212 days, our nation would be less secure. mr. chairman as you yourself have reminded congress sequestration threatens our military's readiness, the size of our war-fighting forces, the capabilities of our air and naval fleets and ultimately the lives of our men and women in uniform. the joint chiefs have said the same before this committee and they could not have been more clear in their assessment of the damage sequestration would do to our national security. i want to commend you and thank you you, mr. chairman ranking member reid, for your thoughtful letter about the dangers of sequestration. and i completely agree with you. that the threat of sequestration is as you said quote, a national security crisis of the first order, end quote. the great tragedy is this

corrosive damage to our national security is not the result of objective factors, logic or reason. it's not that we have some new breakthrough in military technology or some novel strategic insight that somehow provides the same security for a smaller budget. it's not that sequester is forced upon us that makes taking grave security risks absolutely necessary. it's surely not the case that the world has suddenly become more stable. or that america has less to do to keep it safe. allowing us to take a peace dividend. it's not even that these cuts solve the nation's overall fiscal challenges because the sad math is that they're large and sudden enough to damage defense but fail to resolve our long-term fiscal issues and the real drivers of the deficit and debt. sequester was not the result of objective factors.

sequester is purely the fallout of political gridlock. its purpose was to compel prudent compromise on our long-term fiscal challenges. compromise that never came. this has been compounded in recent years because the defense department has suffered a double whammy, the worst of both worlds, that is coupled mindless sequestration with constraints on our ability to reform. we need your help with both. i know that chairman mccain, senator reid and others on this committee are as committed to reform as i am and i look forward to working with you on new reforms. we at the pentagon can and must do better at getting value for the defense dollar. taxpayers have trouble comprehending let alone supporting the defense budget when they hear about cost overruns insufficient accounting and accountability needless overhead, excess

infrastructure and the like. there are significant savings to be found through new reforms across d.o.d., reforms we're committed to pursuing but sequester cuts don't help us achieve any of them. in fact, the nature of sequester frequently leads to waste as, for example, when it forces a reduction in contract production rates driving up unit costs. but at the same time that i'm committed to new and further reforms, i must note that in the past several years painful but necessary reforms proposed by d.o.d. reforms involving elimination of overhead and unneeded infrastructure, retirement of older force structure and reasonable adjustments in compensation have been denied by congress. i need your help with these reforms. which have been frustrated at the same time sequester looms and at the same time as we -- at the same time as we make new

reforms. i will work with congress to resolve concerns and find common ground, but we must have your help. if confronted with sequester level budgets and continued obstacles to reform, i don't believe we can simply keep making incremental cuts while maintaining the same set of budgets budgets. we cannot meet sequester with further half-measures. as secretary of defense i will not send our troops into a fight without outdated equipment, inadequate readiness or ineffective doctrine but everything else is on the table. including parts of our budget that have long been considered in vilet.

this may lead to decisions that no americans, including members of congress, want us to make. i'm not afraid to ask the difficult questions but if we're stuck with sequestration's budget cuts over the long term, our entire nation will have to live with the answers. so instead of sequestration, i urge you to urge your colleagues to embrace the alternative. building the force of the future powerful enough to underwriter our strategy equipped with bold new technology leading in domains like cyber and space, as the chairman and senator reid said. attracting and retaining the best americans to our mission. being lean and efficient throughout our enterprise and showing resolve to friends and potential foes alike. i think we can all agree that the world in 2014 was more complicated than anyone could have predicted.

given today's security environment, the president's proposed increase in defense spending over last year's budget is responsible and it's prudent. i earnestly hope we can come together behind a long-term budget approach that dispels sequester and provides stability rather than doing this one year at a time.j]a5p, i hope we can again unite behind what our great nation should and must do to protect our people and make a better world. and i hope we can provide our magnificent men and women of the department of defense, who make up the greatest fighting force the world has ever known what they need and what they fuellly deserve. thank you, mr. chairman. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, mr. secretary. i hope every member of congress is able to hear that message you have just conveyed. thank you. general dempsey. >> thank you, chairman, ranking member reid other distinguished mechanics of this committee, i

appreciate the opportunity to provide you an update on our armed forces and discuss our defense budget for 2016. i'd ask my written statement be submitted for the record. i'll touch on a few points of emphasis. our military remains strong today. however, with threats proliferating, resources declining and sequestration just months away, our ability to assure our allies is in question and our advantages over our adversaries are shrinking. this is a major strategic challenge affecting not only our military, but ultimately america's leadership in the global world order. we face the re-emergence of nation states with the capability and potentially the intent to constrain us. in space and in cyberspace, our adversaries are rapidly leveling the playing field and we face an increasingly capable network of nonstate actors including the islamic state of iraq and lavon who can threaten our national security interest both overseas

and at home. our strategy against isil integrates and balances nine lines of effort only two of which are military. isil's threat is trans-regional and will require a sustainable level of effort over an extended level of time to create an environment to which they will be expelled and ultimately defeated. in europe, russia seeks to reduce nato and european and generate disagreement among our nato allies on the very future of europe. russian leaders have chosen a very dangerous path to achieve their strategic objectives lighting a fire of ethnicity and nationalism, not seen in europe in 65 years. and it may burn out of control. our strategy is to reassure and reinforce our nato allies while considering our instruments of national power to counter russian aggression. all together the global security environment is as uncertain as i've seen is it in my 40 years of service. and we're at a point where our

national aspirations are at risk of exceeding our available resources. and that brings me to the budget. we've heard the congress loud and clear as over the years it has challenged us to become more efficient and to determine the minimum essential requirements we need to do what the nation asks us to do. pb-16 is that answer. in my judgment this represents a responsible capability capacity and readiness investment. it's what we need to remain however at the bottom edge of manageable risk to our national defense as the chairman said there is no slack there is no marginal, nor for response to strategic surprise. funding lower than pb-16 and a lack of flexibility and making the reforms, the internal reforms necessary to put us in a situation could and will in fact, put us in a situation where our national defense strategy will simply no longer be viable.

for the past 25 years the united states military has secured the global commons. we've deterred adversaries, reassured allies and responded to crieses and to conflict by maintaining our presence abroad. it's been our strategy to shape the international security environment by our forward presence and by building relationships among regional partners. in general terms one-third of the force is forward deployed, one-third has just returned and one-third is preparing to deploy. of necessity certain capabilities actually operate with half of our forces deployed and the other half recovering. this puts a significant strain on our men and women in uniform and on their families. sequestration will fundamentally and significantly change the way we deploy the force and shape the security environment. we will be almost 20% smaller but our forward presence will be reduced by more than a third. we will have less influence and we will be less responsive.

conflict will take longer to resolve and will be more costly both in terms of dollars and in casualties. in an age when we are less certain about what will happen next but quite certain that it will happen more quickly we will be further away and less ready than we need to be. simply stated, sequestration will result in a dramatic change in how we protect and how we -- how we protect our nation and how we promote our national interests. mr. chairman, members of this keshgs our men and women in uniform are performing around the globe with extraordinary courage, character and professionalism. we owe them and their families clarity and importantly predictability on everything from policy to compensation, health care, equipment, training and readiness. settling down this uncertainty in our decision-making processes will help keep the right people our decisive edge in our all-volunteer force and maintain the military that the american people deserve and expect.

i'm grateful for the continued support to our men and women in uniform from this committee and this is congress and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much. chairman dempsey, the -- in front of the house armed services committee on february 25th, general bredlove testified, quote, i think first and foremost mr. putin is not accomplished his objectives in ukraine, so next is probably more action in ukraine. in your professional military opinion, do you think general breedlove is correct that putin will continue kinetic operations in ukraine and places like mariople. >> in april 2014 speech, president putin actually referred to a concept he described as nova resea which is new russia that stretches

from -- across eight oblasts of ukraine, the eastern/southern oblasts of ukraine and up into transnistria. he said that's what his intection was to do. to this point their actions seem to suggest to me they actually may be intent on accomplishing it. >> does that convince you or give you the view that we should be providing defensive weaponry to ukraine? >> chairman we have -- as you know, we provided about $100 million in other kinds of aid. we have a program to provide -- >> the question is, do you believe that we should provide defensive weaponry to ukraine? >> if i could, senator, the -- >> i know what you've done. >> right. >> not enough. go ahead. >> i think we should absolutely consider providing lethal aid. it autd to be in the context of our nato allies because putin's

ultimate objective is to fracture nato. >> i thank you pp, general. today in tikrit, secretary carter, the shia militia with the iranian revolutionary guard leader, among others and iranian air, is now attacking tikrit the hometown of saddam hussein, as we recall, and that -- the majority of that effort with a couple thousand of iraqis are being undertaken by the shia militia. the same militia we fought against in the surge. the same militia that according to estimates, are manufactured the ieds which was directly resulted in the deaths of some thousand or two young americans. are you concerned that iran has

basically taken over the fight? according to "the wall street journal" this morning, we are observing that operation. does that ring an alarm bell with you, mr. secretary? >> it does. it does. in iraq is to work with the iraqi security forces and a multisk teryn government that takes a multisectarian approach to defeating isil and regaining control of its territory. i do look at it with concern. we're watching it very closely. some sunni forces involved and i

would note some sunni tribal leaders in tikrit and this is important, have stig naturaled their support. this is the problem that brought iraq. i am looking at it with great concern. >> secretary carter, you just returned from afghanistan. an excellent visit, by all reports. my understanding from media reports is you will be re-evaluating the calendar driven plan for withdrawal from afghanistan. and is that true? and can you tell us what

recommendations you have in mind? by the way, we've been hearing about these recommendations for a year or two now. you got any timeline as to when a decision may be made, because according to the calendar driven mrab now in place, we'll have to be withdrawing troops very soon. can you update us on that? >> i certainly can.uxlb=ñr that was the reason i went to afghanistan, second only to the primary reason forks see our fantastic people there and let them know we're all with them and thank about them every day. but i had an opportunity to assess conditions on the ground there, to discuss them with president ghani, and i'll share my observations but just to get to the answer to your question, i think the phrase i used when i came before you last is we have a plan. but a plan is a plan.

and a plan is something you adjust over time. and so i think we can adjust our plan over the next year or two. i did discuss that with president ghani. i discussed that here in washington. i can't -- i don't know what decisions the president will make in that regard or the timetable in which he'll make them, bit certainly have had the opportunity acquaint myselfy them. the other thing i'd like to say is that president ghani gave me a very articulate depiction of conditions and how they changed and what the good things have been and what the bad things have been. and i don't want to tell too many on this committee, the first thing he said to me, when

he saw me, is would you please go home and tell everyone there and essentially the troops, that i know almost a million americans have come through here in the last decade to help my country and that thousands of them have been killed and wounded. and i want you to know thank you. i just wanted to tell you that. because i haven't heard that for a long time. >> but it is your opinion that the present plan needs to be revised? >> i think that there are going to be respects in which the president's going to want to consider the conditions that have changed. i'll give you some examples of that. >> i understand the examples. but do you want to stick with the calendar-driven plan or have it revised? >> we have to be conditions based. absolutely, firmly. >> i thank you. i thank both of you for your testimony. secretary mccord, do you want to add anything? >> not on this subject of afghanistan. thank you. >> thank you. senator reid. >> thank you mr. chairman.

thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony, for your service. just to quickly following up, mr. secretary you have been through afghanistan, iraq and the region and also been in communication with foreign leaders, your counterparts across the globe. are they aware of the impending budgetary train wreck in the united states? and does this sort of create an anxiety and conclusion that we won't have the resources even if we have the resolve? >> well, in general they're polite enough not to raise this question. but when i have had conversations with foreign leaders, i think it is distressing to me because they hear everything we say. and they see everything we do. and they get a very clear picture of the dangers of

sequester. they probably get an outsized picture of our lack of will but this isn't good for our friends. of course, i'm only talking to our friends, so i can only imagine what our foes are thinking but they're probably thinking the same thing. what are these guys doing to themselves. this is why it's not only a substantive matter but it's a matter of appearances and deterrence that we get our act together with respect to sequester. >> i mean, essentially this goes beyond just the numbers and the budget and the what programs we're going to fund. this goes to the perception in the world the united states is capable and resourced to carry out a strategy to support their allies and oppose their adversaries. is that accurate? >> that's exactly right. >> the other side of this coin too, we're innocent a situation where our allies seem to be stepping up to the plate to fill in the gaps.

either the nato county countries or even our gulf allies. >> i'm into that. and i -- you mentioned the europeans. europeans, our nato partners made a pledge to take steps that would -- for most of them involve an increase in defense spending. and they really need to take that step because we can't be the only one on our team with military potential in that theater, which as you and the chairman have mentioned with respect to ukraine. is a very dangerous one. >> i don't want to beat a dead horse, but your enthusiasm to race defense budget is probably affected by our lack of will to raise ours. not just the defense budget, but

other dujbudgets. is that correct? >> that well could be. that's another reason for us to get it together here. >> general dempsey, you mentioned there are nine lines of operations against isil and the department of defense has, i think you said two. so there's seven other lines being funded outside of d.o.d. budget. is that accurate or -- >> yes. some of the lines, for example, countermessaging resides partially within our budget, but generally the answer to that is yes. >> so that even if we were restore some significant funding to the department of defense on the ground you would still be without the resources you need to defeat isil and degrade isil. >> yes sir. if what you mean is we need the whole of government here absolutely. >> homeland security -- >> right. >> when you talk about the -- your situation with ebola recently -- >> counter finances which works through treasury department. >> et cetera et cetera. there's not a nice neat separation between our national security and d.o.d. and the rest of government. >> not on the isil campaign, no, sir. >> secretary carter, just

doubling back here for a moment.zwpç let's assume the worst. you know we don't move above the bca and sequestration. how does this affect our overseas oco accounts. is is there an effect you see or our ability to fund them? do have you to borrow from peter to pay paul? >> you mean if we're denied the the -- what we're asking for in the base budget -- well, we also have an oco budget, as you say. there isn't slack in the oco budget. that's money being spent for real things. it's being spent for the war against -- the campaign against isil. it's being spent in afghanistan. it's in the horn of africa. so, it's -- oco is committed to the here and now ways that we're protecting our security. we can't rob peter to pay paul.

>> and just in that same vein general dempsey, another way to approach the problem, how are we going to manage the strategic risk if we have a situation of sequestration in place, budget control? >> as you know sir, we've already -- i've submitted the chairman's risk assessment which establishes the fact we're at significant risk against the strategy as it was conceived in 2012 already. what we've been doing is we've been increasing risks over the past three or four years. what i would tell you now is if we don't get funded at pb-16 level and if we don't get the reforms inside of the budget, because it's $4.2 billion for this year, but it accrues to i think, $40 billion over the -- if we don't get that, the strategy has to change. if you're asking me, how will i manage the current strategy? it's unmanageable. >> thank you.

>> secretary carter, you heard the answer that was -- general dempsey just gave. do you agree with this statement? >> do i. >> you know, i wasn't here during the -- i'm sorry, i missed your opening statement. i didn't have the benefit of reading, it but i think it's worthwhile getting on the record again. you've heard many times the statements of clapper and others, the clapper statement, looking over a half century of intense, i've never soon a time we're more beset by crisis. he repeated that just lack week we had general stewart saying essentially the same thing. now, i assume that you agree with those statements. >> i do. and i started in this business there was one problem, the soviet union. now there are -- >> those were the good old days, right? i can say that. >> i remember enough to not be too nostalgic but the world is so much more complicated, so

much more is happening exactly as you say. >> hearing prime minister netanyahu this morning, that just drove that home. i was thinking how easy that that. yes, the threat was terrible. two super powers. they were predictable. we were predictable. mutual assured destruction meant something. it doesn't mean anything anymore. i was just thinking about that how different that is today. the other thing i wanted to mention is that you've heard what general odierno general welch and general dunford all testified. you said something i think is even more significant. you said even with the fiscal year '56 had 16 budget, the army navy and marine corps won't reach their readiness cìtç goals until 2020 and the air force until 2023. is that accurate? what you're saying there is -- even if there is not -- our budget without sequestration,

you're saying that threat is there? >> yeah. what's gone on there is digging ourselves out of a hole of sequester in the past particularly the 2013 budget the year in which the shutdown occurred and so forth. the thing about readiness is it's easy to have it fall off but then it takes time to build it back. and i think what the chiefs were saying, absolutely accurately is, we lost a lot of readiness through the turmoil of the last few years. even if we're gwynn the opportunity, as we hope with this budget to start building back. it's just in the nature. it's in the nature of training that it takes a while to get that readiness back. so, i do agree with him, yes. >> secretary carter, do you -- you know you were over there -- well, of course, this is the first time you appeared before this committee in this capacity. and when you were over there and you apparently had some time, a

good quality time with president ghani when you were there and it was observed i think, by general dempsey that we don't operate in a vacuum here. what we're saying is the whole row knows. anything you want to add with our relationship with president ghani that would be beneficial to have the whole world know, those who are participating in that theater? >> yes. one thing, which is that he is a partner in a way that we have been looking for. and without whom the sacrifice that we've made over these last ten years can't be successful. he understands what we've tried to do for him. he knows that it has been of great benefit to his country and not just to protect our country of course, which it has and

which is why we went there in the first place, to protect ourselves from the breeding ground of the 9/11 attacks on our own country. and i think everybody who participated in this campaign ought to know around the world in our coalition that we have now in president ghani somebody who really gets the sacrifice that we've all made on behalf of afghanistan and is committed to making the progress that we've made there stick. that's what i'd say. >> okay. that's good. i appreciate that. senator reid talked about the -- our limited resources. and i wasn't sure i understood your answer. you think people are out there? it doesn't matter where they are. it can be georgia it can be anyplace. do they recognize we haven't had the resources or been able to do what we've historically done? >> well they hear us saying

that. they hear us debating that. you know, i hope, and this is something i try to say, and i'm sure you all try to say, which is yes, we're having internal debates and so forth. we don't like what is going on here. i certainly have said that today. but don't underestimate the will and the power of the united states. and i hope people understand that as well because we still have the greatest fighting force the world has ever seen. >> i understand that. we're aiming that towards others. but looking here at home when even you admit with the current budget, even without sequestration, our risk level is going to increase. right? >> that -- the risk is measured in the readiness that needs to be restored as you mentioned.

>> general dempsey, should congress pass aumf without restrictions? >> i'm the military guy in the room. and i would always seek to reserve all of our options. i was consulted on the document passed to the congress and it will allow us to meet the campaign as you've designed it. you say without restrictions. that really now becomes a decision between you and the -- and your colleagues. >> all right. secretary carter? >> exactly the same. answer. key to us is can we do our campaign? >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator horono. >> thank you. secretary carter as the department continues to rebalance our military forces in the asia-pacific and the middle east there are clearly challenges in terms of available resources. and i know from our january meeting that you agreed that stability in the asia pacific region is critical to our national security, even as there

is instability in so many other parts of the world. so you mentioned today once again in your testimony that the priority -- one of the priorities is to continue our commitment to the rebalance to the asia-pacific. so i do want to highlight one related issue that i would like to continue to discuss with you. and that is, there are plans in place to shift a number of military personnel and assets from hawaii to include naval vessels, aircraft air force tankers, back to the continental u.s. by 2020. i am concerned about how moving these kinds of significant capabilities away from the region while we are supposed to be committed to the rebalance to the asia-pacific will look to our allies and to our adversaries? so i'd like to continue this discussion with you as we go forward.

this is a question relating to energy security. in april 2014, there was a d.o.d. directive to all of our service entities. it was signed by the acting deputy secretary of defense. so, this was a new energy directive to enhance capabilities while improving energy security and mitigating costs because we all acknowledge that the d.o.d. is the largest user of energy in our country. can you tell us where where d.o.d. stands in regards to implementing this directive? which, by the way, goes to 2024. and how is it supported in the president's budget? >> thank you, senator. on the first issue i agree with

you entirely. you know, we can't forget as we're embroiled in the conflict with -- against isil, which we must win, that it's a big world out there. and we have interests and friends and challenges throughout the world. and the asia-pacific is where half the world's population and half the world's economy resides. i agree with you. i'd be happy to discuss that. we've done that before. that's a continuing commitment not only of mine and yours but of our country. so, i'd be happy to talk to you about that. with respect to energy. the energy landscape is changing a lot and the defense department is, as you say, the largest user of energy in the -- in the federal government by far. and, therefore, has a real stake in where we go with respect to energy. and a role to play in getting us

there. and i signify if i may, two ways in dh we do that. one is r&d in areas that are particularly important to defense. because of our particular needs, we may be an early adopter of technology. that's a long-standing role of the department of defense on many things like -- i mean, the internet and things like that. we're doing it for against but it has spin-offs. and the other way we play a role is in the country's overall energy strategy. and obviously that's secretary moneyy's responsibility and the president's but we try to make sure what we're doing is aligned with them. and, of course -- i don't want to go on too long. overall, our energy situation has improved tremendously in the last couple years and our opportunities have widened. that's been good for defense.

because we're, for example, a huge user of fuel. and if we -- if we can get -- when oil prices come down we benefit from it. thank you. >> thank you for your continuing commitment. general dempsey, there was a recent workplace survey report that indicated that 62% of women who reported an unwanted section you'll contact to military authorities indicated that they experienced at least one form of retaliation. a significant number of these retaliations came from coworkers, not from the command structure. and so this is a difficult situation. and i'd like to know what your thoughts are on this type of retaliation and how it can be curtailed within the service. >> well, it's absolutely unacceptable. there were 12 metrics we've established that track progress toward ridding the professional force from this -- from this

stain. and ten of them trended positively. two of them negatively. one of them was a retribution issue. thankfully a companion piece is that the vast majority of respondents -- by the way, we had an unusual number of respondents for a survey -- expressed faith in the chain of command. and so you've got -- we've actually been able to isolate the issue to peer-on-peer retribution. and so you ask what we're doing about it? well based on that survey, we've actually had several meetings. the secretary convenes a meeting every two weeks, i think, it is. >> had one yesterday. >> yeah, had one yesterday. that's the topic. we're looking to get after that but we actually are encouraged that we've been able to turn the trend line on 10 out of 12. we have to go to work on the other two and keep our eye on the first ten. >> many members of this committee, how you're doing on the peer-to-peer --

>> we don't mind that a bit. we've got to work on this. >> thank you. thank you. >> thank you. secretary carter and general dempsey, i want to ask first about the big picture and then in the six minutes we have, i'd like to drill down a little on afghanistan. last week director of national intelligence james clapper spoke to us and he said, among other things unpredictability instablgt is the new normal. and secretary carter i think this is what you and senator inhofe were talking about when you said we used to know the exact threats and it was one big threat. now it's -- it's unstable and unpredictable. general clapper also said this -- he noted that last year there were more deaths from state-sponsored mass killings more people displaced from their homes, and a higher rate of political instability than we've seen in decades. it was the most lethal year for global terrorism than in 45 years. that's director clapper.

only a few days before secretary of state kerry told the house foreign affairs committee that quote, we are actually living in a period of less daily threat to americans and to people in the world. less deaths, less violent deaths today than through the last century. now, secretary carter are we living in a period of less daily threats to americans? >> senator, i didn't -- i haven't seen that particular -- >> that's the quote. >> -- of secretary kerry or the context of that was. but i would say two things. one is, to get back to what director clapper said about an uncertain world and one in which things -- new and different threats are constantly emerging i would agree with that completely. and i just simply don't know what secretary kerry said in

that particular instance, senator, or what the context for it was. but we certainly have serious threats to the united states around the world. i guess i'm -- it is a good thing that we have combatted terrorism as vigorous as we have since 2001. and we've made a lot of changes a new department of homeland security, a lot of changes in intelligence in the department and so will you think we have upped our game considerably. at the same time, our opponents both state opponents and terrorists, continue to be pretty ingeejnious. >> in terms of the level of tret, it's hard to square the two statements coming from two members. same administration. either we're living in a time of

higher instability and more deaths from state-sponsored mass killings or in a period of less daily threats to americans. this second statement coming from our chief negotiator with the iranian regime. i will have to say to you it causes me concern that secretary kerry would feel this way while at the same sometime trying to negotiate a nuclear deal with this terrorist nation. general dempsey, if the secretary of state is correct perhaps we don't have to avoid sequestration, if we're living at a time -- living in a period of less daily threats to americans, less threats to the people of the world than normally. perhaps, we could stick with sequestration if that's the case. wouldn't you agree? >> well you know i would say this senator. if -- one of the ways the military actually contributes to this argument is by being forward deployed so that we can

shape and influence the future rather than -- you know, you may have heard me say in the past the last thing we want to do is play a home game. if you sequester us, we will be playing a home game. >> you know where i stand on sequestration. >> i do, sir. >> and i'm doing everything i can working with the bipartisan leadership of this committee. and i appreciate your testimony on page 3, general dempsey, that threats are proliferating. seems to me that that's what's obvious out there. it does concern me, though, when the secretary of state completely misses the point, as demonstrated by the juxtaposition of director clapper's statement and secretary of state's statement. now, secretary carter, on the first page of your testimony, thank you for commending our troops. you say, in afghanistan our soldiers, airmen and marines are

helping cement progress made toward a more secure, stable and prosperous future. i want to absolute you for saying we've made progress. and it seems to me there's some people out there listening, maybe to the network news or talking heads, who would conclude that things have gone to hell in afghanistan. as a matter of fact, as you point the out in response to senator inhofe's question, president ghani and his chief opposition leader are in a partnership. they appreciate our presence there. and we have made progress. things are headed in the right direction. and ten years worth of blood and sacrifice has gotten us to where we are. you say they are working to ensure that afghanistan never again becomes a safe haven for attacks on our homeland or our partners and allies. i think six years ago you might have been able to say that about iraq. and i just wonder what lessons we've learned from iraq and what

assurances you can give with that -- with the plan the administration has, with the president's plan toward a drawdown of troops in afghanistan. we won't lose the progress we've made, that you talked about, to cement the progress toward a more secure, stable and prosperous future in afghanistan. toss that all away, as we have elsewhere. >> thank you. thank you, senator. and we do have the opportunity to cement it. and you say what's the difference between iraq and afghanistan. i mean, they're very different situations in the following two ways. the first is that we as president ghani clearly indicated to me, but he said this publicly, he wants us there. we have a willing partner. we have a bilateral security agreement, which we didn't get with iraq, welcoming us to stay

in afghanistan. that's the first thing. and the second thing is we have a partner in president ghani. you mentioned dr. abdullah, chief executive officer and that's an important point as you note they are working together. i saw both of them. i saw both of them together. i kind of watched their relationship. and they have agreed to work together in a multi-sectarian, if i can use that phrase, way, which is exactly what didn't happen in iraq. was the devolution to deck terynismteryn -- sectarianism and that led to the cruel force of isil represented -- or exploited and to the situation we're now in. so we have an opportunity in afghanistan for those two critical reasons that are so different from iraq to get an outcome that really is cemented.

>> general, would you like to comment on that? >> we've got a -- there's a terrorist network that stretches from afghanistan to nigeria, and we have to keep pressure on it along its entire length. and i think afghanistan is and will remain an anchor point for that pressure. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator blumenthal. >> thanks, mr. chairman. i want to shift to an area where both of you have demonstrated a lot of attentiveness and caring which is the well-being of the extraordinary men and women whom you command. and while they serve under you and afterward when they become veterans, i know that both of you have shown, indeed mr. secretary in your prior life, when you worked as undersecretary, and general dempsey, i was privileged to

watch you perform at a recent event sponsored by the woodrow foundation, so i know how active you are in support of our troops and wounded warriors. and i want to focus on the connections between the d.o.d. and the va. having now seen it from the perspective of the va, the veterans administration, in my capacity as ranking member, i'm struck by the need for better information, the electronics -- health electronicses records va been a point of contention so have the drug formulary issues. there needs to be more collaboration, koortdcoordination.

can you see ways we can improve the flow of information and the help that veterans get, particularly our veterans who suffer from post-traumatic stress and brain injuries, as you know both senator mccain and i have addressed in the veteran suicide bill we co-sponsored and recently passed. that's just a down payment. i wonder what more we can do in that area. i wonder if you could address that in the context of the budget. >> i can. and thank you for that. and we did discuss it. accordingly, in the time i've been there, i've tried to see where things stand and see how things -- assess. i have a great partner in the veterans affairs, and i've talked to him. and, you know, to the -- to the soldiers, sailor, airman and marine they shouldn't have to worry there are two cabinet

departments that are responsible for taking care of them. they shouldn't have to worry about that 37 we should have to make it knit together. you mentioned iehr, integrated electronic health record program form layer issues that have to do with pharmacies and what they call drugs and so forth. so yes, we do need to stay closely knitted and we will. i wanted to particularly note your work on pts simply because that's one of those things that we've learned through sad experience in the last decade or so is a serious thing, but that can also be treated. and i think you have been the one championing and i thank you for that and will do it, making sure that veterans who came along before there was this awareness, and before there were

these treatments are given the benefits of this awareness and given the benefits of this treatment. and i've looked into that since you and i talked. u could say more about that and talk about it more privately. but i understand exactly the need you're pointing me to and i think i sea a way we can address that. that's really important for our older veterans. >> i appreciate those comments and you're absolutely right. the diagnosis for pts began in the 1980s. but troops were suffering from it way before then. and part of the challenge is to not only care for them but also -- and you mentioned there are treatments. but in many ways pts is still a mystery. there are centers of excellence that the va established. one happens to be in west haven in connecticut under yale new haven and the psychiatrists and so forth there. and they're doing some great

work. but with proper support, and i hope it will come from the department of defense as well as the va, so much more can be done in more effective treatment, which we're just beginning to discover as you observed. let me just conclude by going through some of the procurement issues that i think are important. the joint strike fighter, pleased to see the increase there from 38 to 57 which going back again to your prior service in the department of defense might not have been predicted at that time, the in effect vote of confidence. i don't want to speak too strongly. but it looks to me like that procurement program is proceeding well. am i correct? >> i think we have stability in the joint strike fighter program compared compared to five years ago. and that's the basis of which the ramp up of production is a

prudent thing to do. that's a good opportunity for us, that the program is running that way. >> and i'm very pleased to see that both the virginia class and the ohio replacement e ahead on a very good pace. >> true, both necessary. >> thank you. thank you mr. secretary. thank you, general. >> senator ayat? >[pdm want to thank the chair. i want to thank all of you for what you do for the country. haen and secretary carter i want to thank you for so quickly into after your confirmation of following through and meeting with the jtacs to hear our information on friday and for including me in that meeting. i appreciate your commitment to review the air forces decisions on the a-10. appreciate your willingness to do that. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> i wanted to follow up on the

issue of ukraine on a different topic. and that's the issue of u.s. intelligence sharing. but there were reports recently in "the wall street journal" that really troubled me about what we're doing to help the ukrainians in terms of their defense, information we can share with them to be able to minimize their casualties and defend their territory. and in that article basically what it said is that images are being significantly degraded to avoid provoking russia and that what it was doing in terms of ukrainian officials, they said, it's really hampered their ability of their force to counter separatists because it's 24-hour delay in terms of intelligence sharing. and that they are actually approaching other countries like canada because of the intelligence gaps. can you help me understand if

we're not going to give them arms to defend themselves, because we haven't done that yet and i appreciate that i hear from general dempsey and you as well that this is something that you're very open to, at least we can share information to them. because they're obviously dying by the thousands defending their own territory. can you help me understand this issue of can we share intelligence with them so they can defend themselves? >> i can help you in a limited way because that's not a decision that either the chairman or i are involved in. this is intelligence community thing. and it has to do with the sharing arrangement that we have with ukraine. and i think there are other consideration that they take into account when making that determination. but i think your larger point, which is that there are things that we can do to help the ukrainians help themselves. and of course the main effort

there is a political and economic one sanctions and so forth. but on the military side there are ways that we can help the ukrainians to help themselves. and we are, as you say, working through them now. but i'm afraid i can't speak to the intelligence thing. the intelligence committee will have to answer that. >> its sources and methods has nothing to do with the fact that we're worried about angering russia. and i can tell you that both the secretary and i are committed to find ways to help ukraine defend its sovereign territory and reduce the casualties. there is a disproportionate number of casualties on the ukraine side. and you're right, both the europeans and us should be active in trying to help them. >> so there's, you know think about if you were you know, general dempsey with all of your military experience you're fighting an enemy and you

weren't getting intelligence in real time. you know 24-hour delay is like a lifetime in a wartime setting. so i guess the real-time intelligence to me there's got to be a way to protect our sources and methods but not you know, 24 hours later in an intelligence context is like a lifetime. so i really hope we'll get them real-time intelligence so that they can defend themselves open they have suffered too many casualties and anything we can do to prevent those casualties, i think we have some responsibility here, given, you know, we were signatoriry to the budapest referendum too. so i appreciate that. i wanted to ask as well about isil's activities beyond iraq and syria. we're hearing a lot about isil's activities in libya. can you help me understand what

we see isil doing even beyond the grave challenges that we face of their establishing a caliphate along iraq and syria, in places like libya and where else are we seeing their presence and what are we going to do about it? >> thank you, senator. i'll say something and the chairman may want to add in. we're seeing it. we're seeing it throughout north africa. we're seeing it in the duffel area. i had a lengthy conversation to get back to the previous conversation we were having on afghanistan with president ghani about it showing up in afghanistan afghanistan. and then we see people in europe individuals who are joining us and so forth. i'll give you the perspective i learned by talking to our folks over in the meeting i held in

kuwait last week. what i learned about it which is one, isil is an attractive to younger members of movements, of older movements where the leadership has got an little older and maybe they've got an little stayed. and the younger guys who have more steam up or are more deluded are attracted to this newer more radical thing. and the second thing i learned is that this is a social media fueled terrorism group, in a way that we haven't seen yet. and so people who are very distant from any battlefield very distant from any experience of radicalism suddenly becoming

enticed through social media. in terms of what we do about it i think that this has -- this is why i wanted people to come from all over the region and indeed in the case of special operations command all over the world. we need to be prepared for this in terms of protecting our own people. i think it's also true in the diplomatic and nondefense people who are in this conference have this knowledge and responsibility. but it's something we need to combat in the information do main as well. that's going to be challenging because this is a social media -- you know if bin laden was the internet terrorist, these guys are the social media terrorists. and i think that we will see people running up that flag or saying that they're attracted to that movement all over the world. and by the way, and this is the lasting thing i'll say, that's why it's important to inflict

defeat upon isil. we got to take the steam out of this thing. these guys aren't invisible and we've got to make that clear. >> the only thing i would add senator, in addition to what the secretary said, the radical nature of its ideology makes it attractive to a population where govern governance as collapse nd. we're taking and continue to refine a transregional sustainable persistent approach to this. it stretches from al qaeda in iraq and pakistan all the way over to boko haram. they syndicate with each other and we've got to see it that way in order to deal with it. >> thank you. >> senator manchin. at the request of secretary carter, he would like to take about a 15-minute break after

senator manchin and the committee will stand in recease for 15 minutes following senator manchin's questioning. senator manchin. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank all of you for your great service to the country and i appreciate what you do every day. there's not a person in my state of west virginia that doesn't support everything you do. doesn't support the military. they'll fight, do anything you ask them to do. but they still ask questions about why do we spend so much money on military. why to we spend more of the eight countries put together. we have to always be gang their trust if you will. i know in procurement, we're not the best in procurement. we're not the best in billing weapons. eisenhower said be ware of the military industrial complex. we're all in tune with all of this. so i know how detrimental sequestering is. we talked about flexibility at one time. flexibility by itself won't do

it. i understand that. secretary carter you and i had a nice conversation. i think secretary hagel was trying to look at the budgets, reducing them by 20% and everything. but basically it comes down to the oddity. knowing where we are. and i talked about contracting want i've talked about the effectiveness of the national guard. i've even asked the question, tell me the difference between the reserve and the guard. why do we have duplication? there's no much going on here. are we allow growing do everything you need to do to run a very effective and efficient cost-effective military for our country? people in west virginia are willing to spend their taxes and invest nair texasstheir tax to the defense of this country. but they like to make sure they're getting a bang for their buck too, not just throwing a lot of it away. how do we do this? how do we help you? we've got to have an audit.

i know the chairman has been very much concerned about that developing our arsenal, if you will, making sure we're able to get that to market, do what we're supposed to do and get it there as quick as possible. anybody on the panel -- and secretary, if you want to chart with that, and general, chime in. >> i think your constituents are very logical. they're saying, hey, look i'm willing to pay for defense but i want to make sure that every dollar is spent well. so we need to pair our request for the funds that we need to defend our country with the assurances that we're using it well. we know we're not always using every dollar in the defense budget well. and that's why i think senator mccain, chairman reed and this entire committee has been urging a movement towards reform one i very much support and would like to partner with you on.

because i think our -- the taxpayer will find it easier to support what we're trying to do to defend ourselves if they also see us vigorously getting the best value for every tax value. and you mentioned audit. and audit is as you indicate, key. and we have a plan for audit readiness, for the debt. you and i have discussed that. secretary mccord is in charge of that effort. but i'm completely committed to its success. and -- >> sir just one thing because i forget -- every time we hear about reduction of force, it's always on our front line it's always the people we're depending to be on the front line fighting, defending us. but when you look at basically the size of the staffs and it's

just overwhelming, the size of the staff keeps growing but we always continue to talk about reduction of force the people we need out front. what can we do to help you there, get control of that, reduce that staff proportion? >> well, you're absolutely right. and i hope you will support and continue to support us as we get rid of excess infrastructure and shed excess staffs. this is the kind of thing we have to do if we're going to go forward here with resources that still are going to be under pressure. they're going to be under pressure. we have to make sure ever dollar counts. and senator while i'm speaking before i ask the chairman to comment on the same thing, let me just say, mr. chairman, i appreciate your consideration. this is about my healing up my back and i thank you. however i'm doing fine. since everybody is here, unless

ores others want to -- i'm okay going on. >> i was trying to prevent you from having to be interrogated by senator fisher. she's next. if you're ready for that. all right, sir. >> thanks senator. first it's probably worth remembering that when i became the chief staff of the army we were tasked to find $487 billion in the budget. we did. when i became the chairman -- i think i'm a jinx, wu we were asked to achieve the additional level. roughly speaking, a little over a trillion dollars. we've found $750 billion of it. what we're debating now is the last 250 over the next six years. i think we've done pretty darn well to be honest with you. in terms of what you can tell the people in west virginia they're going to see the mountain

mountaineers and they don't have to worry about being blown up while they're watching a basketball game. and last but not least i would venture to tell you all this group of jcs, the chiefs, have proposed some of the most controversial and emotional changes in terms of pay camp sayings, health care bases weapons systems than any group in my memory in 40 years. and if we get some help with that and we get some topline, as the chairman mentioned, for things that were unforecasted for example, space, nuclear weapons, the emerging threats we can actually manage it and look the american people in the eye, as i do my own family and tell them, we are spending your money wisely. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you gentlemen-for-being here today. i do appreciate your service and secretary carter i appreciate your fortitude to stay so you can have my questions. a lot of my colleagues are

drilled down on some issues and i have about three different areas i'd like to touch on if i may. as we look at the situation in ukraine and we see that the separatists forces are having success on the battlefield, do you believe that that may incentivize putin to become more ambitious in ukraine so that he maybe would look at more ambitious goals with regards to that country? >> i am concerned about that. and i think he has made his gomes pretty clear. he speaks about them openly. which is to have all around him states that are in his orbit

rather than pursuing their own futures, their own independent futures. and ukraine is an example of that. and i think that if we don't remain united on the political and economic pressure which is having a real effect in russia, and if we don't remain united in standing up for nato in europe and we don't remain united in sticking up for the ability of the ukrainian government and ukraine to plot an independent path for itself, putin will keep pushing and pushing. my read of him is that's the kind of guy he is. >> i would say right now that we are united but i have fears for the future in how we move forward in this area. and you mentioned nato.

and our commitment there. and the commitment that we have. what effect what effect is it on the world when they see that we are not helping a country that -- ukraine with more lethal force to defend themselves when we signed an agreement that we would? what message does that send to our nato allies and to the institution of nato itself? >> as it happens i was in budapest in 1994 when that agreement was signed, the very one that vladimir putin of russia is violating. i know it well. it was not a nato type of agreement. but it did -- in it russia

pledged to respect the territorial integrity of ukraine, which it clearly has not done. and insofar as nato isquk$z concerned, as you say i think the point of our so-called reassurance initiative but it basically means rotating more forces into europe and taking steps to strengthen our presence in europe that's a way of saying, chi think we have to do to, to nato, that, you know we're with you in a very serious kind of obligation that we have under the nato treaty. we have an obligation to ukraine also. and to get to your other point, and i think that assisting them politically, economically, and we've talked before about that. the military being something also under consideration. that's very important. >> as we look at russia, they

are not honoring the assurances that they gave to ukraine. as you mentioned, that was an agreement. they have been in violation of the inf treaty which they don't admit to, but as has been discussed, they have been in violation of that treaty. how, how long does the united states wait before we start exploring options, not just with regard to ukraine, but with regards to russia's blatant violations of treaty agreement with our country? >> we haven't waited. we shouldn't wait. we haven't waited to explore alternatives. the int treaty is a two-sided treaty. they said they wouldn't do something. we say we wouldn't do something.

and they've done what they weren't supposed to do. and so that means that we can react in various ways. so if they don't get back into compliance, we can take steps that are defensive in terms of defending ourselves against that are deterrent steps, and that are, you know aimed at countering the effects of this weapons system that violates the inf treaty that they have fielded -- not fielded but are working on. and i think they need to understand that the united states can react to this kind of thing. it was a two-way street. it's not something that we asked them to do and they give us for free. it's something that we have -- it is a two-way street.

and we have begun to think about things we can do. now, we signed the treaty because we thought it was on the whole best for both of us not to do that. that was the logic behind the treaty. i think that logic is still fine. but you can't be one-sided about it. >> i totally agree. i appreciate that you're looking for options. i hope you can be more public about that and also very firm publicly in that the united states will react to treaty violations especially when they are violations on treaties with our country. thank you. >> senator donnelly. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you all for your service. general dempsey, secretary carter, are you looking into how our plan for mosul got out? what is going on with that? >> i have spoken to general austin the chairman has as

well. and clearly that was an instance of speculation that -- that it certainly doesn't reflect what we need to be thinking with respect to"n an offensive against mosul. which is we will conduct an offensive against mosul when the iraqi security forces can lead such an offensive helped my us. because it's important that that offense i succeed. it will happen when it can succeed. >> and this would be for either you or general dempsey. how do we make sure this doesn't happen again and what's being done to prevent it? >> as the secretary mentioned, general austin and i have been in contact and he's conducting an internal inquiry into it.

and i think he will -- not i think. i know he will take the appropriate action. >> thank you. let me ask you this. and these are obviously not classify source os whatever. these are in newspapers. you read this and that. they said this morning in the effort that's going on takrit that we're really kind of peripheral players in this and that the general from iran is on the front lines with the shiite malitia. what is going on there? >> the -- this gets back to the point made earlier -- >> i apologize. >> sorry. your question is right on. we operate in iraq in support of the iraqi government. the iraqi government in this case did not ask for our support

in this particular operation. and i think that we need to be watchful as we take -- we, together with the iraqi government, take back territory from isil that we continue to conduct this campaign in a multi-sectarian way. because we've been down the road of sectarianism in iraq and it's important that the government of iraq today not go down that road again. so we need to have success against isil. we need to have it in a way that doesn't inflame sectarianism again and that's why we're watching this so closely. >> if i could 6z':3qesylzadd, senator the report, a poll of social media. i've seen the pictures myself and the intel community will go to work to decide whether he was personally there or not.

but it's worth reminding ourselves, iran and its proxies have been inside of iraq since 2004. this is the most overt conduct of iranian support in the form of artillery and other things. frankly it will only be a problem if it results in secretary uchl as the secretary said. so if these groups -- of the size of the force going to takrit, about a third of it is iraqi, the fifth division normally based in the north. and the other two thirds are see quite malitia. if they perform in a credible way, rid the city of takrit turn it back over to its inhabitants, then it will have been a positive thing in terms of the counter isil campaign. at this point, as the secretary mentioned, it's supported by the sunni members of parliament and the local leaders but that's

dependent on the behavior of the malitia. by the way, we're watching. >> i'm sure like you my concern is that the sunni tribal leaders look up and go these are the same people who have been working us over for years. at what point do they say, you know where's the good option here of these sides? >> well, that's exactly the concern. they did, as we understand it, make a statement today, the tribal leaders in the area that they supported, the offensive. i hope that's true because what's very important is that we all be behind defeating isil. and that sectarianism not raise its ugly head again because that's what's brought us to this place in the first place. >> let me ask one last question, because i have about a minute. i know it will take up that much time. but, you know, it's been mentioned in syria that we plan to reduce isis, get rid of them. how do you bring assad to the

table? >> in syria -- a very good question, and i'll offer the following. he needs to come to the table in order to discuss his own re receding from the area. for that to occur, he needs to see the right combination of the doom of the strategy that he has set his country's course on set the course of his country on and also i believe that the pressure from russia and iran. both of whom are supporting him. and they need to withdraw their support of him because of what he's done to his country.

when he seas that combination it seems to me that may cause him to recreed. there's no doubt on our point of view which is he's done things to his people by this time that put him outside the pale and he has to go. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary carter, good to see you again. congratulations. general dempsey, thank you for your service. i go back to a theme that we discussed during your confirmation hearing, and that's this broader theme of leveling with the american people. i think that on our threats -- and i think that you're seeing this is a -- i would call it a pretty general bipartisan concern that there's a disconnect sometimes from what

we're hearing from the uniform military and intelligence services openand agencies and importantly what we're hearing from the leadership of the country, president. senator wicker was talking about the secretary of state. i think there's growing agreement certainly here about the importance of defense spending and how we certainly think -- i think most. americans think we face a lot of threats in the world. and defense spending is a function of the threats. but when we hear the disconnect between different members of the administration on what the threat levels are and how the president in many ways paints a very benign picture of what's going on in the world and how we're making progress in a lot of areas it undermines credibility in what we all are trying to do with record in bolstering our national defense. so again i'm not going to go into the specific quotes from secretary kerry the president's state of the union all which seem to tell americans, hey don't worry.

everything is looking great. things aren't looking great and i think that you and the members of the military recognize that. what would you see right now as the top three biggest threats that the united states is facing, both of you, secretary carter and general dempsey? >> before i get to the top three. to your first point i think that the president is requesting in this budget more than -- an end to sequester and more money that would be called for by sequester. >> i recognize that but it's harder to get that through the congress if the president in his next breath or the secretary in his next breath of state says, don't worry, everything is fine in the international world. the threat level is decreasing. the moment of crisis has passed. we're making progress with isis.

u i mean i don't think any of those statements are accurate. >> well, the only thing i would say is that i think the reason why we need the resources that we're requesting, both in the base bumt and the oko budget, we're being asked to respond to and defend the country against a great variety of threats. >> i appreciate that. >> i'll do a stab at three of them. but it's very hard to rank things because they're all important. otherwise we wouldn't be doing them. but i just to pick the things that we're requesting additional funds for this year, which are new things, i think you have to count isil as one and we're requesting funds specifically. in addition to the base budget for combatting isil i think the same isly true of the european

reassurance initiative, which is connecting with behavior of russia in europe and our nato and other obligations in europe. we're requesting extra money for that in the oko budget and we're requesting funds for afghanistan to make sure that our success there can stick. so those are three -- i don't know if they're the most important things, but they're very important things and there are other reasons why we're requesting the amount of money that we think the country needs which is above the sequester level. >> so general dempsey, do you generally agree with those top three? i'm going to get to a couple other questions rnls i'm concerned about european security for reasons we talked about earlier. and in particular because -- it's not just about russia. it's what russia has done, as i mentioned, start a fire of ethnicity and nationalism. it may burn out of their control. and so european security for the first time in 20 years concerns

me. secondly the threat network as i mentioned that runs from afghanistan afghanistan, park stan to all the way to boko haram. we've got to deal with them in the ag gre gait. we've got all kinds of tools. but we've got to keep pressure on the entire network. and the last one is one i would have to discuss in a closed session and that would be on narrowing technological gaps in certain key areas. >> thank you. i want to switch, gentlemen, to the arctic and the strategic posture that we have up there. you know, mr. secretary in your last hearing here you did mention that you agreed with me that alaska occupied the most strategic place in the world according to billy mitchell. i want to straighten the record with chairman and the ranking member. billy mitchell was court-martialed, but it was court-martialed for

insubordination after acausing army and navy leaders of quote treesable administration of defense for investing in battleships as opposed to aircraft areaer pps later given a congressional medal. i think he's been vindicated. but you put out a strategy on the arctic and yet the russians are making huge moves in the arctic with regard to new bases with regard to new airfields, new arctic command, claiming territory over huge swaths of the arctic. we had a big support in alaska the last week on the army task force that was up looking at potential force reductions, look lookinglook looking at two brigade combat out of alaska. if they eliminate one combat team out of alaska, how do you

think kim jong-un or lad here putin or or allies in japan, korea, singapore would react to that given how important is arctic is given how important this new part of the country is. to be honest, we have a 13-page paper -- the russians are putting major troops and infrastructure in the arctic. does this concern you and should we be looking at removing ba grade come bats teams, the only brigade in the pacific? sorry, mr. chairman. i went on a little long. >> i think both of your points are very important. the arctic is going to be a place of growing strategic importance. the russians are active there. we are as your state is right on the point of an arctic power. and that needs to be part of our strategy. and it needs to be more -- and i think that it is, more than a pamphlet as you say.

and the other thing you raised with kim jong-un this is why our -- whether we continue to invest in the defense that we need, whether it be bcts as you say or any other part of our force, is something that others are watching. it's important if we ever have to use it. but it's also important in ensuring that it's less likely that we will have to use it. and i do worry about our foes being encouraged or hartened when they see us debate whether we should spend enough money on our defense. that's yet another reason why i really hope we get the support for the defense spending we need. >> i won't speak to the number of army bcts, brigade combat

teams, but i will say -- --

headed down at a time of increasing threats and peril for our country. often we get confused about absolute dollar amounts. but a percent of gdp is a way of comparing apples to apples throughout recent history. and we're reducing the defense function dramatically, dramatically at a time, as i say, of increasing threat. general dempsey i want to put a fine point on your testimony. you talk about numbers of deployments and readiness. if we aren't able to avoid the sequester, are american lives being put at risk? >> yes. >> that's an elgent answer, general. i appreciate it. secretary carter, i do want to

talk about an area of your budget in a little detail. $5.5 billion for increased activities in cyber. i am extremely concerned about cyber. i think it is the next frontier of ware fare. we've had plenty of warning shots across the ghou the last couple of years and yet congress hasn't acted. and i command you for taking the initiative. here's my concern, however. news reports are that the cia is expanding their cyber capability and of course nsa has a substantial cyber capability. and you're building a substantial cyber capability. i don't want to return to the post 9/11 days when we had a lot of intelligence capability but they weren't talking to each other. please assure me that you will be coordinating with cia and nsa so that we're not duplicating, overlapping, spending more of the taxpayer money than we have to. and worst of all not sharing whatever information is being

derived in this field. >> well, thank you. and you're absolutely right. it -- this is terribly important mission and that's why both i and i think the chairman has been a great leader in this as well, are so determined to do more. but this is one of those things that just like you analogized to the war on terrorism before 9/11 it requires us to stitch together the effort of different parts of the government. and to the list you named, i would add also fbi, which has some capabilities and authorities in this area, dhs, which has capabilities and authorities in this area. we've got to make them a part. so even as we in dod move out and make the investments that we need to, we need to coordinate with the others. our investments are in two categories. one is to make sure that our

networks are secure. because our forces depend for their defectiveness upon information networks. so the buying and playing shifts and doesn't get it anywhere unless we have the network to go with them and they don't do any good in warfare unless the networks are survivable and able to avoid penetration. and also another thing we need to do is build cyber weapons as weapons of war because the war comes, that will be a dimension of future warfare as many have noted. but we also -- >> let me interrupt you sir, if i might. i'm concerned that our cyber defense system is just that, defense. and that we don't have an offensive capability or if we do it's not broadly known and that therefore, particularly nation states who act against our cyber we're very

vulnerable. there's no price to be paid. and then i wonder if we shouldn't be developing a deter rens, similar to the 50s, 60s and 70s which served us well to today so that people understand if they come against our cyber infrastructure, they're going to pay a price. is that something that i hope you can consider? >> i think that's very wise. so i appreciate that, that thought. and i think that that is something that we need to think through better than we have. what does doctrine men, what does deterrence mean in this new do main. at the same time we build capabilities, we have to build doctrine as well. that's a wise point. >> final question. i'm running out of time so i'll ask you to respond to this perhaps on the record. and that is, you've identified as a priority acquisition reform. and i know that you once held

that job and i hope you will hold to that. and i would like to see a little more detail about how you're going to tackle that. i know the chairman has expressed this concern. how do we get at procurement, not only in terms of cost but in terms of timeliness. that we're not taking literally decades to develop a new aircraft but that we have a more timely procurement process. you don't have to respond now. but i would appreciate seeing something on that because i think that's a very important part of your mission going into this job. by the way i'm delighted you're with us today. thank you. >> thank you. will do. i will respond. >> thank wuyou, mr. chair. >> thank you, mr. chair thank you secretary carter general dempsey for being here with us. we appreciate your service and your testimony today. secretary carter in the beginning of your testimony you had given quite an extensive list of the trips that you have

taken, the people that you have met, the places you have been and the impact with equipping and training our soldiers. so i can tell that is very important to you. is it correct -- do i understand correctly that you also took a trip to arlington? >> i did the morning i was sworn in with my wife. >> and i appreciate that so much secretary. that tells a lot about a person that not only are you recognizing the sacrifice that the blue star families give to their loved ones that are serving overseas right now but also to the gold star families that have left someone behind. >> thank you. >> so thank you for doing that. >> thank you. >> i learned about it and i was significantly impressed that you would take the time to do that. so thank you. >> thank you. >> i do want to talk a little bit about -- we've talked about this all day with the shia malitia. i know senator mccain had spoken about this earlier.

in the fiscal year skt 15 budget we had $1.6 billion that we used for the iraq train and equip fund and that was to train and equip the iraqi security forces the kurdish peshmerga and sunni tribes and of course other local forces. and now in this fiscal year '16 budget you're requesting $17 million for this fund. i do support this effort. i think we should be training and equipping the kurdish peshmerga. i think they've been important allies in the pushback against isis and others. but what i am concerned about, though, is the relationship between the iraqi security forces, iran which has been the side bar topic of many conversations today, and the shia malitia forces.

now during the iraq war ieds were a huge concern to american troops and i think as senator mccain had alluded to earlier, there were some some types of ieds, the efps, explosively formed project tiles that were used. they were devastating to our men and women. left many gold star families out there. we know that those efps, a lot of those came from iran. and so right now what i'd like to hear from you is are american taxpayer dollars going to the shia malitia that once were fighting against american soldiers? and how can we assure the american taxpayer that these dollars going to this fund to train and equip iraqi forces will not be used against us as we move forward?

secretary carter, if you can address that. >> thank you. and then chairman dempsey. well, first of all i share your concern about the shia militias and the face of sectarianism looming again in iraq, which, as you know extremely well from your own service, is the principle challenge that government of iraq faces going forward. however training and equipping is to iraqi security forces through the government of iraq. and our assistance to per mer ga also to the government of iraq. that reflects the view that a multi-sectarian iraqi government is the best way to keep iraq together and to defeat isil in iraq and ultimately drive them out of the country.

but i say i share your concern because what we've seen in the last few years has been sectarianism erode the capabilities of the iraqi security forces and that's why they collapsed in the face of isil. so i absolutely share your concern. about efps, you know that extremely well from your own service. we've had that experience before. and general dempsey, who was there also in iraq does as well. so let me ask him to join in. >> i've expressed my own concern as well. and i think if general austin were here, i guess he is going to be here actually, he would tell you that the reason his campaign plan is deliberate is that one of the lines of effort -- i mentioned there were nine -- is iraqi governance. and if the central government of iraq does not achieve let's call

it reconciliation because that's probably the right word, with the shia and the kurds then it does put our campaign at risk. and so i am concerned about that. as far as the weapons that we've been issuing to the isf as well as to the peshmerga through the government of iraq, we've got confidence that those are going into the right hands. some of the weapons that you've seen in the hands of the shia malitia because you can see it on youtube and on twitter and places are things that were procured by the iraqis through our foreign military sales process that they bought years, a couple of years ago two, three years ago. but we're monitoring it as well as we can. >> i thank you very much. senator mccain thank you. >> thank yub, mr. chairman. and thank you to the witnesses for this excellent testimony. i want to ask about two items, the sequester and the isil.

on sequester, i received a letter last week as a member of the budget committee from chairman mccain and ranking member reed that i asked unanimous consent that be entered into the record, a letter of the budget committee and others. i want to read one sentence and ask if you agree with this. quote, if we continue on our current pat ie sequester we risk undermining the central pillars of our all volunteer force and with it the foundations of international peace and security of which the united states military has been the most reliable guarantor since the end of world war ii. do you agree with that statement? >> i do. >> general dempsey? >> i do, senator. >> it stakes me could we send up any clearer white flag at the beginning of a partial disarmament than to place a vote on the bca from august of 2011

as a higher priority for the nation than our security in a world that has chaurpgd and put new threats on the board since then? could we do anything that would send a worse something to our alloys about our weakening resolve? >> i'm very concerned about what our internal budget debates look like to friends and foes alike inter internationally. it's yet another reason why we need to knock it off and get ourselves on a stable budget path that gives us enough to defend ourselves properly. >> let me just say that we've had an interesting set of discussions about afghanistan where i think the question has come to the position we should be conditioned based on not calendar based. let me apply that same analg to our sequester issues. shouldn't we be conditions base snd are we going to elevate a bcf that we voted on in 2011

before north korea's cyber attack, before putin went into the ukraine before isil was grabbing acres? are we going to elevate that above a conditions based national december physiciansfense? we shouldn't elevate an august 2011 vote over conditions of the security that faces the country. i took that as the point of the letter and i recommend it to all of my colleagues. with respect to the isil imf, an area where i've disagreed with the chairman but where the back and forth made me think about my position and the question of ground troops as part of the isil imf in listening to the chairman about this what i've realized is my concern is not really about language and not really about the constitutional allocation of power. it's really about the definition of the mission. and i would like to ask your question on this. we have heard in the last two weeks, three weeks in meetings

with the foreign relations committee by first king abdullah of jordan and then the sheik, the amir last week about the battle against isil in the region. both of them said to us essentially u.s. ground troops isn't a good idea because this has got to be our fight against our terrorist threat. we want your help, we want you to be deeply involved. but if it gets pitched as the u.s. against isil or even as the west against isil, then it takes on a fundamentally different tenor and could even become kind of a recruiting bonanza for isil. king abdo la in a very courageous way -- sadly we met with him on the very day that was revealed that the jordanian pilot was so horribly murdered, burned, he said this is our

fight an we've got to show the world that this is our fight. if we're willing to do it, we need all kinds of help from you. but we've got to be up front that this is our fight. we didn't -- you know, the united states didn't create isil, didn't create this extremist ideology. it was birthed in our region by people claiming the mantle of religion tradition that we honor. both of them are guard edly advised us against ground troops. but toward the big picture goal that the battle against isil has to be the region policing itself not the u.s. trying to counter them. what is your response to that sentiment? again it's not about draftsmanship or the allocation of power. but it's about who -- you know isn't this -- isn't there a come beg pelg need for the region to show the battle of its own threat and if so we'll help them

rather than have it be the u.s.'s burden? >> that's how the campaign is designed. it's designed to leverage a coalition of regional partners assisted by those outside the region but very much relying upon those in the region to lead the effort requiring the government of iraq to lead the effort, especially in terms of reaching out to form a coalition within iraq of sunni tribal leaders and kurdish and peshmerga. and so i would simply say that's exactly how the campaign is designed. >> i second that. that is how the campaign is decide and it's how it needs to be designed for the two reasons you say. i mean the first is that if -- we don't only seek the defeat of isil. we seek the lasting defeat of isil. and that means after they're defeated they need to stay defeated and that means somebody who is there ensuring that defeat.

and the second reason that you also say which is if it becomes our war, it becomes a harder war. for both those reasons we need to have others back in your capacity at secretary. i have to to back to something we were discussing a few series ago about the leak of our plans to mosul. i believe secretary carter said you were looking into it. general dempsey i know you said you were looking it into. i don't understand what would take so long to get to the bottom. i mean it was not a leaked. it was a planned conference call with members of the media, if i understand the reporting correctly. do i misunderstand something here? >> no, that is my understanding as well. and i just say two things about

this whole incident. the first is, senator that when an operation is mounted against mosul itself it knees to be a success. iraqi led and supported by us and it has to be successful -- >> i agree fully. i don't understand why announcing any time line or contribute it to any idea it would be a success nor do i understand why it would take so long why an organized conference call with the media was held. >> i'll say something about that and let the chairman who's also spoken to general austin about that. that clearly was not neither accurate information, nor had it been accurate would it be

information that should be blurted out to the press. so it's wrong on both scores. and the only thing i'll say is that we try as the department of defense of a democracy to be as open as we can. so there are lots of people out there all the time talking about what we're doing. and every once in a while somebody gets out in front of their skis. but i also even as we make sure that this particular incident doesn't happen again, i also think we be open. not with military secrets and with a war plan in this case here. but we do try to keep the country open to what we're doing. so epi openness is important. but i has to have limits when it

comes to security matters and those limits were respected obviously in this case. >> senators graham and mccabein sent a letter through to me to ask that very question. and i must suggest that i will await until the -- until we respond to the letter. >> secretary carter. during your configuration hearings you mentioned u.s. options respond to the breech of inf treaty by russia and include this this quote. and i think you eludealluded to this earlier. counterforce capabilities to prevent intermediate range ground launch cruise missile tacks and counterveiling to enhance u.s. or allied forces. would you elaborate on the size

and scope of those capabilities and what the russian's government reaction might be if we were to fund such capabilities. >> i think in this setting i'd like to limit the amount of detail that i go into. but i will affirm what you just said, which is we have three kinds of options for responding to a violation of the inf treaty. i think the russians need to know that this is a two-way street. they signed. we signed. and we can and will react. and those are the three categories in which reaction -- which we could react militarily. active defenses which are to protect ourselves and our allies and our territory against this new threat, a counterforce which is a way of making sure that god forbid this is an actual military confrontation. they can't be used. and the third is this opens up the option for us to have

systems which we decided to forgo. in the interests of this inf treaty years ago. we don't have to forgo them anymore. because a treaty is a two-way street. and with that, chairman do you want to add anything? >> the only thing i'll add senator is the development of capabilities to fit into the categories that the secretary mentions would be inf compliant. and that is the difference between the two of us. >> okay. >> this may be a question about military terms of art. so i'll start with the chairman if that's okay and then let secretary carter bat clean up. mr. chairman, what are, quote, enduring offensive ground combat operations end quote. >> i'll tell you as the one who would have to assist in the implementation of that. i would consider "enduring" to be mission.

mission by mission. so if we were to decide that our advice to the president would be that we would have to introduce ground forces to accompany iraqis into combat in mosul because of the complexity of the terrain, then we can do that. but it would be mission-specific. as opposed to a temporal issue. mission specific rather than a temporal dimension. meaning two weeks or two years. >> secretary carter, do you have anything to add? >> translator: no. i -- >> no i think that's accurate. i think the important thing about the languages of aomf and however that discussion of that debate turns out from my point of view is first we have the flexibility to run the campaign we need to defend the country. and the second is that our troops see our government as a whole supporting them. those are the two things that

are important to me in this whole debate. >> thank you. >> general, you keep saying that if you decide to recommend to the president. weed we'd like to know when you are going to decide to make that recommendation to the president. >> well senator, when the task at hand, when i get the advice from sen com of course, general austin, and when the mission would require it. and we have not reached that point. >> no things are going fine. senator nelson. >> thank you mr. chairman. and gentlemen, it's good to see you. mr. chairman, in your professional military opinion, if additional arms are not

provided to you ukraine -- you have got a little david fighting the russian bear. is it reasonable to assume that russia through their subterfuge of the rebels could want to advance right across the country? >> i'm concerned about two things. one it would be a russian aspiration to do so and the second is that the separatists on their own may decide to do. there are capability gaps we've identified. look, if russia wants to take ukraine it is going to take it because its geographic proximity and the size. on the other hand there are capability gaps that put the ukraine forces at a real

disadvantage. and i think we ought to look for opportunities to provide those capabilities so that on the chance that the russians are actually telling the truth, which frankly i doubt very much. that the separatists and the sovereign state of ukraine can compete on a level playing field. >> why do you think the russian policy is such that, as you say, if they decide to take ukraine they could. why are they not moving more aggressively across ukraine? >> this is probably now speculative because the intelligence doesn't yet support it. i suspect it will. i think that their pace is designed to create uncertainty on the part of our european allies. because if they can maintain that level of uncertainty then they have the potential to put friction inside of nato which is actually their larger strategic goal.

>> and if successful in ukraine and russia wanted to continue to be aggressive they could suddenly mass on the borders of the three baltic states. there would be no match there. but now we have nato members. what do you think is the resolve of the european nato membership to stand and fight for the baltics if the russian bear comes across the line? >> that is the commitment they have made as part -- as a member of nato, they all agreed to live up to their article 5 responsibility. i will say that based on the european reassurance