the ground in terms of the strength of the afghan security forces, the performance of the security forces. they are conducting operations, as we speak, in the valley, which are very impressive and unprecedented in the scale and complexity of an operation that the afghan security forces do by themselves. they are absorbing enablers and so they are beginning to -- the afghan forces operate independently and that's one set of conditions that's very important. another one i mentioned earlier is the successful creation of national unity government with president gauny and abdullah. their willingness and ability to do that and what that could mean for the political development and coherence of afghanistan so they are both things at the

military level over there and things at the political level, both of which are change inging. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and general dempsey, i join my colleagues in sending warm wishes your way and thank you you for your more years of serving o our great nation. mr. mccord, i would like to chat about the budget that's upcoming. the house budget committee chairman proposed boosting the defense budget with an increase of allocation. is an oko dollar just as useful as a base budget dollar? in other words, should there be limitations on funding that congress needs to be mindful of? >> both dollars are useful to us for purposes they are intended and needed. we don't need $36 or $38 billion in oko, but we need them in the

base budget. both have restrictions in law and in regulation. >> so if you had your choice, you'd rather have the dollars in the regular budget as opposed to oko funding? >> that's where we identified the needs and this is very important, and this gets back to the earlier discussion of sequester. if it's in the base budget, it is the base upon which we build our future budgets. we need stability. we need a horizon so we know what our budget is going to be not only this year but years to come otherwise we can't spend it efficiently and strategically. so we need that kind of horizon. and sequester is what robs us of that. that's why it's bad in a managerial sense for anybody who has their budget sequestered. >> general dempsey, you want to speak to that and its effect on

readiness? >> as you know we have been trying to dig out of a readiness hole. we said if the wars ended then, it would take us three or four years to recover our readiness because we were ready for ten years for a particular kind of conflict, which you know better than most. so we had had to kind of recapture our credentials for other kinds of military missions to include high end. and sequestration when it hit us last time, readiness tends to suffer a deeper impact because you have to go get the money where you can get it. and some cases you can't get it in man power. you can't shed excess infrastructure. you can't terminate contracts because of the penalties involved. you end uptaking more than you should out of readiness. i do think readiness always suffers more than we think.

>> thank you. >> i share the concerns of my colleagues in terms of the detriment of sequestration, but i'm interest. ed in implications for money that is also spent in efficient ways. specifically i'm thinking about the fact that we really don't know the kind of money that we are spending when it comes to service contractors. and there is still yet to be inter enterprise wide contract man power in d.o.d. under r your own documentation i believe the goal was to have 95 compliance by 2018. i don't think you're probably going to make that goal. so despite the numerous commitments with officials can you tell me when you will restart work, when you're going to use army methodology and when will you be on insisting to

ensure that inventory is used to inform and review decision makings on taxpayer dollars in the department? >> thank you for that and some of the detail i'll have to supply to you separately. but the general point that you're raising is our trade craft in complex in the acquisition of services. i'll just say something for everyone's benefit that you know, which is half of the money that dod contracts is not for goods, it's for services. and so as we talk about acquisition reform and improving our game, we need to improve how we akwar services as well. and the initiatives you cite are some of the ways in which we're trying to improve our performance and our trade craft in the acquisition of services because that's half of our spend. >> and i'll give you that

question for answering on the record. >> will do. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. turner? >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary, chairman, thank you for being here and thank you for your work. secretary, welcome, we're all pleased and very happy that you're in your position. you do have very difficult times and issues, as the chairman was indicating, in the world view we see in front of us. we need some plain answers and talk on the issue of this budget. general dempsey we had a brief conversation about this. let me tell you where we are and tell you why we need your help. right now the president submit ed a budget that had a base amount of $561 and our budget committee is currently marking up a budget with the base of $523. they are indicating they want to make up the difference to that jagged edge of the number, as you said mr. chairman, by oko so

the aggregate number would be $613. how you cobble it together does make a difference. i'd like you guys to help us with this. i have told the budget committee that making up with oko does not work. 70 members of the house signed a letter and sent it to the budget committee asking to honor the base budget number of $561 that the president asked for. what i have said to the budget committee is they should ask you guys, so this is my asking you guys help us. mr. secretary you said, one it effects because this is the basis upon which you build your next budget. that's certainly important. we don't need to hear it's an issue of rather, i think there are structural issues that are important that could impede your ability to access those funds. the defense authorization act isn't marked up until december. tell us why a base of $523 with

an oko of $90 plus billion doesn't work. or you're going to be facing that. >> i'll start first and then chairman. it doesn't work because to have the defense we need and the strategy that we have laid out, we need the budget that we have laid out not just in one year but in the years to come. and so budgeting one year at a time and this proposal is a one year at a time thing, doesn't work for national defense. it's not going to permit us to carry out the strategy as we have planned. >> one more thing to jump in. you said that the president would veeto a bill that legislates sequestration. if we pass a budget that has $523 as the base and we send you an authorization act that is a

base of $523 with oko of $90 plus billion is that within that veeto threat? >> i think what the president meant was that a budget that did not relieve sequestration, that is give a multiyear perspective for the budget, he would veto not just for defense, but as you mentioned earlier for others as well. >> mr. chairman oko, mr. secretary, they are restrictions. if we don't lift those restrictions then it doesn't get passed until december and your fiscal year begins before that. won't you have a quarter of a year where you can't use the money?

>> yes, if this is done without an appropriation that is in line with it, you're right, we would have that problem. and i think your earlier point that the question about whether this approach being proposed by the house committee would be acceptable to the senate, to the president, the uncertainty about whether this would work is another one of the problems with that approach. >> so you have 40 more seconds if you want to tell the congress why they shouldn't do this, you should do it now because otherwise you'll be facing this. >> i'm not going to tell the congress why they shouldn't do it. the congress makes the own decisions decisions. my advice is that we need to fix our base budget because you build the institution through the base budget and you respond to contingencies with the fund called other contingency operations. we submit a one-year budget, but in the context of a future defense plan, we won't have the certainty we need over that period if the current strategy is followed.

but look, as you heard the service chief say, we're at the point where this is better than nothing, but frankly it doesn't do what we should be doing for defense in a predictable fashion. >> thank you. >> i'd mention to the e gentleman it's going to be before december before we have a defense authorization bill this year. senator mccain and i are determined to move -- i know it's different than we have had in the past, but it's going to move a whole lot quicker. mr. rork? >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. secretary you said in your opening comments that you would never send our men and women into. harm's way without the necessary readiness, the necessary equipment and doctrine you also agree we shouldn't send them into harm's way without the necessary strategy. i'm having a difficult time in light of the six months during which we have been at war in

iraq and syria againstist skpis istis and the use of military force that's before this congress for consideration, i'm having a hard time understanding what the strategy is. and i want to make sure that as my colleagues have said that we fund our military well beyond the budget caps. i agree with them there. but perhaps more importantly that we have the necessary strategy in place so that their efforts, those men and women serving this country and our interests overseas are not in vain. can you answer the strategy question for me? >> certainly first of all, strategy is -- does take in addition to geographic perspective a multiyear perspective and a multiyear commitment, which is why annual budgetary turmoil isn't consistent with our strategy in

taking a strategic view. with respect to the strategy against isil and defeating isil in iraq the first thing i would say is that we not only need to defeat isil, we need to e defeat them in a lasting manner. that's always the difficult part. we can defeat isil, but defeating them in a lasting manner means having somebody on the ground who keeps them defeated after we assist them in the defeat. on the iraq side of the border, that is the iraqi government, a multisectarian force organized by the iraqi government. that's our strategic objective. >> we'll take the iraqi portion of this. from my understanding based on the testimony from the excellent series of hearings that the chairman has brought before us, our strategy there largely relies on training equipping and advising the iraqi national

army. we have spent tens o of billions of dollars doing just that from 2003 to 2010 to awful effect. the army melt eded in the face of a far and furier enemy. what's our strategy o to ensure success? >> it will hinge, as it did then, upon a multisectarian approach by the government of iraq. without that, it cannot succeed. and what happened to the iraqi security forces a year ago was that they collapsed because sectarianism had taken root in the government of iraq and. the people who lived if in the regions that were swept over by isil were not willing to accept or support the iraqi security forces, as they were then configured. they need to be figured in a

multisectarian manner or it won't be possible to have that lasting defeat on the iraqi side of the border. it's as critical now as it was last year. >> mr. secretary, with all due respect, the strategy inso far as we understand it today is insufficient to degrade and destroy isis to your aims of ensuring a lasting defeat of isis. i think if we're honest with o ourselves and the american public and the service members who will act out the policies of this country, if we are going to achieve those aims, we are going to need u.s. ground forces in iraq and syria. we cannot depend on a syrian moderate opposition force. we cannot depend on the political whims of the different sectarian fashions in iraq. we should not depend on iranian-backed shia militias.

let's be honest about what it's going to take to do it. and with today's topic of the budget in mind, do we have the resources necessary in the president's request to support ground forces to achieve our goals in syria and iraq vis-a-vis isis? >> i will answer that first and the chairman may want to add something to it. we do have the resources to support our strategy. the one ingredient, very important ingredient that you left out was air power and we are applying air power in a very effective way in support of ground forces that are not u.s. ground forces, but that are local ground forces because we want a lasting defeat of isil and only local forces on the ground can impose a lasting defeat. that's our strategy. >> if i could just in the interest of time, i will take this for the record because i think strategic event is the

coalition and i think that will eventually be the path to enduring defeat. but i'll take it for the record. >> thank you both. >> mr. rogers? >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you all for being here. secretary carter, i want to start with a shamelessly to roek y'all issue. the program is replacing the m 113 vehicle, which is maintained. i'm interested in seeing it. who is going to make that decision and when about where the source of repair is going to be made? >> i do not know when that source selection will be made, but i will find out and make sure we get back to you. >> thank you very much. general dempsey, based on open-source report inging, russia is planning to attack nuclear weapons in crimea. what is your best military advice as to how we as a nation

should respond to that? >> well, there's several things. i saw the same open-source report. i haven't seen it reflected in intelligence. if i had, i would have suggested we'd have this conversation in a closed session. there's other things that russia is doing that seem to be provocative in nature, and i think we have to make it very clear that things like their compliance with the treaty that there will be political, diplomatic and potentially military costs in terms of the way we posture ourselves and the way we plan and work with our allies to address those provocations. i have seen it it concerns me greatly. i would counsel them not to roll back the clock, and i have had those conversations. >> this would be for secretary carter.

i was very pleased a couple days after you were approved by the senate for your new position to see you publicly announce that the treaty violation by russia can no longer be tolerated without some sort of response. how much longer before we provide a response to that violation of the treaty? >> our response is twofold. one is to a diplomatic one, which is to try to get the russians to come back into compliance with the treaty, not my responsibility but an important part of it. but on the military side, we have begun to consider, and i think what our options are because the treaty is a treaty meaning that it's a two-way street. we accepted constraints in return for constraints of the

then soviet union. we need to remind them that it's a two-way street meaning that we can take action also. that we both decided years ago it was best for neither of us to take. so we are looking at our alternatives in the areas of defense against the systems that they might field in violation of the inf treaty. counterer force options and countervailing options. we're looking at all of those because the russians need to remember this is a two-way street. >> i appreciate that. i would hope one thing you would r consider is to modify the source we're currently constructing in romania with the capacity to defend itself against those intermediate range missiles they are illegally

testing. >> defenses are one of the categories of response that we can consider. >> thank you very much. that's all i have, mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman, and welcome secretary and nice o to see you again general. i wanted to ask a little bit about what's happening in hawaii. there's been a lot of talk regarding the drastic reductions in army troop levels, which i believe actually is contrary to the defense strategic guidance that called for the rebalance of the shift to the pacific. so mr. secretary. does the president's fiscal year budget request provide you with the capabilities and the resources to conduct a rebalance to the pacific and how would drastic reductions in this theater effect this capability? >> well, it does provide for the rebalance, but i want a second with the chairman said which is we are on the ragged edge of

being able to satisfy all the ingredients of our strategy, of which the asia-pacific rebalance is a central ingredient. so if we don't get some budget stability and keep doing things one year at a time and one piece at a time, we are going to have to reconsider our strategy. the way i put it earlier is not just the size but the shape. i would hope that our rebalance to the asia-pacific is something that we are able to sustain. in our budget and our multiyear budget plan, we are able to sustain it. but under sequester and in one year at a time fashion as the chairman said, we're on the ragged edge in our strategy and something will have to give. >> thank you. mr. secretary, the other purpose of this hearing is to talk about the president's requests. the aumf requests so i wanted to shift gears and talk about that and ask you to clarify some

aspects of the request. in subsection c called limitations, it says the authority granted in subsection a does not authorize the use of the united states armed forces in, quote, enduring offensive ground combat operations. so what is enduring offensive ground combat operations? does this refer to the length of time in which the operation is ongoing, the scope of the operations, some undefined relationship between time and scope? >> well thanks the aumf for me as secretary of defense two things are important in aumf. one is that it gives us the flexibility to carry out our campaign, and that speaks to the provision you quote and i'll come back to that in a minute. but the other is that it is past

up here on capitol hill in a way that says very clearly to our men and women who are conduct ing the campaign against isil that the country is behind them. that's r very important to me. both the content and that it's supported wide lyly in the congress. the aumf doesn't try to say everything that is permtded. which is i think wise because for the chairman and me we need the flexibility to conduct the campaign against isil in the way that the enemy -- defeating that enemy requires. it does rule out using the language that you described, what the president has said in iraq or afghanistan type long off period of offensive combat operations. and that language by taking that

possibility only out leaves to me our department the flexibility we need to conduct the campaign against isil both practically and gee grafbically. we don't foresee having to conduct another campaign like iraq or afghanistan and that's the one thing that is ruled out in the formulation you describe. elsewhere, we have substantial flexibility under the president's formulation and i welcome that, because flexibility and widespread support are the two things that we need most. chairman, do you want to add anything to that? >> there's no term in our military tax on my that's enduring offensive. it's a statement of intent by the commander-in-chief. it does allow us to execute the campaign as it is currently designed. >> okay, thank you, i appreciate that. but maybe if you can for the record, provide it to us. i think it's important to define

the provision of the request. if you can provide it in writing some clarity as to what the president means by enduring combat ground offensive operations. thank you. >> thank the gentleman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for joining us today and thank you for your service to our nation. we have heard a lot about how we are going to address future challenges in our military. obviously, a lot on the funding side, but i want to follow up, secretary carter, with how we can do a better job in the better dollars we get in spending. especially in making decisions on acquisition timing this in those decisions, that agility is critical. give me your perspective on where you believe we are right now with the acquisition process. should there be greater authorities given throughout the

different levels of decision making in acquisition and what do we need to do as far as acquisition and -- reform throughout the process. >> thank you, and thank you for your interest in that subject because it is central. i appreciate the fact that this committee is committed to it. sorry i can't give a simple answer because there's so many ways we can improve our performance in acquisition. and we need to improve our performance in acquisition. there is acquisition of services that has been mentioned previously. there's the requirements process and the role of the service chiefs. i personally welcome a greater role on the part of the service chiefs and the acquisition system. i think gold water nichols went too far in that regard and we can get some of that back.

there's an enormous amount of simple process that makes good sense. there is some training that is required to better equip our people to interact with industry and understand how to give appropriate incentives and partnership with the industry that we serve. there's the technology point that the chairman was pointing to earlier where we have to work very hard to stay up generations of iphones. we can't take for granted we're at the cutting edge. we have to fight our way to the the cutting edge. there are many dimensions to this. this is something that i believe we will be continuing to struggle with for a long time because technology changes, the world changes and we have to

keep up if we're going to continue to have the best military in the world. >> general dempsey? your perspective on what we can do to help the procurement and acquisition process. yesterday the chiefs said they would like to have the thresholds heightened to be more involved in that decision-making process. how do we get technology ideas, innovation, more quickly to the war fighter? >> both with what the chiefs said yesterday about increasing their role in this process because it's very bright red line right now that probably needs to be dotted, as we say so there can be much more collaboration across it. in terms of the technology, it's a combination of shortening our programmatic time horizons. i recall the days of the future combat system, which was conceived in 2003. it was going to deliver in 2017.

which doomed it to death from the moment because that was seven cycles of the congress of the united states. we have to take a look at the pace at which we try to develop. i think as the secretary said, commercial is outpacing government at this point. we can either fight that or find ways to conform to it. >> secretary carter it seems like what you're advocating is putting more authority, but also accountability in the hands of decision makers so taking it more away from process which right now is more of a process driven effort to motivate person r or individual-driven effort. where do you think the balance is there? it seems like we're too much of a process-driven effort today. >> i think that's right. we have gotten to a point where there is many checkers as there are doers. and we need the doers to be enabled. and then held accountable.

so today you have the worst of all worlds. there aren't enough doers. when something goes wrong, you can't tell how it happened or what its causes were or who's responsible for it. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you secretary and general. congratulations on your recent confirmation. and general dempsey, thank you for not only your generosity of time before this committee but also with new members in general. you have been very kind so thank you. first, i would like to start, secretary carter in 1915 100 years ago, the dive helmet, the trademark of diving was created. military divers are located at a number of military installations around the country including at

the naval support activity center in panama city which is in my district. i had an opportunity to visit it recently and it's just phenomenal. with the 100th year upon us, i would much appreciate if you would support the designation of 2015 as the year of the military diver. to honor those who are serving and have served and will serve as military divers for our country. >> well, first of all, thank you for hosting our folks and for supporting service members in your district. we don't take it for granted. we're very appreciative of it. and that sounds like an excellent way of commemorating the significance of the diver community. so thank you for that suggestion. >> thank you, i really appreciate that support and i know the men and women who serve as military divers do as well. so thank you. a separate question, yesterday, to both of you, i asked the

secretary secretaries about their wounded warrior care programs. as a congress debit das a new authorization for use of military force one of my priorities is knowing we should engage in future conflicts that our military service members go. into this fight with confidence that this country will take care of them, especially the most severely injured when they return home. so i would like to learn what is the department of defense's doing -- what is the department of defense doing for our most injured and ill service members and what can we do to make sure that we identify every discharged service member who qualifies for the va's federal recovery care. i appreciate your answers. >> well, i will start and then chairman, if you want to join in. first of all, thank you for your interest in that, too.

we are, fortunately, at a period right now where the chairman and i on a weekend at bethesda won't find ten new wounded warriors, as was the case for many years when i was serving in the department and chairman was serving in the department. we're very grateful for that, but we can't forget that those who have been wounded will in many cases are 20 years old. they have a long life ahead of them. and that means we have a long obligation to them. and i am concerned that our country remembers the sacrifice of the service members in all the years that they will live. we owe them that. and of course, we hand them off to the va and your question goes to how good is the transition program for their care to the va

and in general to civilian life. that's something we have done a lot of work on, but there's more that we can do and should do to smooth that transition and prepare them for the life ahead. to me it's really something from the heart that we need to -- remember, these are young people with a long life ahead of them. it can be a productive, happy and wonderful life for them, notwithstanding the sacrifice they made at a young age. but we owe them the help to make sure they can do that. chairman, do you want to add anything? >> thank you, mr. secretary. the service chiefs and i and with the help of the department have included in our budget two aspects of this. one is the care of those who have already been wounded through the life cycle of their care. importantly, there's three areas

we have developed incredible expertise and we can't let it erode. one is amputees. second is burn victims and third is brain injury. so we're looking to the future now that we don't have a population, thankfully, that is suffering those injuries. we have to make sure we can sustain our expertise that we have developed and that's also baked into the budget as well. >> thank you very much. our hearts are in the same place, and i yield back the time i don't have left. >> mr. hunter? >> thank you, mr. chairman. gentlemen, thank you for being here. mr. secretary, it's great to see you in your new position. three things, first one is this. when it comes to acquisition reform, one of the best ways to do it, i think, instead of doing a process or policy change, which we do every year part of if you can use technology and change the system itself. for instance, you have testing. it takes months to test our

systems. whether you're talking f-35, it takes forever. there's a problematic line in your budget request that we're going to match and hopefully put more money in. it's a new way to test. where you can test your age's cruisers on the spot, literally on the spot as they are out there in the water and see if they are going to work or not. that has met with fierce resistance, even in. san diego where they say we have an entire department that are testing departments. that's what they do. entire departments that spend. years testing. they aren't happy about things like this that cause reform just because of the nature of the technology that makes sense. i would encourage this committee and you to instead of just doing policy reforms, working within the system of technology to put

in systems that reform no matter what. because people can't stop it. it takes fewer people. there's major pushback because you have tens of thousands of people within dod and osd who test. that's their job. that's the first thing. number two, we talked about isis and syria and iraq and our coalition partners. you have jordan. i have talked to them and written the president letters. we have and we have the exportable predator too. even if you change the rules and state approve this is stuff, it will take a year or two to get these in the hands of the jordanians. you have to deal with the qualitative military edge issue with israel because jordanians would own the aircraft. a fix is taking the aircraft we have now that are in warehouses, letting the jordanians fly them and basically having the contractor that makes the

predator have them recover and launch and have them do it. so then the jordans don't own them. there's no qme problem and they are able to use that now. and they are requesting this now. the king has asked this. the ambassador has requested this. and their military here in the u.s. have requested that too. what do you think? >> thank you that is one of the actually many forms of assistance to the jordanians and other coalition partners that we're looking at. and no decision has been made about that. the logic that you describe and the possibility that you describe is a real one. to get back to your testing thing, that's a good point also. technology can transform the way we do tests and therefore the cost of the test system.

both good points. >> just after the king visited to take a look at the coalition members, there are many requests coming in and it's called a r war fighting cig that's getting in things like that. your letter is being addressed at the department of state right now. >> thank you, the last thing is i'm going to have a piece of legislation due to all the hostages taken in iraq and syria and afghanistan. it's on an unprecedented level to have so many hostages taken in places we don't have a big fbi contingency. the fbi still has purview over pos hostages. even if they have three agents at the embassy in iraq they don't have the ability that any of our special operators or just big army, big marine corps,

whoever. there needs to be a buck stops here person. your predecessor mr. secretary put in mike lumpkin. he became the hostage guy during the bowe bergdahl case. we also recommended that there be a buck stops here person that answers to the president. so that person there they choose whoever has the most resources to bear for that particular hostage case, i think that's the way we should go and can maybe recover a few of the hostages. wonder if you can comment on that. thank you, mr. chairman. >> the only comment would be you're absolutely right. this hostage rescue is an example of something that can only be done with a whole of government approach. we need, obviously things to be

done in a way that is law enforcement sensitive, but in many cases we have the assets or the intelligence community has the assets or it involves homeland security. this gets to the point i was making earlier. i have to take a view of security and the future strength of our nation that looks beyond the department of defense itself to all of the instruments of national power and everything that's going to carry us into the future. these kinds of operations are a perfect example of that where you need all those parts to come together. we do need a kor yog fer when that time comes to bring all those pieces together. the times in which we live require for most problems that there be the defense instrument and other pieces of the government as well. whether it be technology, whether it be our personnel or whether it be separations

operations. >> thank you, mr. chairman. gentlemen, thank you for your service to the kouncountry. there's bipartisan agreement that we need to move past the sequester. i just came from a budget committee hearing where this is being debated. there's frustration, but the question is just how do we get there? how do we figure that out? one question that's been debated this morning on this committee is is there a role for nondefense spending cut under the budget control act in ensuring our national defense? i think secretary carter, you made your view quite clear. general dempsey, i was wondering if you could offer your own comments. >> everything we do around the world in terms of security these days are done with other government partners. whether it's homeland security, fbi, cia, and so yes, there is a role on the nondefense side for security. >> great thank you.

if you could both comment on this, i want to be just very specific here to try to cut through the rhetoric. what are the top five programs or weapons systems that you want to cut to take that money and better invest it in ensuring the safety of our troops on the ground or more broadly in our future national defense but prevented from cutting by congressional politics? secretary carter, perhaps we can start with you. >> there are more than five, i'm sorry to say. some of them are programs some of them are older platforms. there's been a lot of discussion and debate around the a-10 for example, in the air force which the air force wishes to retire not because it's not an kplebt

airplane but because their budget doesn't provide room for it anymore compared to other things that are higher priority. so that's one. there are a number of those that we have enumerated in past years. we're willing to work with people here. i want to find common ground with people but we can't just continue to be frustrated year after year. in these program years or a whole number of congressmen sags areas, efficiency areas, and so forth. i would be happy to provide to the committee a list and it will be more than five items of initiatives that we have proposed in past years. this was before i was here, but that we thought on balance and sometimes with great regret as in the retirement of older system

systems we needed to do and we have not been permitted by congress to take those steps. >> thank you, secretary. if you could provide that list, i would appreciate it. general dempsey, as specific as possible, outline what things would be on your list. >> i actually can't, congressman, because recall my role. the services build their program to deliver service capabilities, which then we integrate into a joint force. so what we submitted was actually what we believed we needed to accomplish a joint force to execute the strategy. i'm not in a position now to tell you that there were ways we could have done it otherwise. we have given you our best advice and i can't help you decide how to find the money to do it. we need the capabilities we have described in our budget. >> fair enough, thank you very much, gentlemen. chairman, i yield my time. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you for all of you being here. secretary carter as you know

qatar is an important partner of ours. we have troops stationed there and they have played a role in the counter-isis fight. however, they are playing both sides. there are a number of u.s. designated terrorist financiers operating openly in qatar. the leadership of hamas, a designated terrorist organization, openly operate there is and they have been financing some very bad islamist extremists. how can the u.s. hold them accountable and how can we make it clear that playing both sides is simply unacceptable? >> thank you for the question. kut qatar, as with other of oufr coalition partners in the fight against isil, are being very helpful in the case of the qatars in terms of the air base

we use. at the same time not everything that our coalition partners do in the region are things that we support or that we think are constructive with respect to either of the isil fight or other things. and so all of our partners we are trying to work with so that we get their support for the fight against isil, but we can continue to work with them on areas where we disagree. there are disagreements we have with almost all of our coalition partners that are helping us with isil. we just try to work through them. >> secretary, i understand we may disagree on this issue, but when their policy is cutting against what we are trying to accomplish in that very fight, i have a real problem with that. >> we have problems with that too in some cases and we explain that in our view their policies are contradictory in that way, but we have those disagreements with them. we try to work through while at

the same time benefitting from their help where we can agree. but we don't agree 100% of the time. >> thank you. also secretary carter or general dempsey, on the aumf, i have a real problem with the two major limitations that the president has put into his proposed language. a limitation on time and a limitation on scope. is it right to be tying the hands of this president or a future president in it that way? >> i'll start first and then chairman. >> if you have already addressed this, i apologize. >> no the time part, i did not. on the scope, a proposed gives us wide scope to conduct the campaign that we're anticipating against isil. the time limitation has nothing to do with the length of the campaign. i cannot tell you that the

campaign will be over in three years. i don't think anybody can tell you that. that feature of the aumf is included for reasons that are not for a new president and for that matter a new congress to revisit this issue. now that is not something that comes from the secretary of defense or i would say from our thinking, but we understand and respect it. it derives from the way the constitution regards use of military force as a very grave matter in which both the congress and the executive branch play a role. so i understand that. i respect that. but the number three doesn't come from the campaign. it comes from our political

system. and again, as i understand and respect that and i hope the result of all of is an aumf that tells our troofs we are behind -- troops we are behind them in our fight. that is the key to carry out the campaign that will win. >> congress, i was consulted on the aumf before it was submitted to you and i believe it does allow us to execute the campaign against isil. i think you are sensing the difference in using military force against state actors, nation states and these groups of non-state actors which have a different character to them. and the last time we were handed unconstrained powers for eisenhower when he was told to deploy them to germany and that

is the last time we've had a completely unconstrained aumf. >> mr. chairman. >> thank you. i want to talk about the aumf discussed in this wide scope that you just mentioned. one of the -- one of the questions i had was the hostility. if the hostility -- it doesn't say anything about the termination of the hostilities at the three-year period. is it your feeling that hostilities could continue and that we could have actions against isil beyond the three years as currently written and implemented? >> again the three years is not a prediction about the duration of the campaign to defeat isis. it is a recognition of the way our political system works.

and the recognition that a new president and a new congress in three years may wish to revisit this issue. as i said i understand and respect that. but it isn't a prediction about the duration of the campaign against isil. >> general? >> my military experience and judgment suggests that the answer of your question is it will likely extend beyond three years. >> could it extend -- could hostilities extend without a new aumf bia new command -- by a new commander? >> if i understand the question, the enemy gets a vote on how long hostilities extend. i actually don't understand the question. >> sure, i guess what i'm trying to understand is, if proposed

if congress gives the authority to use military force, we have this three-year window which you both said offers the flexibility but is more of a political discussion than anything and allows the new president to make that determination absent a new discussion about aumf, could hostilities continue in perpetuity beyond the three-year window? >> i think the aumf that the president proposed would require action by a new administration and a new congress in three years, in light of the circumstances at the time. which we can't foresee. >> sure. one of the other pieces that isn't discussed is detention policies within the aumf and this was discussed in another hearing that this committee had as well. could you provide us with examples of what u.s. forces could and could not do with respect to detention policies

under the aumf under the proposed aumf? >> under the aumf, the law of armed conflict and all of the applicable and international law would apply to detention as they would apply to this campaign. >> general? >> i have nothing to add to that. >> thank you. i yield back. >> dr. fleming, thank you mr. chairman and secretary carter and dempsey thank you for coming forward today. the president said his goal is to destroy isis. he has submitted a proposed aumf. in the aumf it says a limitation is no enduring offensive ground

combat offenses and that suggests no boots on the ground sort of a cole oak weal -- colloquial expression, and can you tell us about wars america has won with peace without substantial ground forces in relation to the foe? >> excuse me. i'm sorry. i'm not a historian so i'm not sure i can answer your question from a historical point of view. i can give a logical answer and a common sense answer to the boots on the ground question as it applies to a campaign like the one against isil. and it has to do with the -- who sustains the victory after isis is defeated, because we seek the

lasting defeat of isil -- >> well if i can interrupt -- >> if i can respond, because who wins the territory after it is won back and that is our strategy otherwise we have boots on the ground for a long time. >> many experts believe the main reason why we have the isis problem we have today is we didn't have a status of forces agreement and we didn't have a stay-behind force. so again, i will ask you, chairman dempsey, can you name the wars that america has won without sustained boots on the ground against a significant foe? and i do believe -- i remember that boko haram has now given its allegiance. the forces are growing with isis and we know how barbaric they are and can you name forces without groups on the ground? >> we've had -- with the philippines for example at the

turn of the century and generally the campaign is the same as it is today and to find a coalition and indigenous forces and now we call them regional partners to do the lion's share of the lifting because unless they own it, they'll allow us to own it. >> can you tell us who these forces are going to be? i get we're trying to stand up an iraqi army that fell apart because we left and can you explain in other regions outside of iraq where we're getting these forces and where they are coming from and taking action? >> i will. but i want to align myself that we are at the cause of the current crisis. i think the secretary mentioned earlier that iraq had an opportunity to demonstration to the -- demonstrate to the population that it would work on behalf of all groups and failed to do that and rose to the

challenge that now arose. we have a 20 -- coalition, two of which are the kurdish and iraqi forces. we're working for a moderate syrian opposition and hardening regional allies and you heard that discussed moments ago and it is actually -- the reason that the campaign has a defeat mechanism is the coalition. it is not all of our activities. >> who are going to be the core forces, in syria for example? again, we hear about the free syrian army which nobody seems to know who they are. they were referred to, of course, as doctors and pharmacists before and we're going to i guess offline train them someplace in kuwait. but again isis is growing every day and they are killing a number of people in very brutal ways specifically going after

christians and jews, so my question is who is this core force going up against isis in the near future? i'm still vague on who this force is? >> there are forces. it depends on which side of the border you are talking about. on the iraqi side there are the forces that -- >> well i get iraq. i'm talking in the limited time i have. i'm talking about syria. >> on the syrian side as the chairman indicated, we are trying to build -- >> trying to build. so we don't know who they are. >> the reality is you have the forces of the assad regime and the forces of isil, neither of which we want to align ourselves with and they are the largest forces on the ground in syria. that is the circumstance in which we find ourselves and we are trying to create a moderate syrian force that will be able to defeat them and own the

future of syria. that is our objective. >> mr. chairman as i yield back, i have to say we're not finding out who these people are. there is no answer here in this question. i appreciate that. >> mr. ashford. >> thank you. mr. chairman and secretary. pardon my per oak wealism, and i'm going to ask a broad question related back to our people in our district, nebraska and omaha. i absolutely agree about president ghani and there is hope there and in his ability to start reforms in the armed services and open up discussions with pakistan which are meaningful. it was interesting, when we went in to visit with the president one of his first comments to me is how is my friend tom dutygut

gutaer and he is a friend of the president's. and that was nice to see and the peter institute at the university of nebraska at omaha is doing research into isis and had been doing the research prior to -- prior to june of last year. and the ebola work done at the university of nebraska medical center. and it is pretty significant and we're very proud of all of that. having said that, i guess my question is, when i visit those institutions and talk to the principals, it is clear that not just the university of nebraska but all over the country there are partners at that level that are sophisticated significant partners in our efforts in the middle east and would you comment on how you foresee the partnerships continuing to develop and evolve and move

forward? >> well it is critical because we depend for our technology all of the research and development that under lies our development, we depend on our universities, our r&d centers in industry. i always have to remind people, we don't build anything in the pentagon. this isn't the soviet union. our way of doing things is not to do it in the government it is to contract with private entities because we think that is the best way to stay up with technology and to get excellence and that is how we -- so we depend upon those institutions. our great university systems our great laboratories and our great defense industry to make us the best military in the world. >> i just think that is absolutely right. and i think it does differentiate us from everywhere else in the world, really.

and we're proud of what we've contributed in nebraska, obviously. but every state has similar experiences. one other -- and thank you for that answer. one other -- this goes back really to congresswoman graham's comment and your comment about transitioning the military back into civilian right in the role of the veterans administration and i don't want to comment on that, but in nebraska and a lot of states have had this infusion of new veterans with distinct problems that are somewhat unique and are unique to a great degree to the middle east and the higher degree of disability claims and all of that. and i know what we're trying to think about doing in nebraska and in omaha and the count where strat com is to develop outpatient clinics because we're seeing a real need of the veterans coming back, the military coming back now and

needing sort of that outpatient in the mental patient and women's health issues not being addressed and i don't need a comment on that because that is a different department, but if you have a thought on that kind of the new way to deliver healthcare. >> i would echo what the chairman said that by sad necessity over the last dozen years, we have learned a lot and in a sense pioneered techniques in treating amputees and burn victims and very importantly tbi, pts and we need to make sure as the chairman said earlier, we remember those lessons and that we transfer that knowledge to society more widely, which i think is happening in our medical system and including the medical system of the veterans administration.

>> and i agree. and my only thought would be that clearly in our area of the country where we have a robust medical system at the university and other facilities is being able to develop those new options as we move forward is part of the strategy in the mideast and generally everywhere. so thank secretary. >> mr. gibson. >> thanks, mr. chairman and greatly appreciate the panelists. thank you for your leadership and commitment to our nation. general dempsey i noted in your opening remarks you laid out a case for continued forward presence, put some passion behind that. some of us myself included have been arguing for thinking and acting differently, certainly recognizing the need for some forward presence, particularly with naval forces for open sea lanes and access to markets. and then in places like korea

of course, there is a need for land forces there for the near term at least. but that when we rely on this as we have really since the end of the cold war, we end up with free rider problems, and friends and allies them not fully committing on paper what they would do and i have been arguing for a peace through strength approach that puts alliance on strategic maneuver and restoration of the global response force capability with the idea that -- and of course we deal with nation states and we deal with transnational actors, here i'm talking about the former not the latter, the society of deterrence and being defined by capability and will and here is where i get to the point on the global response force. and we had the chiefs here

yesterday and they gave a response to this and i'm interested from the department standpoint, from the secretary and the chief, leadership as it relates to the global response force and how you see that factoring into our going forward. >> i'll start. we do have the grf, the global response force. which is -- we provide very carefully for just the reason you described, namely. it is the most ready force, it is the most deterrent and it is the most highly ready. and one of the things that is concerning about this whole budget drama of sequester so forth and year after year and the effect on readiness is that -- if it continues in the way that it is, it is going to

effect our readiness even at the grf level. and that is not good for deterrence or the picture of american strength so necessary of avoiding conflict in the first place. >> congressman, you've touched on two things that are near and dear to my heart. where is the grf. we have to restore its readiness. there are times of late because of increasing demand and reducing supply we've had to actually reach into it and send it forward, which is not the intention, but we're forced into that position on objection. and the other one is the issue of presence. i think we have our forward stationing right. and what we are doing is looking at how we can be less predictable to our adversaries and through our alleys and maintain what we are calling our

dynamic presence. and so we are very much interested in pursuing that idea. but the sequestration makes this -- both of those almost impossible. >> i appreciate those responses. and to be clear even the vision that i'm laying out here requires the world's strongest military as a deterrent to those that would do us harm. and also this vision includes american leadership. it is just a different conception of power and how we would array it that would look for contributions from our friends and allies at the level we would expect and also recognize the moral strength of our country as evidence through diplomacy and commerce and trade and in the way we are able to strategically maneuver our forces with the real capability i believe, strengthening the hands of our diplomats that would allow us to i think reach a level of security that we're striving for. so thank you very much once again, for everything that you do for our servicemen and women

and their families. and i yield back. >> mr. courtney. >> thank you mr. chairman and i want to thank the secretary and general for your service and all of the witnesses here today. i think when the historians write the book on this administration, one of the overlooked achievements was the new start treaty which was ratified on a bipartisan basis. and in the wake of it we've heart a lot of testimony at the c-power committee about the triad is going to change as a result of the realignment that the treaty created in terms of the leg of the triad that will carry the heaviest burden is the sea based deterrence about 7% according to the navy witnesses we've had here. in the wake of that and the existing ohio fleet admiral greenert, secretary stackly and yesterday secretary mavis made it clear the navy program is at

the top of the list, because of the timing and even with the president's robust of timing work which is another reason we should support the top line there is really just no margin for delay in terms of making sure that we're going to be able to implement new start. so mr. secretary i was reading your testimony over at the appropriations committee and others again about hearing about this for years at the -- what the impact is going to be on the ship-building account. so last year's defense build when we created the sea based deterrence fund we thought we had the sea lift defense fund which again was an effort to take pressure off the ship-building account for once in a multi-generation investment, missile defense, et cetera, i was wondering if you could talk with us a little bit about what your thinking is because there is no question

that something is going to give when the resources are needed to build those boats in terms of the ship-building account if it has to all come out of there? >> well thank you for that. and you're right, the triad is part of our future. it is part of our future planning. nuclear weapons aren't in the news very much, thank god. so they are not the answer to the isil crisis. but they are a bedrock of our security. and we have to -- we're going to need a safe, secure and reliable nuclear deterrent as far into the future as i can see and we need to provide for that and the sea base leg is needed because it is survivable on a day to day basis it is a leng tennant and it is true now and the ohio class basis is expensive and we are trying to get the cost of

that down like all other things and we have to pay that bill. and it is more complicated as i'm sure you would say also, than how we label the money. the money has to come from somewhere and we're going to have to make difficult trade-offs, particularly in the decade between 2020 and 2030. and that is just a fact of life if we're going to have an ohio class replacement and if secretary mavis and admiral greenert said it is the highest priority, it is something we have to do and we have to find room in the budget and there will be tradeoffs there that will not get aleveleviated by calling it this or that. >> and i firmly believe that the triad, all three legs which is long range bomber and the ohio submarine are necessary to make

our deterrence credible and survivable. and because it is an unfortunate happenstance of time, the triad are requiring modernance over the next decade, this is our strategic responsibility and we'll have to find a way to do it. >> no quarrel with your argument, but when you look at the legs it is a funny looking stool because one of them is a lot longer than the other, if you look at them. and as long as i have a few seconds left admiral the first time i met you when in iraq when you were in charge of training the iraqi forces and you are passionate about training them. and we had a troop leave out of hartford, and the expectation was that the reserve force was going to stand down as the troop

drawdown took place and for some people it was a little jarring to still see national guard forces going over there and i hope you are keeping an eye on those guys because it caused a lot of dislocation for those families to have a 60-day call-up when people's expectation would change with the draw-down and with that i yield back. >> thank you. mr. franks. >> thank you mr. chairman. and secretary carter some of us were surprised at your appointment and i have to say to you, it was a pleasant surprise and i for one am very gratified, sir, you are where you are. i think it is a good thing for the country. >> thank you, my wife and i were surprised also. [ laughter ] >> well, as you know, producing fiscal material is by far the most challenging component of developing nuclear weapons and i know you also know that once the 4.5% enrichment level has been

reached, that about 75% of the work or the enrichment has been done to gain the weapons-grade material. requiring iran to dismantle its mechanism to enrich iranian or plutonium was the centerpiece of a dozen u.n. security counsel resolutions because we considered that in many ways the whole ball game. but in direct contradiction to that reality and the u.n. secure resolutions, mr. obama's agreement with iran, astonishingly provides a protected protocol to enrich iranian. and if you forgive the politicalin opportunity of the question do you believe a long-term agreement with iran going forward to allows them to enrich iranian or

en riech plutonium is key for the united states? >> i think it is a key question and for the united states but does it provide an assurance against break-out and the development of a bomb by iran? i'm not involved in the negotiation there and so i can't discuss an agreement that hasn't been concluded yet. but that has got to be the underlying principal and i think that is the underlying principal with which the negotiation are being conducted and i associate myself with that deal is better than -- that no deal is better than a bad deal. but for me and my department we have other obligations associated with this. and one is to continue to deter iran's other detrimental behavior in the region and in the gulf and

protect allies and partners there and to protect our important partnership with israel as a very strong ally and that is important. and then the third is our general presence in the gulf. so those responsibilities, which are also related to iran and iranian behavior. those are responsibilities that fall on the department of defense and we take very seriously and i know the chairman does also. >> well i certainly wish you the very best in everything else that you do, sir. and general dempsey let me express personal and collective gratitude for the whole country for the galant service you have offered to the human family. this has been an amazing thing you've done and we are grateful to you. and so with that i ask you a

tough question. >> let me go on for about 25 seconds for thank you. >> what is the troop deployment in iraq, i think around 2500 and is there a justification for that troop level and is it an arbitrary level and is that the best policy to expeditiously defeat isis? >> my military upon on defeating isis and levant is through our partners with a coalition and using our unique capabilities, whether they be training or precision strikes or working to build institutions, so that the iraqis notably understand -- and other regional stakeholders who have more to lose and gain

by the defeat of isil are in the lead and therefore that number is not arbitrator and it is purpose built to that effect. >> mr. chairman, i'm going to yield back. thank you, both, again. >> thank the gentleman. mr. nugent. >> thank you mr. chairman. and to mr. carter and first of all i want to thank both of you. mr. dempsey, i appreciate your service to the country and particularly the uniform that you wear of the united states army. it means a lot to me. secretary carter the first time i get to meet you. but the question i have and i guess where i'm kind of perplexed is what is going on within iraq today where we have the general of the cuds force leading the charge basically and i get our reluctance to have boots on the grounds because let me tell you, my kids have been there.

and i don't necessarily want to see them go back. but on the same token though, i hate to see that iran now has taken the lead in particularly when you go back in history of iraq with us recently in 2011 when i was there, we had five u.s. service members killed the night i was there by an advanced ied supplied -- go figure -- from iran. and now we're allowing them to take the lead and -- and you remember back when we had our forced in iraq at the draw-down and american troops being killed and ambushed because of the status of forces agreement particularly as it related to iraq, they kept us from going and hunting or capturing or killing the guys that were killing our troops and we knew where they were laying their heads down at night and these are the same people now that are taking the lead in iraq and do

we think we're going to see a different outcome with the iranian regime today than what it was then and the pressure it will put on the iraqi leaders and ghani i think has brought the fresh air but i don't know how he will operate when the iranians are saying we're going to give you back your country. how do we deal with that? >> it is a very good question because what defeated the iraqi forces last summer was sectarianism. and if the fight against isil becomes a purely sectarian fight and not an iraqi fight, then we -- >> just let me interrupt you because time is limited, because isn't it going to turn back into a sectarian fight when you have iran providing the leadership and training to the troops that are going to push isis back out of iraq? >> well it is actually a

complicated situation. in many places the iraqi security forces, including with sunni elements and the support of sunni tribes are participating in the recapture of ground. in other places it is our air power and iraqi security forces entirely. in tikrit, you're right there is a heavy presence of popular mobilization forces which are shiite in sectarian orientation and getting some support from the iranians. that is concerning to us. so it is a very mixed picture. but the side that we're on is the side of the iraqi government operating in a multi-sectarian basis and that is the only way in which we're going to see success. >> i don't disagree with that. but when we talk to the forces there in place in 2011 and the training we did for the iraqis it was pretty evident then we

had some very very good brigades within the iraqi military and then we had some that were the sectarian split-off that were incompetent. and i think that is what we saw happen. and i think that is kind of the remarks we've heard, is that having an enduring force would have prevented it, i don't know, but we would have had a much better chance of preventing it had we been there to train and keep the pressure on the iraqis and i want to make sure we don't do the same about afghanistan. >> i'll say something about afghanistan if the chairman wants to say something about iraq. we have fortunately at the moment a different situation in afghanistan. namely a bilateral security agreement in place welcomed by the government of afghanistan and a partner in the government of afghanistan in the national unit of government of ghani and

abdullah that is not sectarian in nature, that is welcoming of the american assistance and the american training. so it is a different situation from iraq and the reason why, as i said earlier we may well be achieving our objectives in afghanistan in a way that a few years ago when i was working on that campaign, i would not have predicted that we get as far as we did. it is a very different situation. fortunately in afghanistan today, and from iraq a few years ago. >> and i appreciate your comments. chairman, i would love to hear from you. but i've been gavelled back. >> and i would love to chat with you, but the time is up. >> well thank you mr. chairman and thank you gentlemen for being here today. as i look at the aum, it says

the responses of taking military action against isil leadership and again this is a proposed aumf. does that include capture? or is it kill only? >> it includes capture. >> so my question is, we talk about capture and the use of all of our tenants of war, military, and economic and all of those things, i have ideas of forming coalitions nato and middle eastern coalition and working together with command and control, this is good versus evil and that is the message the world should hear and when it comes to holding though i have some ideas about the holding those we capture and how we try them and how we involve maybe the nation of incident whether it is isil or the global war on terror, how we involve the nation of incident and the national of origin and are they going to be part of the process

and those that we capture. so my question is if we capture, what do we do with them? >> well, thanks for that question. let me go back to the logic of capture. obviously our objective where possible is to capture rather than -- >> have we been capturing anyone in the last couple of years? >> well -- >> especially since we started. >> our coalition partners have been doing that. and they have been detaining. for afghanistan, in afghanistan they are detained by afghans and subject to afghan law. >> and you say their mission is to capture or kill and so if we capture, what are we doing with them? >> the answer is it depends on the circumstances and the location. the willingness of a host

country to take custody of them to prosecute them. i'm not an expert on this. you have to talk to the justice department about that and they are involved in these decisions. but since these are -- your question concerns capture that take place outside of u.s. territory, their laws respecting that, we obey. >> mr. secretary are we capturing and then hands off and we turn them over? are we involved? the collection of intelligence is what i'm after here. so what are we doing and if you can't answer, maybe general dempsey can, what are our current posture is. >> well the answer is it depends on where -- the circumstances of the capture. but to get to the point you are making which is interrogation and intelligence value, that is

an important value to us. it is important that whatever the ultimate disposition of the detainee is that we have the opportunity to interrogate and debrief and that is very important to us. whatever the ultimate disposition of the detainee is. and the chairman can add to that if he wants to. >> congress i think this is probably an important enough question that i'll have my legal team work with the secretaries and provide you a longer answer for the record. but i will say that in places where we are in support of the host nation for example in iraq, we are literally in support of them. so they will do the capture operation, they will give access to the prisoners for us to conduct the kind of interrogation you describe and exploitation. where someone is a direct threat to us, to u.s. or the homeland, we have conducted operations with the department of justice

representative and those individuals -- there has been a handful, have been brought back to this country for trial. >> thank you, i appreciate that answer. >> and mr. secretary, if you could finish this answer for me publicly stating we will not use ground troops, but i'm in agreement with using other troops, but publicly stating we will not use ground troops is a good idea because -- if you could finish that answer for me? >> i'm not sure what you are getting at. >> i'm wondering why we want in our aumf to say that we will not use this entity that we have? >> oh the aumf -- >> even if i'm not in favor of using them why would we say that? >> what the aumf says is that in the campaign against isil we have a very wide range of

authorities to wage that campaign including those that we anticipate are necessary to conduct the campaign and there is one limit to that, which is an afghanistan or iraq-like long ground campaign. that is not foreseen and so the aumf does not request the authority to conduct that. >> that doesn't really explain to me why it is a good idea. but i thank you for your answer and i yield back. >> mrs. warski. >> thank you for being here. mr. secretary, in follow up to representative winthrop questions, it brings to mind gitmo, talking about people taking on the battlefield intelligence gathering i just came back from gitmo and during my short time here do you support the president's plan to

close gitmo and transport those terrorists back to their countries. >> i don't think the president has a plan to close gitmo and transport them because there is a law that prohibits that. the president does have the stated intention to close gitmo and i'm in favor of the safe closure of guantanamo bay. i've been there too -- >> would that include the core that can't be released to come back to the united states. >> they have to be incarcerated in some way, there is no question. >> the u.s. prison system. do you support them coming back to the u.s. prison system? >> that is an option available. >> what is the other alternative? >> just a moment. but it is now forbidden by law to do that. >> this president has been known to override the law. it is not that this would be

breaking news. so do you support -- not that -- what is the other alternative in if the u.s. prison system is not the final destination, what is the alternative, where would they go? i think that there -- we need to work with those of you on capitol hill to find a lawful disposition for people who cannot be transferred or released safely from guantanamo bay. the reason why i think it is desirable to close gitmo, i realize it is now unlawful to transfer people to the united states is that i think it still provides a -- a rallying point for jihadi recruiting and i think that is unfortunate. that is the reason to close it. but i say safely close it. we need to find a way to safely

close it and lawful and done in cooperation with you. >> i appreciate it. and as you know this committee is undertaking an investigation of the taliban five to gitmo and in light of the committee's responsibility to conduct a assessment based on the review of this important subject will you commit today where the previous secretary left off to continue the department's engagement in ensuring all of the requested materials provided and to work with the inner agency to make sure the information is provided in the limited instances in which other organizations and the government have an interest. >> yes i will. >> i appreciate. and the president said in the state of the union that the number one threat is climate change. admiral mullen a few years ago said he believes the number one national defense issue in our nation is the debt in our country. do you believe that the debt

this nation is carrying nearly $18 billion as we are sitting here having budget conversation is more of a threat to this nation's nation security than climate change? >> there are a number of serious dangers to the future of our country of which -- >> i don't know you well. i'm trying to be getting your perspective as we are voting on a huge leap in the budget and i think the people want to know where the national defense leader is coming from as well. do you believe the nation's debt is a greater issue than climate change? as our commander and chief has stated? >> i think they are both serious problems and there are other serious problems that are not those too and we have to deal with those strategic challenges. you are naming two of the problems. >> i'm naming what the commander and chief says as he puts forth a budget that you have been defending for three hours now.

he said the greatest threat to our nation is climate change and we're trying to make a argument that the greatest threat to our nation is that we have an issue of debt that an admiral went on the record said is a great threat to this country. did you agree? >> i think that to the extent that the deficit drives a budget behavior like the year to year struggle with sequester that we faced, that is a challenge to our national security because the challenge to our national defense and i think we have threats around the world that are very danger to us, and i think that, to get to back to an earlier line of questioning, the strength of our nation depends upon other instruments of national power than our military power and in the long run the strength of our nation depends

on the ability to education people and to have scientists and engineers and there was a discussion of our scientific base earlier and there are many ingredients for america and we need to tend to them all and we need to have balance in how we approach these. so i would appeal for balance and a strategic view that looks at all of these issues. >> thank you. mr. zinc. >> thank you, mr. chairman and gentlemen. the country is in your debt. general, i've known you a long time and certainly for your service and mr. secretary i had not known you as long but thank you for taking the job. having said that this committee, i'm a freshman. and before this committee, we've heard the testimonies of general ab er aber abersy and general conway who i know well and fought with in fallujah and i'll quote there is not a snow ball's chance in

hell that our challenge will defeat isis and they have embedded commanders in their forces and even though it is a modern shia force which has great ramifications long-term, and i've been a fight or go home guy. if we're going to fight, fight to win. i was never a flag officer i was a deputy commander in iraq and i was a commander at seal team six and i've looked at protection of our troops and making sure they had the right training and the ability to win decisively. and having said that, if we are to em bed as iran is going to do and looking at admiral and general conway and your senior

leadership and my concern is if we imbed, we don't just imbed with a few, and should an individual get captured he will die in a -- die a heinous death in a cage and so this will take a package of weight and then we'll have to have a med evac because if one of our guys gets hurt we'll have to bring him out and a u.s. facility somewhere close and if our guys get down we have to have a qrf, because that is american forces because we don't want another somalia or benghazi and we have to have a lodgistics arm to make sure our allies, the sunnis an the kurds directly and the centralized government, have the ammunition, food, fuel, everything that it takes to win. because now we're -- we've committed and imbedded.

my question is do the current authorization as proposed, does it allow the flexibility for you, should the decision be made to imbed the structure i've laid out, does that authorization that you are asking does it include the flexibility to imbed that forced package to win? >> first of all thanks for your own service and thanks for bringing -- what is evidently a great store of knowledge to this committee. so thanks for that. and the answer is yes. in fact the president, when he first described the aumf, enumerated a few things that were specifically permitted by it which include many of the items on your list so the answer is yes. >> thank you mr. secretary and mr. chairman, i yield the remaining part of my time. >> thank you, mr. knight.

>> mr. chair. >> i'm going to talk -- [ inaudible ]. over the last 15 or 20 years we've diverted away from ex plain technology and put it into a different phase of different exploration and now we're in a phase of flying the wings off an aircraft

is that a concern or is that a concern that we can do something quicker? we talk about how we acquire things and how we can get through the acquisition phase quicker? well if we can do that with technology, say do a sixth generation fighter today, it would be much more advanced than our captors in the -- raptors in the air but how can we do that in a quicker phase of 15-20 year period and fly them for 50 years? >> thanks for that and that recalls a word the chairman used at the beginning of this hearing which is "agility" and if we don't have that agility and our programs take 15-20 years to develop, we don't have the best

military in the world. and they remain in the aircraft for a long time. they are not the same aircraft. their technology and armament is changed. and few realize, but i'm sure you do, that 70% of the cost of a military system is in owning it, not buying it in the first place. so as we talk about acquisition reform and cost control, as we began this morning discussing, we must pay attention to sustainment costs. and in the fifth generation aircraft, the f-35 and so forth we are trying to be very attentive to sustainment costs because they are going to be the lyon's share of the total life cycle cost of the airplane. >> and mr. secretary i don't argumentu with you, in the phase

of an aircraft, we are talking about armament and how to change the aircraft. now some of that was with aviation or guts but a lot of that is what we hung off the airplane and today it is changing quicker and yearly and in advancement and how we detect them and how far they can get into the battlefield without being seen. those are the things that are our young airmen should be worried about because the advancements are coming so quickly. for about 50 years those advancements weren't there. it was just -- if we were faster than you and we could shoot first, then we beat you. >> i'm with you, and i'm very concerned that we keep up in the electronic warfare field which i think you are referring to in that some of our potential opponents have made advances in that area, enabled by the spread of technology around the world

and so if we're going to keep the advantage we've historically had, we need to keep up in those areas. so i am completely with you. >> okay. in my last 50 seconds i'm going to say that if there is some way we can do this in d.o.d. that companies do this all of the time, we've talked about one today, that talk about how quickly they can get it out into the field because the quicker they get it out there, the quicker they make money. the quicker we can do that in d.o.d., the quicker the war fighter is safer or is ahead of the technology curve and we've seen that with u.a.s. where the soldiers on the field where they could see the enemy where they couldn't see them without them getting around and so i would ask that we do something like that in d.o.d. that might replicate what they do in the private industry. >> we have a number of initiatives in our budget that have exactly that intent and i

would be pleased to provide you with more information on them. but i think you are on to something that is terribly important. and it is one of the areas where we are trying to make investments and we need the funding to make -- those investments. >> thank you, mr. secretary. and general thank you, you have helped the freshman class very much and i'm sure you've helped everyone on this dais and i thank you for your commitment to our country. >> miss mcsally. you're on. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you secretary carter, general dempsey. i was a masters of public policy graduate so you were one of my instructors back in 1988 and 1990 so it is good to see you again. we've both been able to find a good job to make a difference. >> thank you. you make me proud. >> well i look forward to working with you in future. i want to talk a little bit

about combat search and rescue capabilities in iraq and syria. i was 26 years in the military and i was an a-10 pilot, just truth in advertising and ran our joint search and rescue center during the operation southern watch and then the early days of the afghanistan war. so i know there is tremendous challenges in trying to make sure if someone has to eject or get shot down, that we're able to rescue them very quickly. also in the environment that we've seen with the fate of the jordan pilot to locate and protect them and get the forces to get them right away. i'm sure you're aware of that. and i'll have a more classified briefing tomorrow on that posture and i know we'll have to talk more classified about our response capability and our posture and whether it is limited by the 3100 person on the ground limitation because

we've got to be able to make sure especially with guys flying single engine airplane if they have to eject and sometimes this takes tremendous resources if we can get them out and if you can speak about that and follow-up. >> i'll speak generally, because as we you know full well and thank you for what you did, we need to talk details about this in a classified session which we can do. but in general, it is not -- it is not the 3100 limit that in any way paces the search and rescue effort there. it is time and distance. and we're very attentive to that. again, i don't want to say more here. but i'm sure you can well imagine what i mean. i'm very attentive to that for

our air operations over both iraq and syria. i'll see if the chairman wants to add anything. >> yes thank you. speaking to you about combat search and rescue is like talking to -- but i will do so nevertheless. we're not limited the bog does not limit our ability to do combat search and rescue. you know generally where we're postured. my staff will articulate that tomorrow. if we think the mission is high risk, we can actually put the package airborne as part of the air tasking order. >> right. >> so we're very attentive to that. i think you'll find the staff will ease your concerns tomorrow. >> great, thank you. i wanted to follow up on the a-10 issue, you mentioned it earlier. i commanded the 354 fighter squadron deployed into the european theater dealing with -- working with our allies related to the aggression we have seen coming out of russia. we have a had--10s deployed to iraq and syria.

while we don't have a suitable replacement, i asked yesterday secretary james if that was strictly a budget decision and she said yes and i wanted to hear from you if that is the case, whether this is -- because we hear many different arguments over the last few years quite frankly, which are all over the map, that if you had the resources, would you keep the a-10 flying to its life span, which is 2028? >> i agree with secretary james. it is strictly a budgetary issue. we're squeezed on all directions and we're doing our best under -- to give the country the defense it needs for the amount of money that we have. the a-10 is a proud aircraft and has done an enormous amount for us over the years. and i think we tried to find common ground with those here on the hill. and the -- and very important to me which is not a money issue is

to make sure that our close air support from the air force to our ground forces is a real enduring capability. i'm satisfied it is. i'm sure that secretary james said the same thing yesterday. you want to add anything? >> congressman, we have aircraft providing close air support from the apache helicopter to the b-1. and the a-10 is in that suite of capabilities. but it is -- we are faced with a budget issue and trying to make sure we keep enough capability that can operate both in contested and uncontested air space. >> great, thank you. my time is about to expire. for the record i do have a question i'll be following up with, i know we're talking about making sure that women can be fully integrated into all jobs in the military, but i also want to hear whether there are deployment positions that are male only positions. we have seen some of the issues pop up at gitmo when i served in saudi arabia. there is some specific positions that were male only. across the board military and civilian, i would like a

follow-up on whether you have male only deployment positions for civilian and military. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. mccord, as promised, i want to come back on the audit issue. we had two service secretaries yesterday who said the biggest impediment to achieving -- to meeting the deadline in 2017 for their service to pass a clean audit was the defense finance and accounting service over which they had no control. are you aware of the problem and are you going to fix it? >> thank you, mr. chairman yeah. i think we have a lot of hard work to do on audit and we're making good progress. i think you probably heard both of those thoughts, both those sides yesterday. the issue that became -- audit is a team sport in two ways. it requires military departments who were here yesterday to work with service providers which d-fas is the most important one of the department in that respect. the second way it also requires a collaboration of people

throughout the department, people who do audit as a primary function like our d-fas folks. it also requires a low -- in the personnel community. people who don't think of audit as a primary job to work or can't make it work because it requires information from all those systems it is like if the secretary were to turn to general dempsey to his right and ask him to accomplish a task and set up a task force it requires the airlift, all the things that support, very much the same with our audist task istaudit task. with respect to the d-fas issue raised yesterday as i understand it, it is an entity of itself. and as entity reporting entity it passed a clean audit 15 times

in a row. they're doing the contracting for audit -- for all the military departments to get people on contract to do the independent auditing. in a role as a service provider, they had four areas where they have a clean audit and had a clean audit, which is the bread and butter areas of paying contractors, and dispersing. the issue that came up where they did not pass was called financial reporting which is the most involved, complex, spreads across the whole department issue and that's where the challenge lies. they were given ten areas where they didn't -- where they were examined and there were nine that diabetedn't pass. they were given 12 items to work on. ten by the end of this year. the other two will require a little more time. so i would say that this is why you do audits and exams, the same way to make a military -- you have a operational readiness inspection of a unit to find out where you're good and where you're not. i want to say that the d-fas is

a capable partner. they have a problem here, but financial reporting is not strictly a dfas issue because it is information across the department, which is one of the real hard parts of audit for us. >> all this talk about budget up here and this makes a big difference in those of us who believe we need to spend more on defense, if we can't improve the accountability for how we spend that money it makes our job much much more difficult. and i appreciate how many -- how complex this is. but i'm just as an editorial comment, it makes a big difference in getting budget support up here if we can immediate those deadlines for an audit and if we can't, it undermines that effort. so i know you know that. but it -- particularly in the middle of the budget discussions, it is very much on my mind. mr. mccord let me ask you one

other thing. you heard some of the discussion about what we can use oco for and what we can't. my understanding is there is omb guidance and perhaps some department guidance that helps direct the uses for oco funds versus base funds. my understanding and my memory is that congress can also designate oco funds for procurement and we bought f-35s in the past with oco funds. am i on the right track here? >> yes mr. chairman. there is an agreement between the office of management and budget and the department of defense. i was involved in negotiating that early on in this administration. we felt that it needed to be a little tighter than it had been when we got here. and we -- that agreement dates to 2010 and it has got geographic aspects to it things that happened in this country things that happened in country in the agreement may not be and

we had some modifications to that. you're also correct in that congress plays a role in general. oco funding has to be designated by both the congress and the president as oco spending, as emergency spending and that's the procedure followed both by this administration and under the previous administration as well. so both parties have a voice and you mentioned f-35s have been an issue of contention in the past. in fact, just a few months ago, we requested to buy some f-35s to replace aircraft that were destroyed at kandahar and training losses and several of the committees including this one approved but one did not. there was division and remains division on the questions sometimes of what is appropriate use of oco. >> okay. would you do me a favor and would you or your folks submit to us in writing an overview of how oco works now. as you all said, this is not the best way to run a railroad. and i hope that we can have a

different method of funding the department as we move down the many steps ahead in the budget process. if, however, we end up with a substantial amount of oco to make up for gaps in the base i want to understand what all of those restrictions administrative or legislative may be because those are things that we can obviously address in the authorization bill. i don't know how this is going to go. i want to be ready and you can help us in understanding that. i would appreciate it. >> we'll provide that information for the record. >> mr. secretary, last question i've got is about ukraine. mr. smith has introduced legislation with me that would require lethal assistance be provided to the ukrainians so they can defend themselves, so they can do something about the tanks and armored personnel carriers pouring in from russia. well we have been told and all our previous hearings from the administration witnesses is, well, we're studying it. well, every day that the white

house dithers about this more equipment is pouring in for what i presume will be a renewed offensive at some point. so can you help me understand what the timeline is for a decision on -- from the administration on providing lethal assistance to the ukrainians? >> yes, thank you. thank you, chairman. two things. the first is you're right. our support for ukraine as it tries to create a place for itself in europe situated as it is between europe and russia is very important. i -- and i know you're asking about the military side of it the part i would preface is that -- that is principally a political and above all economic challenge because the economy of ukraine is in serious trouble