterans senate, i think there's been an ongoing kerngs you're aware of, the issues relating to the integrated electronic health records, integrated disability evaluation system treating

military sexual trauma other shared efforts that really involve a gap between these two great departments each with a vital mission. and i'm hoping that you will continue the effort that your predecessor believed to close that gap and to ensure there is that vital connection important to our troops and then to our veterans. >> i recognize that gap. and there's only one soldier. there are two cabinet departments. one soldier shouldn't have to worry about two cabinet departments. >> thank you. thanks, mr. chairman. >> thank you. i mentioned my colleagues, we're now into the second round of questioning. in deference to dr. carter's health, i would request that we be as suckcinct as possible.

if you're okay? >> i am. >> i'm i'll forego. senator reed? >> i'll pass. >> then next is senator cotton. >> i would like to discuss the transfer of five taliban commanders at guantanamo bay for private bowe bergdahl. knowing what we know about the attempted recidivism of one of those taliban members as well as the ongoing investigation into bowe bergdahl's conduct in afghanistan, do you think it was a correct decision to go forward with that transfer? >> first of all, i don't know the circumstances. i've read the newspaper reports but i don't have any other information about these -- these individuals. what i do know is this -- i wasn't in government at the time

the decision was made, but i have read the letters from all the joint chiefs of staff to senator levin on this matter all of whom express support for the decision. and i don't want to speak for any of them, but speaking for myself, it really boiled down to one thing which you very much from your own distinguished service understand but just to say it is it is that we have for decades and decades and decades gone back decades and decades and decades in time to battlefields to bring home our fallen and so it is a sake ret duty to bring back our fallen. that was the motivation that the chiefs cited as motivating their support for the bergdahl

decision. it obviously was a difficult decision to make because of the five people that you now cite. but they supported the decision. and based on what i know about the circumstances as they were known at time, i would have supported the decision as well. >> i opposed it then. i oppose it now. we didn't leave bowe bergdahl behind. the thousands of soldiers who went after to try to find him, facing enemy fire to locate him. we're not leaving him behind. you're right they tell every sailor, airmen and marine, they won't leave us behind. that doesn't mean they'll trade five stone-cold taliban killers for us. when this transfer happened congress was not notified as required by law. can you assure us that congress will be notified? >> i assure you we will always

abide by the law, yes, sir. >> there have been media reports, most recently from secretary hagel himself, that he received white house pressure to sign off on the certification that guantanamo detainees could be released. there are reports that leon panetta even declined to release these five taliban members at guantanamo bay. can you talk to us about how you would resist such pressure when it comes to guantanamo bay releases? >> i sure can. i have an obligation under the law with respect to the risks associated with transfers of detainees. and i intend to discharge that responsibility in awe very straight-up way. >> shifting to bowe bergdahl, my understanding is the investigation is still ongoing into his conduct in afghanistan. is that your understanding? >> that's my understanding from the newspapers. i don't have any inside information. >> if confirmed you-k awe sure us that investigation will proceed without any unlawful command influence at any level?

>> absolutely. >> i would like to shift to russia and ukraine. right now there's fighting going on in ukraine, most over the minsk line -- the so-called minsk line where the forces were supposed to be separated since september. one technique russia used in ukraine and then they used in crimea and then eastern ukraine is the so-called little green men. by most reports these are russian special operation force who are operating in advance in crimea and eastern ukraine. if russia has uniform soldiers operating on foreign territory without insignia, would that be a violation of the geneva conventions? >> what it is -- i just don't know the international legal answer to what -- to the question you're posing. what i do know is that's what they've been doing. i don't -- i think the little green men are part of the big lie, the big putin lie where he

is clearly violating the sovereignty of a neighboring country and then pretending it isn't him and pretending it isn't russia. and as far as i understand, it very clearly is russia. it seems to me -- i don't know the legal part of it but the common sense answer is he's violated ukrainian sovereignty. >> i think it violates the geneva convention to have soldiers without insignia. since you said you would support putting forces in estonia lithuania and latvia. thank you. >> thank you. >> senator heinrich. >> thank you chairman. dr. carter you've spoken quite effectively about the need to address runaway costs needless overhead, waste at the dod. i want to touch on the fiscal

impact of operating the guantanamo detention facility. maintaining the prison at guantanamo has cost the american taxpayers almost $5 billion since it opened in 2002. an average of $493 million for the last five years. in fact, in 2014 we spent more than $3 million per guantanamo detainee. that compares to about $78,000 per prisoner per year we use to house hardened criminals in the florence colorado super max prison. do you intend to review the cost effectiveness of continuing to operate the facility at guantanamo versus placing high-risk detainees that need to continue to be detained in a more fiscally responsible setting? >> senator, i understand the cost numbers you're citing. they broadly correspond to what i understand.

i think the issue that guantanamo will ultimately boil down to is what do you do with the people at guantanamo that cannot be -- they need to be incarcerated. if not gitmo where are they going to be incarcerated? that's a fundamental question that's a very difficult one. it's partly a legal one and partly a practical one. and i don't know everything i would need to know about that but i hope that as time goes on and engaging with members of this committee many of whom know much more about this subject than i do that we can discuss what might be done with these people because what's plain as day, is that they need to be incarcerated, as you indicated in a super max type place.

>> i appreciate that. and i look forward to working with you on that. as someone who helped draft the nunn/lugar legislation which i think was high water mark for legislation in the last decades how do you view working -- what's the right approach to preserving that nonproliferation infrastructure in the current environment? >> the nunn/lugar program since those days has moved on to other very important missions. it's less focused on russia and the states of the former soviet union than it once was. it's now focused on globally. it has picked up a big focus on biological weapons which are also very fearsome weapons as well as nuclear weapons.

so, it still has a role to play in keeping us safe. it's one of the ways the defense department can act in its long-term interest to head off threats that were they to occur and materialize would be much more dangerous and much more costly to have to counter than if we can stop them from developing in the first place. >> i appreciate that. back in 1995 we had our nation's first nuclear posture review. at that time there was talk about potentially transitioning to a -- where land-based missiles and bombers may not be utilized. we moved away from that to the traditional tryiad. is that something you continue

to look at? do you think it's meeting the deterrent requirements we have and generally what have your thoughts on it? >> i think it is meeting our deterrent requirements. i think those deterrent requirements are going to be with us as far into the future as i can see. that's why having a safe secure reliability nuclear arsenal and all the parts of that that are necessitated is a foundational responsibility of the department of defense. it's not in the newspapers every day. it's not -- as a parent, i suppose, to many citizen, but it's foundational to our security. >> thank you, dr. carter. >> i want to thank the chair. i want to thank you dr. carter, to being in such a lengthy hearing and answering so many of

our questions. i really appreciate it. i want to follow up on russia and specifically in your advance policy questions you had stated that russian deployment weapon systems that violate the inf treat would would pose a threat to our allies in europe and asia and you'll also written russian should return to compliance with the imf treaty in a verifiable manner. one of the problems we're facing as we look at the challenges we face russia's developing a new mobile nuclear ground launched cruise missile which is in direct violation of that 1987 treaty -- this makes it harder for us to have these conversations with russia and trust anything you say. what steps should we be taking in response to russia's inf violation? >> thank you, senator.

and my answer is not based on any inside information or intelligence information, just to be clear but it is -- i'm told, quite clear, that russia has violated the inf treaty. the question, what are we going to do about it? you know, i think you have to remind russia that this was a two-way street thap knapp we signed a treaty that said you're not going to do this and we're not going to do it either. and if you don't want to have that treat y then you're absolved from your restrictions under that treaty we are, too. what might we do, therefore, to -- in a military sense to respond to this development if it continues on the part of russia? and i think that there are defensive steps we can take. there are deterrent steps we can take and there are krthd force steps we can take. so, we have military options too, if they want to get into

this game. obviously, the judgment behind the inf treaty is that we would both be better off if we didn't do this. that's why we agreed. you know -- there are always two-way streets and i think they need to be reminded it's a two-way street. >> thank you. i appreciate that very much dr. carter. i wanted to follow up on two areas. first, on the guantanamo bay discussion. one of the things that i think is important for people to understand is that we're not at moment talking about transfers. we're talking about releases. and i think that's an important distinction and something, obviously, as secretary of defense, you should be looking at as we talked about earlier, making sure that people can't be in a position to re-engage. one country in particular i want to ask you about and that's yemen. last year i had an amendment that passed on a bipartisan basis that would have prohibited transfers to yemen. the situation has gotten

markedly worse since that amendment passed in this committee. it did not get in the final bill. i've got ten pages of incidents in yemen and, obviously, the recent issues with the hudis the takeover of government, suicide attacks, et cetera. do you think it's advisable or would you recommend transferring any of these detainees to yemen? >> that doesn't sound very sensible in the environment in which we're facing ourselves, no. >> i appreciate that. thank you. i also wanted to follow up in our office discussion we talked about the a-10. one thing i had asked of you that i hope you will do when you're confirmed and that is, you know, i have opposed the air force's decision to retire the a-10 particularly from what i've heard from our men and women on the ground and the important -- the fact that it's the best close air support platform for our men and women in uniform. but we've also heard from the

association that represents 3300 serving, separated and retired jtac tactical air party association. what they've said about the a-10, we believe f-1, 16s and b-1s cannot replicate b-10. we know the elimination of a-10 before achieves operational capability will cost american lives. i asked you in my office and i would like you to confirm again that you are willing to sit down with some of our members of this association who as you know are the ones on the ground calling in the strikes and working with our men and women of uniform. they work with all of our platforms. >> i remember very clearly. i have the letter that you gave me from them and absolutely, i will. >> thank you. this is really important. i have one other follow-up request that you had -- you had graciously agreed to in the

office as well. i think senator king from maine will appreciate this as well and that is that you agreed to come to new hampshire. we, of course, at that point will obviously love to show dr. carter the portsmouth naval shipyard. >> in maine, you mean the one in maine. >> where so many of the wonderful workers are in new hampshire. >> if confirmed, i would look forward to that. >> thank you, dr. carter. >> it's not necessary, doctor. >> senator ernst. >> thank you, mr. chair. thank you, dr. charterarter from being here. we have moved away from using the old compass and map. many of our systems are very heavily networked. we rely very much on technology for our weapon systems for our command and control systems and that is really our primary tools for achieving dominance over our

adversaries on the battlefield. but what we are seeing now is cyber security threats cyber attacks that are looming out there. and a number of countries out there including russia, china north korea, probably many others, have very sophisticated means of attacking networks. and how do you see that impacting our acquisition strategy as we move forward? and how do we best protect our equipment, protect our personnel moving forward? >> i think you said it exactly the way i see it. you understand, but perhaps others around the country don't understand is not only is our civilian infrastructure susceptible to cyber attack but we have to be concerned about

our military infrastructure because exactly as you say, there's no point in having planes and ships and armored vehicles in today's world if the network, itself, is vulnerable. and i think -- i hope i can work together if i'm confirmed by this committee on improving our cyber defenses, many aspects of cyber. one is the defense of our own networks in the department of defense. that is not where it should be in terms of making them immune to attack by a potential enemy that would impair our own forces engaged with that enemy. so that -- i -- i agree with you entirely. >> yes, thank you. we rely on networking so very much from the simple ordering of a part for a humvee to targeting

targeting you know enemy on the battlefield. it goes from every level from your squad level all the way up through the ranks. do you have an opinion on this, just your opinion, because it is more than just the military and the department of defense and our network security, we could look at attacks to our financial institutions, to our utilities as being a security risk for the united states also. do you have an opinion on where the federal government should be in regards to protecting our national security interests versus the privacy of individuals out there that might be using the network? >> do i. i have some understanding of that issue.

and i would say that the federal government does have a role in protecting the country from a cyber attack in the same way it has a role in protecting the country from other kinds of attack. and i think it can do a lot more to exercise that responsibility without causing concerns over invasions of people's privacy and so forth. so for example, the government can share information and knowledge it has collected about threats to private networks with those private parties provided the proper legal safeguards are provided which have less to do with privacy than they do with anti-trust and other aspects that are important. i think that the government can sponsor and conduct r&d that

improves the trade craft in network defense for the good of the country. so, i think there's a lot we can do. and we're not anywhere near where we should be as a country. i think if we were as unprotected in some other domain that was more familiar to ordinary people, they would be clamoring for us to do more. i think if people fully understand what you understand about how vulnerable we are in cyberspace cyberspace, they would want us to do more, not in any way that compromised anybody's privacy but they would want us to do a lot more than i believe we are doing now. >> thank you. appreciate that. i think this will continue to be a vexing problem for us moving forward. it is a situation we are dealing with in many of our separate committees. i do appreciate your opinion very much. thank you, mr. chair.

>> senator sullivan. >> dr. carter i wanted to go back to the issue of iran for a moment. under the chairman's we've had some tremendous witnesses over the last three weeks testifying on strategic challenges and how to think through them. dr. kissinger's testimony in particular was very powerful. he said as we kind of struggle with these we collectively, in the legislative branch executive branch these strategic issues and challenges, that we need to ask ourselves questions. and the first one -- and i think in his view the most important one -- was what do we seek to prevent, no matter how it happens, and if necessary alone. i'll repeat that. what do we seek to prevent, no matter how we prevent it and if

necessary, alone. in your view, would preventing iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon fall into that first category that dr. kissinger laid out? >> yes. yes. >> okay. thank you. second, i want to get back to the issue we talked about a little bit earlier this issue of kind of being straight up with not only congress and the american people on our challenges, i think you've been doing that today in your testimony. again, i have some doubts that that's happening at the highest levels. the president's mention in the state of the union about referring to 9/11 and saying "the crisis" has passed. i don't think most americans would agree with that. but are the discussion today about isis and you were talking about lasting defeat it is really actually islamic extremism and the threat it poses to the united states and our citizens. what in your view is the timeline? because i think this is an issue that really hasn't been

discussed. some people think that we're going to declare victory next year, two years. there's been others who have been saying, this is much more like the cold war. former centcom commander general john abizaid talked about "the long war." where do you see this kind of defeat playing out? and if it is going to take a long time -- maybe a generation -- shouldn't we be preparing the american people for that as opposed to saying, we're going to defeat isis within a year. >> i certainly hope that we defeat isis quickly. but that won't be a lasting defeat necessarily unless we have a political dimension to that defeat as well as a military defeat. and that won't be the end of terrorism, islamic extremist terrorism. our experience has been this is

a movement that changes and morphs and moves around the world. one would like to hope that at some point its inherent unattractiveness would cause it to burn out. but we can't be confident of that. >> so how do you think we should be thinking about it? >> from a time standpoint. i think we need to be thinking about terrorism more generally as a enduring part of our national security mission. i believe that secretaries of defense defense, many in the future, even if islamist extremist -- which i certainly hope burns itself out at some point -- will always be facing the problem of the few against the many. there are people out there and

technology today gives smaller and smaller groups of people and even individuals destructive groups of power they'd never have had in previous eras. and it is going to be the job of our security authorities defense, law enforcement, homeland security and everything, to protect our people against these people whatever they're thinking. they may not be thinking in the isis way. they may have something else on their mind. or nothing at all on their minds. but i do think it is going to be a continuing part of the human condition and of defending our people. >> i want to just ask one final question. i think one thing that's going to be very important is to continue a very strong focus on training. severe, hard training for our troops. as you know, in periods of draw. down or changes as a country historically, we haven't always done this well. we talked about this when you're an infantry officer in the marine corps you are

strongly encouraged this read this book called "this kind of war." i encourage you or your staff to take a look at it. it is called "a study in unpreparedness." and it shows what happens when you have troops that are not trained trained. and if confirmed you're obviously going to have a myriad of responsibilities, pressures on you. i'd like to get a commitment that you'll keep as certainly one of your top if not your top priority, this issue of hard be severe training. because as you know, the best way to ultimately take care of the troops is to make sure they are ready to fight destroy the enemy and come home safely. can we get that commitment from you? >> you absolutely have it. i just would say, your authoritativeness on that exact subject is very much appreciated and respected. >> thank you. senator shaheen. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

dr. carter, i know we're trying to get you out so i will be very brief, but i did want to come back to an issue that you and i had a chance to talk about briefly when you came in to see me about the importance of our public shipyards and the good work that they do. senator king i know senator ayotte and i are all very proud of the portsmouth naval yard and that you were issued an invitation to visit, which i would second. while you are at it you can come to pea's and see the home of the new kc-46 refueling tanker which we are also very proud of. but one of the challenges of sequestration is the impact on not just our men and women serving in uniform but also on our civilian workforce. so can you talk about the threats that is supposed by the uncertainty, especially for the engineers, scientists

mathematicians, that we are going to need to continue to fill those civilian jobs to keep our shipyards at their highest level of efficiency and production and all of our depots as well. >> yes. thank you. i do want to take the opportunity to express my gratitude for what our civilian members of our department of defense do. a lot of people have the image of the civilian as aarp bureaucrat sitting behind a desk somewhere. that's an issue we also need to get at because there's that too, and that's costly, headquarters, overhead and so forth. but most of dod civilians are not sitting behind a desk. they're actually doing maintenance work and repair work that actually needs to get done.

so they're not a waste. they're there doing something essential and i think that sometimes we talk about them as though we don't appreciate them. and i think we do need to appreciate them. and even as we cut down -- as i believe we need to do -- the overall number of civilians in the department of defense, i think you do that by getting rid of the overhead and the unnecessary layers and offices and so forth. but i don't think anybody ought to be talking about somebody who fixes and maintains an essential piece of equipment and we ought to be giving our thanks to those folks for what they are doing for our current. >> are you concerned about the impact that sequestration might have on our ability to continue to maintain those civilian workers who have the backgrounds that we need to continue to do those jobs? >> yes. because one of the things that sequester does because it hits

fast and hard, is cause managers in defense to take dollars from exactly that kind of work. it gets back to the red did iness issue. >> thank you very much. thank you mr. chairman. >> senator tillis. >> dr. carter, sorry, i will to spep step out. i had another committee meeting so if this question has been asked, i a i pollpoll guys i apologize. in your response to the size of the naval fleet, you commented that you can't just look at the absolute number of ships to determine what our capabilities are. so my question for you is what can you share with us that should make us feel okay with some reduction in the fleet, if you believe that that's okay as a long-term position and then secondly, what do you think the long-term plans should be for naval readiness?

>> well thank you senator. it is true that as you say you have to look at quality and not just quantity. i mean, that said i think the navy's ship building plan calls for it to increase the number of ships, not to decrease the number of ships. and i certainly think that's important. and our navy is -- we are the only -- we are the paramount navy in the world. that's one of the things that makes us a global power. it's what allows us to be present when things break somewhere, whether it be a conflict or a natural disaster. you see the americans show up first in either case. why do they do that?

well, one of the ways they do that is through the navy. so i have a strong interest in maintaining not just the quality but the quantity as well. obviously this gets back to the budget and how many dollars we have. another reason why we need to have enough dollars. >> thank you. i have another, and final question. it relates to a report expectingi'm expect being the secretary of the air force to submit to congress saying they'll be pulling out air force assets from pope field. you and i touched on this briefly when we met. i think the result of that is going to be the army requiring planes to be flown in to support training exercises there. and i'm more worried about pope field going forward. it looks like the current course and speed, it could wither away and i think it is an important strategic asset. so rather than ask you to take a position on this decision i'd

like to get your commitment, once you're confirmed, to meet with me and others who have a concern with this, not as a north carolina issue but as a perhaps not a good strategic decision and walk through this and see if either i can be convinced that it is the right decision or you can be convinced it may be something we have to rethink and i would appreciate your commitment to doing that. >> absolutely, you have that. >> thank you. thank you mr. chair. >> i'm told that senator lee is on his way. is his staffer here? from the airport? pope field. i just don't think we can hold up the witness. can i just say, we intend to receive as many written questions as necessary to -- by the end of business today so you

can review them and have your answers returned so that we can get your confirmation to the floor early next week. if not, as you know the week after that we're in a recess so we'll try and get it accomplished accomplished. i heard a door close. >> i just simply want to thank you for the service of the nation and thank you, mr. chairman, for a very productive hearing. thank you. >> well, i just can't hold the witness any longer --

>> senator mccain, i think he's running around the ante room to this entrance. i would expect him to pop through in about ten seconds. >> senator lee. welcome. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. you've been very patient today and answered a lot of questions and i just wanted to talk to you briefly about religious freedom within the military. i think the ability to believe according to one's own belief system and to express those views appropriately is of utmost importance to the morale ofto all of our servicemen and women as to their families. i think something somewhat of a pillar of our society something that we have always expected would be tolerated, diversity of

religious viewpoint and religious expression. certainly one's religious freedom should never be curtailed merely because one decides to serve one's country in the military. i was concerned late last year to hear about a situation in the army in which a chaplain in the course of some suicide prevention training was reprimanded for sharing his faith, talking about how his faith played a really important role in his personal recovery from depression. my understanding is that he was reprimanded despite the fact that the army itself, of course, recognizes the importance of spiritual wellness and the importance that faith can play in a person's life and dealing with mental health issues of all

kinds. and an army that's affirmed the important role that chaplains tend to play in our armed services. congress has acted several times in recent years to prioritize protection of religious freedom and religious expression within the armed services respecting the necessity, of course, of maintaining good order and discipline and making sure those things aren't ever compromised. what's your view on religious freedom and freedom of religious expression within the military and what will you do if confirmed as secretary to make sure those rights are respected and obligations imposed by congress on the military are honored? >> well, i do think it is important and i don't think there's any inherent conflict between religious freedom and religious expression and good order and discipline. we can have both. i don't know anything about the

particular case you introduce, but that -- this idea of having both and that they're not in inherent conflict with one another i think is extremely important. and one that if i am confirmed in this job, i would want to see to it that no one thought that there was an inherent conflict between those two. >> thank you. i appreciate that. those who serve us certainly appreciate that as well. i appreciated what i heard you say earlier. i think it was in connection with a question asked by senator earnst regarding national guard units in combat. i hope as services continue to reassess their force mixture those sentiments that you

expressed very very well will continue to be the forefront of your mind and that you'll be conscious of those things. as i look at guard units in my home state of utah those guard units have served us very well and a lot of them -- lot of our service members who serve in our guard units have been deployed many, many times just over the last few years. they've served exceptionally well and i hope you'll continue to recognize them, their contributions and to utilize them appropriately. i assume you don't -- >> i will. you just said it very, very well. they've really come through for us. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. i see my time's rapidly expiring. >> thank you doctor. as i mentioned, we will try to ask our members to get in any written questions they have for you by noon tomorrow so that you

will have time to return those either before the weekend or just after and we will talk to the majority leader to see if we can't get your nomination to the floor so that you can get to work. we thank you for your patience today and thank you for your appearance and thank you for your willingness to continue to serve this nation. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> hearing is adjourned.

the chairman of the armed services committee, john mccain indicated earlier today the committee would try to report the nominee out before the next congressional break scheduled for february 16th. throughout the day we've been asking you if he's confirmed, what should ashton carter's priorities be as defense secretary. you can go to facebook.com/c-span. on twitter, #c-spanchat. phil says just keep the republicans from getting america into another war. john mccain never saw a war he didn't like. david says i'd like to see what mr. carter will do when he gives his recommendations to the president and he gets ignored. if you've missed any of today's hearing with ashton carter we'll show it all tonight on

c-span beginning at 8:00. here on c-span3, we'll stay live and take you over to the georgetown law center. on your screen supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg who's talking to students and faculty there. just got under way about 2e7bten minutes ago. live on c-span3. >> law school. this is in the '70s. and he said one day he has some regrets about the expanding the enrollment of women at that time women were about 25%. because he said in the old days, if you wanted a crisp, right answer, you always called on the woman because she was super prepared, she would give you the answer that you wanted and then you could go on with the class. but, he said, nowadays, there's no difference. the women are as unprepared as the men.

one of the biggest challenges we had, harvard law school in those days had two teaching buildings. but only one of them had a women's bathroom. so it's bad enough if you need to use the restroom during a class. but think about exams. exams were very pressured at the law school. the remarkable thing about it is that we never complained. we never thought to ask. it was just the way things were. these were pre-title 7 days so employers would put sign-up sheets for summer jobs, for permanent jobs and two say men only. it was the same way at columbia when i transferred from harvard to columbia for my third year. columbia had a wonderful

placement office but she put up those lists and, again, no one thought about -- that we could complain. >> why did you transfer to columbia? >> marty's third year of law school he had a veerirulent cancer. those were the days when there was no chemotherapy. it was only a huge operation then daily rayy liily radiation. and our daughter, jane, was born 14 months before i started law school. so marty tried to get a job in the boston area and he had a great opportunity in new york. so i did not want to be a single mom. we also didn't know how long

marty would live. so, of course we were not going to be separated that last year. so i went to the then dean of the harvard law school. his name is irwin griswald. and said if i successfully complete my third year at columbia, will you give me a harvard degree. and the answer was absolutely not. and i thought i had the perfect rebuttal answer. there was a woman who had been my classmate at cornell. she took her first year of law school at university of pennsylvania transferred in to our second-year class. i said, well mrs. isleback is in the second year with me and she will have year two and three, i will have year one and two. you say that the first year is, by far, most important.

i had i thought i had a case. well flashforward to my grand kol league who speak here last year elena kagan who became dean of the law school. every year she said, ruth, we would love you to have a harvard law school degree. and when elena made that offer marty said, hold out for an honorary degree. so i have only one law degree. it is from columbia. can't rewrite history. but i do have an honorary degree from harvard university in 2011. >> justice was belatedly done. you were the top of your class at harvard harvard law review top of your class at columbia columbia law review. what was it like then looking

for work? you talked about how hard it was. no women were allowed to apply for many jobs. >> i had a tailored black suit that my ever-supportive mother-in-law got for my interviews. and then i was stunned that no one was interested. only two firms called me to the downtown office after preliminary interview at columbia. and those two ended up not giving me an offer. but it was this wonderful professor, jerry ludlow, maybe you used his book. he was in charge of clerkships for columbia students. and he called every federal judge in the eastern district,

in the southern district, the 2nd circuit judges. they were reticent. and the reason was, a some of them could overcome the fact that i was a woman, but none of them that i was a mother of a 4-year-old. and the fear was that i wouldn't be able to come in on a weekend, i wouldn't be able to stay late. the result was that i overcompensated and worked harder than any clerk in the court. that's the way it was for women in the '50s. it was getting the first job. that was very hard. when you got the job, you did it very well. justice o'connor tells the story about her first job. she was also at the top of her class at stanford law school. no one would hire her as a lawyer. so she volunteered to work for a

county attorney free for four months. she said at the end of that four-month period, if you think i'm worth it, you can put me on the payroll. and that's how she got her first job in the law. what jerry did, he called all these judges and he said an offer you can't refuse. give her a chance and if she doesn't succeed, there is a young man in her class who will step in. and carry you through the year. so that was the carrot. and then it was a stick. and the stick was, if you don't give her a chance, i will never recommend another columbia student to you. i never knew that until years and years later. i thought the judge for whom i

clerked -- he had two daughters and i thought he must have been thinking about what he would like their opportunities to be. in those days not southern district, most judges wouldn't hire women. in the u.s. attorney's office women were strictly forbidden in the criminal division. it was one woman in the civil division. the excuse for not hiring women in the criminal division was they have to deal with all these tough types. and women aren't up to that. and i was amazed. i said, have you seen the lawyers at legal aid who are representing these tough types? they are women. >> and then -- so you clerked. >> yes. >> and then what did you do

after you clerked? >> by that time, i could have gone to any number of downtown firms. in fact, i was to go to one of them when a columbia law school professor came to me and said, ruth, how would you like to write a book about civil procedure in sweden? i thought, now, where is sweden in relation to norway and denmark. okay. it turned out to be a wonderful opportunity for me in many ways. i was 27, 28 at the time. and i was going to have something that i wrote between hard covers. i was going to learn a language and i had no familiarity with. and, something else. marty and i at that point had

been married eight years and i had never lived alone. and i wanted to know what it would be like. and marty was indulgent enough to take care of jane when i left for sweden. i left in the beginning of may. she joined me after her first grade was over in june. so i had a taste of what living alone was like. so that was my kind of eight-year itch, which i never had after that. so i spent two years on the swedish project. columbia had a project on international procedure and part of it was writing books about different procedural systems. part of it was revising the federal rules and title 28 to

make our rules more accommodating to lawyers abroad who wanted to find evidence in the united states, serve process in the united states. so after that i was then again going to go to a law firm which in this fact was the firm with which marty was affiliated. when columbia professor famous professor, walter gellorn who was kind of a one-person personnel office for law school jobsorn, who was kind of a one-person personnel office for law school jobs,horn, who was kind of a one-person personnel office for law school jobs, walter asked me if i would come to see him in his office. and he said ruth what is your name doing on a harvard list

when you're a columbia graduate. harvard list? what harvard list is is he talking about? then i remembered that harvard had sent a form, are you interested in law teaching? is if you are, fill this out. so i filled it out. i never gave another thought to it. at that time there were exactly 14 women in tenure track positions in law schools across the country. so i jumped to the wrong conclusion. i said walter, is columbia interested in me? and the answer was, ruth not columbia but rutgers. the state university in new jersey. why rutgers?

and i will be totally frank about how i got my first teaching job. rutgers had had an excellent civil procedure teacher named clyde ferguson. clyde left rutgers to become the dean of the howard law school here in d.c. rutgers tried to replace him with another african-american man but having failed in that quest, the next best thing was a woman. that's how i got my first teaching job. and the dean he was a very good dean. he was a dear, sweet man. but he said, ruth, you know it is a state university so you will have to take a cut in salary. and i expected that. but not the cut -- not the huge cut that it was.

so i asked how much so and so was earning. it was a man about the same time out of law school. and the answer was, ruth, he has a wife and two children to support and a marty has a good paying skrob with inging job with a law firm. so i met with some other women at the rutgers' new campus and we were not bold. we didn't bring a title 7 -- well title 7 wasn't on the books until the year after i started at rutgers, but there was the equal pay act. the very year that i was offered this salary. so the women at rutgers got together, brought an equal pay case, which after many years was settled.

every woman got a substantial raise. i think $6,000 was about the lowest raise that people got. and in those days, in '63 that was real -- real money. >> and did that experience cause you to focus in on gender equality cases when you -- after you started teaching? >> i didn't set my own agenda at all. there were two forces operating on me. one was the students. the women students wanted to have a course on women and the law. and i thought that was a pretty good idea so i went to the library and in the space of a month, i think i read every federal decision that had ever been written involving women's rights or the lack thereoff.

that was no mean feat because there was precious little. less than today would be generating in a month, i think. that was the women students pushing me in that direction. and then there were new clients coming to the aclu office in new jersey with complaints that the aclu had never heard before. one were pregnant schoolteachers who were forced out on what was euphemistically called maternity leave which is that you go as soon as you begin to show, because after all, the children mustn't think that their teacher swallowed a watermelon. and then if the school system wants you back, they'll call you back. but there was no guaranteed right to come back. so the women were complaining. their complaint was we are

ready, willing and able to work. there's no reason why we should be forced out. and they thought that maybe the new antidiscrimination laws would be helpful to them. and there were blue-collar women that worked at places that had good health insurance packages, one of those women worked for the lipton tea company. she wanted to get family health insurance and was told that family insurance is available only to a male worker not to a female worker. so there were those complaints. rutgers itself, rutgers in those days with being the undergraduate school was all male. there was a much smaller and very fine women's college douglas college. but many people on the rutgers

faculty wanted to admit women. it was kind of what columbia went through. and so there was -- we had a lead plaintiff in the case. he was a gardener who had a son and a daughter. his son had gone to rutgers. his daughter couldn't go to rutgers and, thank goodness, we did not have to make a federal case of it because the rutgers faculty was so keen on the idea -- i mean what they saw immediately was, if we can accept women students we will upgrade our academic standing. so there were the complaints that were coming in to the aclu. there were the students. and this was beginning to happen at law schools across