accountability, this type of activity is not tolerated, and that we've got to -- we've got to shape the future of this service. >> i guess i just don't understand, because in my time in congress, which is 26 years, i've had such enormous respect for the secret service. protecting so many of our people in public life, including members of congress. so i just don't understand, even off duty, how a respected member of the secret service could get so inebriated that they take this kind of action, going into a fence, knocking down a barricade. i don't get why it would take time to change the culture, and that's why i'm puzzled, sir, with your comment. and i would hope it's very clear that if they're off on a thursday and not on duty, they

can get so inebriated that they can go into a fence but when they're on duty, they understand this behavior is unacceptable. i would think, i don't want a member of the secret service, frankly, who's capable of getting so inebriated that this kind of an action can be accepted. it can be accepted when they're off duty but not on duty. this is why i'm totally puzzled. i don't think there's any doubt that this action took place. is that correct, sir? >> that's correct. >> so, is it clear now that it's going to not take time to change the culture? do you understand why that doesn't make sense to someone like myself, who has such respect for secret service? i don't think we want this kind of person in the secret service. whether they're on duty or off duty or, you don't want them behaving this way at any time. that is not the kind of person you want in the secret service. they can go find another job, frankly. >> yes, ma'am. >> so, can the culture change

immediately or do you still believe it will take time to change the culture? >> i cannot terminate people this afternoon. if that's -- >> i understand that. but can there be a very clear directive that if you are a distinguished member of the secret service, whether you're on duty or off duty, you cannot get so inebriated, it is not accepted that you're capable of taking a car and going into a fence or killing someone on the street? these are people with guns. >> yes. and again, i agree with everything you're saying. i will tell you that again, the workforce is hearing your message loud and clear today. and we've been stressing this through training, through mentoring, through coaching, through this discipline that we've put in place one year ago so people know the rules.

it's up to individuals to have the self-discipline to follow those rules and conduct themselves in a professional manner, obviously on the job and off the job. >> well, i just want to conclude by saying i do hope you can send a strong message again and make it very clear to the distinguished member of the secret service that it shouldn't be business as usual even if they're off duty. because i know, i was the author of the 0.08 law, and to go get so inebriated that you're going to take a car and go into a fence, you need to be pretty, pretty inebriated out there. so i do hope you send that strong message and changing the culture can be done immediately, not take a long time. and i understand you cannot accuse anyone until an investigation is complete. but you can make it clear that whether you're on duty or off duty this kind of behavior is unacceptable for a distinguished member of the secret service.

thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, ma'am. >> thank you ms. lowey. ms. roybal-allard. thank you for yielding. it's your turn. >> okay. director, i have to say that i am equally concerned by some of the responses that you have given today. and i hope that i misunderstood you in terms of your saying that you needed to wait for the i.g.'s report to take any action. it seems to me that there are many things that can be done now and actions that you can take now before that report because it's quite obvious that there are lots of problems within the secret service, that the incidents at the white house and others are just indicative of

those problems. i wanted to give you an opportunity to elaborate on your opening statement. because i think it's important that the public hear loud and clear that not only you that acknowledge that there are problems facing the secret service but that you're actually implementing an effective plan in turning things around, things you can do now. right now, you can demand and with a discipline, that you're immediately notified of any other incidents. hopefully, there won't be such an incidence, but there are things that you can do now. also, as you're answering that question as to what you'll be doing over the next weeks and months to assure secret service personnel, the white house, congress and the public that you are moving in the right direction, if you could also

talk a little bit about what you're doing in terms of sending a message of discipline. not dealing with this case, but just in general that certain things are not acceptable and that there will be consequences and as reports in the paper, if if true, the incident at the white house, those who were involved in that, were given a less stringent approach than the service has taken in the past. if that's true, why, and i just wanted to give you an opportunity to respond to that as well. >> consistency is very important. i'm not aware of how our discipline or the actions we've take zone far would differ from the past. i haven't been here for three years, although i have been briefed on some of those recent incidents. i talked to our legal counsel,

i talked to our human resource people to see what options we have in terms of first steps in regards to this incident. i will tell you in general, and we may get into this later, we are going through a restructuring through our organizational chart and that will be a subject maybe later during this hearing. but the idea of discipline and to give you examples before every trip on a foreign trip, any agent on that trip is given a briefing on ethics and what's expected of them before our personnel meetings. before a visit in any city. the agents working that visit are briefed on their professionalism as well as the operational aspect of the visit. but these topics are constantly brought up. unfortunately, we have an element, and i would argue it's a smaller element but we do have an element that is causing

this agency great distress. and i can tell you that those agents, those officers and our personnel, who as you saw in the los angeles field office last week, who go home to their families, who go to their church, who exercise, whatever they are as distressed at this as all of you. it's their reputation. they work these eight-hour, ten-hour, 12-hour days under great stress and it is a very stressful environment. and then you go home and see the media reports that we are alcoholics. and that is something that we've got to -- this work-life initiative i may have mentioned we kicked off a few weeks ago to try to address these stresses and how to handle people that go in the wrong direction. but ultimately it comes back to what actions do i take and what actions does the agency take in terms of discipline. >> well, that was my question, director clancy. what are you doing now, what are

you plans now to address these issues? separate and apart from the incident. how are you getting that message across? including -- and i just want to highlight what chairman rogers said, that the best way to make sure these things don't happen and to weed out those who are the bad actors is for a hard and swift disciplinary action, which could mean immediate dismissal. so what is it that you're actually doing now to start addressing the problems within the secret service? more specifically, what are you doing now? >> some of these measures were put in place prior to me arriving and i think they're good measures. for example, the office of integrity reports directly to the director. so rather than in the old days, if there was an issue of

misconduct in a local field office, that special agent in charge would handle that. and there may be inconsistencies on the way discipline was handed out. so over -- just over a year ago, this office of integrity was stood up to ensure consistency, and within that office of integrity is a table of penalties which is modeled after other agencies so that we're not stand-alone, we're looking at the best practices in the industry and in the other agencies. so that -- >> can i just stop you right there? >> sure. >> because -- obviously, whatever has been done this -- you're mentioning a year ago. it's not working. things aren't working. so the question is what is it that you are planning to do to make whatever these systems that are in place, if they're good systems, to reevaluate them and make sure that they are working

so we don't have incidents like this, so the message is loud and clear that if a secret service agent, you know, drinks, or whatever the violation is, that there is going to be immediate and quick you know, disciplinary action. something that really is going to count like as chairman rogers said, you're dismissed. period. so the point is whatever's been put in place, whatever's been done, it is not working. and i guess my question is if you're not able the answer it now for the record, what are the plans you are considering or putting into place that will make the system work and send the right message to the secret service so that they know there will be a harsh penalty if they violate whatever the rules are of the secret service.

that's my question, and like i said, if you can submit it to the report, if you don't have all the information now, but whatever has been put in place, whatever has been done in the past obviously is not working. >> i agree with you, it is not working and i would prefer to put together a document spelling out what we are legally able to do and what we cannot do and where we would move forward to try to correct this. it's not working. >> well, legally -- and mr. chairman, then i'll turn it over. but legally can or can't do are you saying that there's some -- when someone violates rules is drunk, whatever, that they have -- you don't have the authority to dismiss them? >> i don't have the authority to dismiss them on the spot. >> on the spot. >> no. >> okay. but there are rules in place. >> there are rules in place

where there's a process in place where you make a proposal and the individual receiving that proposal has a chance to appeal that proposal and it's somewhat of a drawn-out process. >> maybe you need to look at that as well. >> yes. >> mr. stewart. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director, thank you for coming here. kind of a tough hearing. i've got to tell you. i'm going to jump on and you'll forgive me for that. before that, though, i'll tell you i recognize that you and most of the agents that serve under you are honorable, they're driven by love for country and they're trying to do the right thing. but leadership is taking care of not the good people in some cases. it's taking care of the problems and you have enormous problems ahead of you in my case, or in my opinion. and some of that has been talked about. and i've got to tell you as a former military guy i'm stunned by this environment and this culture. and i'll elaborate on that in just a minute. i think there's two problems

here. one of them is this. we have this behavior of drinking and driving and kind of carousing around. and there's lots of examples of it. i've got three pages that i can go through. i kind of get that. i understand that a little bit. that happens. it's troubling, but it happens. we have to deal with it as we've talked about, but i think a greater problem to me is the fact that there was an officer who was aware of this or many officers, at least one, who was aware of this and took steps to protect their friends. rather than to hold them account able. if anyone is aware of this and they didn't tell you, they have lost your trust. how could you ever trust them again? you may not be able to fire them, but you should assign them to the furthest tip of the aleutian islands in my opinion because they have lost your trust and the trust of the american people and they have shown loyalty to their friends and co-workers, rather than loyalty to their

responsibilities and i don't know how you say it any differently than that. again, i was a military man for many years and i hear you say well, you know, people are coping with stress. and i've got to say, i kind of go please, oh, please. because lots of people experience stress. this is a stressful job. there's lots of stressful jobs in the world. military members experience acute stress and they would never protect nor sanction the behavior such as this. and i can give you many examples from young airmen to new lieutenants to senior colonels, in some cases generals, who were caught dui on base and they were just gone. they just were -- they were dismissed. and we knew that. and the military was better because we knew that was the rule. and we knew that we would be held accountable for that and the american people were better

and our nation was better protected because we had a culture that we simply don't entertain this. and for someone to have done that and to have one of their peers or supervisors protect them is hard for me to imagine that that would happen. in our cases, we were dealing with top secret information. many of us. as our you and your agents. the most highly classified information this nation has they have access to. and the accountability just simply isn't measuring up to the responsibility they have. i guess i would ask you to respond to that, but i don't know what else you could say other than what you've already said here. except for you know, this idea of changing culture, you said mr. director and i understand what you're trying to do. i really do. when you say i have to set the example, i have to earn their trust, dude, you don't have to earn their trust. you're their boss. they're supposed to earn your trust. and they haven't earned your trust. and the way you earn their trust is you hold them accountable and

then the others who aren't out there driving through barricades and laying drunk in corridors of hotels in overseas locations, those guys know that they're going to be held accountable. that's how trust is developed in my opinion. so, i mean, i've gone on for a while, and i'm not berating you. i'm berating this culture that's been fostered there. and if you'd like to respond, please do. >> thank you, sir. we have had incidents obviously in the past, and previous directors have after due process, have moved these people off the job. they're gone. cartagena is an example where i believe we lost ten people. they were terminated. so there is an indication that -- or there's a history where we will discipline people, but again, this -- i cannot do this on day one.

i am frustrated that the agency is taking this hit and rightfully so. but i have to allow this due process to take place and that will be our first test and our first indication of are we serious about holding people accountable? maybe it's as bad as it may be to say this, maybe it's good to happen early in my tenure so that we can set a tone as we move forward. but sir, i can't say any more than that. >> well, and i appreciate that. in one sense, you're right. in irony, it may be good this happened earlier because you have the opportunity now to truly lead and show what your expectations are of these agents, and in my last few seconds, i recognize most of these agents are good people who are trying to do a very difficult job and to do it very well. but the ability and the willingness of some of them to

protect one another instead of being loyal to the oath they've taken, it's hard for me to respond to that. it's so foreign to my experience. >> yes, sir, and i honor that. i think as we get into the workforce is listening to this testimony today and i think a message is being broadcast loud and clear that that's not acceptable. >> thank you, director. >> mr. cuellar. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director, i know you're in a very difficult situation. you came in -- under the circumstances i feel for you. and i understand, and i thank you for taking this job in the first place. imagine -- put yourself in our shoes. we've heard other directors say we're going to take care of it. what are you going to do that's going to be different? because we've heard this before and with all due respect to you, tell me how do you convince us that what you're going to do is

going to be different? >> i can't compare myself to the previous directors and what they did, but i will tell you that my folk is first accountability, and this will be our first test. but also, listening and communicating with the workforce. and i know that sounds like 101 leadership. listening and communicating to the workforce. but that is -- our people want to be heard. and i think that's why there is some of this frustration out there that we have not done a good job of listening to our people and showing them the respect so that you know again, we have to see what the facts are for this case. but in general if a young officer or young agent sees something that's wrong he's got to feel that when he moves up and gives that information up the chain that that will be respected, that information will be respected. and as we move forward i have

to ensure that those mid managers listen to those younger agents and younger officers and act upon them. i think too often, information is passed up and nothing's done about it, so the younger agents and younger officers assume that nothing's going to be done. if i resonate something up to an upper level, middle management, nothing's going to be done. there have been individual circumstances, just yesterday, as a matter of fact, where i took an action where an individual was not being heard. a young officer. i walk by the white house every day and the young officer was not being heard on some recommendations that he wanted to make. so i brought in upper management. we immediately responded to that officer in writing. as well as sat down and went through each of his concerns and we've got to do more of that and i think, i don't know, well, i don't know if it's been done

that way in the past or not. >> and again, basic management 101 as the leader of this organization, i understand there's a lot of good, honorable men and women working for y'all, so you've got to look at the morale of the employees, but at the same time, you have to provide discipline when you have to provide discipline. i hope you can find that balance quickly. i want to be supportive of that. the committee wants to be supportive. but i do have other concerns. one other concern is the pope's visit. when he comes down will coincide with the 70th anniversary of the united nations general assembly, which is a very busy time. how will the pope's visit potentially affect the number of foreign heads attending this year and u.s.ing this year and my second question is a little different. you want to build a $8 million

white house replica for training? >> yes. >> i have concerns about that. not that i don't want to be supportive, but i have concerns about $8 million for a replica white house. but talk to me about the pope first. >> with the pope's visit to, he's confirmed to come to philadelphia for the world meeting of families. we also are planning for new york and washington. in philadelphia alone, we expect upwards of 2.1 million people to attend those events. at the same time, in september at the same time, in september at the same time, in september of 2015, we anticipate -- or we will have the united nations general assembly and we expect 170 heads of state to come to that event. because it's the 70th anniversary of the u.n. it wouldn't surprise us if some

some of those heads of state traveled to philadelphia to view those events, so it's going to be very taxing to our agency, but we've already started meeting. the local field office there in philadelphia as well as washington and new york have already been working with our local partners. as well as with the vatican and other federal agencies to start to put together a good plan. we think, philadelphia's been designated an nnse. there is funding for that in philadelphia. as you know, sir, it's a two-year money, so we'll use some of the money left over from fiscal year 2015 to help us with this pope's visit. so, we're going to be prepared. lot of those 12-hour days with all of our agents and officers, we'll reach out to our department of homeland security partners, tsa and i.c.e. and coast guard for support. but we're well on our way to a good plan for the pope's visit. >> thank you. and the other question, we'll do it hopefully in the second round because my time's up.

thank you so much. >> thank you mr. chairman. director, thank you for being here today. you know, you've talked a little bit about this thorough review needs to be done. and a process needs to go through to let people go. if they're determined that they need to go. what are the steps? how long does this take? and it seems to me that if you don't have swift action it even builds more to this low morale and this morale of complacency that we hear about. and if it's not swift, you know almost what's the point? you never hear about it in the end. and when was the last time the secret service did fire somebody because of their actions? he was it cartagena or -- >> in the netherlands, there was an individual who was drinking on the trip and he has been removed as well is my understanding. >> how long did that process take to -- >> i would defer to our legal --

>> [ inaudible ]. >> we did the investigation ourselves. >> i'm surprised that these officers who drove drunk through a barricade haven't stood up and said we're resigning. what -- what do you do with them? if you don't let them go. do you have any -- do you trust them? where would you put them? >> well, as it is now, they're in nonsupervisory positions outside of their original offices. one assigned to the president's detail has been removed. the other to the -- was working in the washington field office. he's been removed. both have desk jobs at this time. nonsupervisory. and once the process goes through, then we'll have options towards removing their security clearance. if we remove their security clearance, then termination would be a factor. >> it seems like such a long and

drawn-out process. i know if we have problems with you know, a staffer here on the hill, that we have the ability to immediately let them go. and i'm wondering where all this comes from and we'll find out, i'm sure. through the committee, what the process is. but it's just amazing to me. and the low morale issue we hear about, i understand stressful jobs, too. you talk about maybe you're just not hearing your officers, but it's got to go deeper than that. there's got to be a culture there that you have to uncover that is contributing to this and with the low morale, how is that affecting staffing needs and people wanting to come work for the secret service? >> yes, but the morale, you're exactly right, sir. staffing is our primary concern. because we don't have the proper staffing, although we're working diligently to get back up to speed and thank you for the

funding here that we're building up our staffing pretty quickly here. we've added additional personnel in our hr department. we've brought in contractors to our hr department so we can build up this staffing and we're anticipating overreaching our goals in terms of hiring fiscal year '15 and that will have a direct impact on morale because their quality of life will be better. they won't have to have as many days canceled, won't have to work as many days overtime. the travel will be somewhat cut back because there will be more that we can use for this travel. but the most important thing is the training. when we get more staffing, we can get more people out to our training facility. already taken a big step in that regard with additional staffing. our quality of life, more training, i think that's going to help morale as well as the

accountability. when these types of ooechts occur, the accountability is critical. i would also say this is not unique to the secret service. the way that we're handling this particular incident. i don't believe other agencies under title 5, they can't terminate people at will either. is my understanding. i may be corrected on that. >> thank you very much. i want to see you succeed. i really do. we here at the committee want to do what we can to be helpful, but we can only do so much my making sure we provide the necessary funds and exercises that you need in training and all that kind of thing, but it's got to come from within and you've got to dig down and find the root of this problem. and i hope you succeed. the secret service has an immensely incredible job. very important job, as you know. one of the most important jobs we have out here with our forces. so good luck to you. we're here for you as well, but we do demand some accountability.

thank you. >> mr. young, our employees are at-will employees. their employees are not at-will employees. that's one of the differences. >> thank you mr. chairman. i knew you would find that answer. >> mr. fleishman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. director, thank you for your distinguished career in the secret service and for stepping up and taking over this agency at such a difficult time. when i was a young boy, i always looked up. i mean, the secret service, wow. that was it. i would just think about protecting the president and the important mission you all have. and i share the sentiments with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. we want you to succeed. this is something that is important for our country and it's a difficult time. we've heard about the different

problems that the individual agents have had. i just after listening to some of the comments, want to ask you this. at the fundamental base of any profession when someone is going through training, we heard from one of our colleagues in the military. i was trained in the profession of law. a great judge, our chairman. there are certain fundamentals that are imparted in the recruitment process and in the training process. you've inherited this, sir. i guess my question for you is how do we impart the values, the good inherent values of the secret service, to the recruits and bring that through the training process so that when an agent comes to the point of becoming an agent these issues are something that he or she would just stand up and say no to? i think that seems to be one of the fundamental problems we've inherited. i'd like your thoughts on that, sir. >> you're exactly right. first of all, in terms of our

hiring and recruiting process, it's a seven to nine-month process. everyone gets a polygraph, a background check. they're thoroughly checked out. then when we get them into our training, they are given classes on ethics, professionalism, and it's driven home. somewhere after that training is where we lose them and i think that's because of my leadership, our leadership, that somewhere we lose them where they forget those lessons learned and i think the only way we get get that back is my again, the accountability that we drive home so that people realize there are consequences individual behavior. >> i harken back to the different professions. there is continued training for those professionals who go through either annual or semiannual updates as to what's expected of them. is that going to be part of the process, sir? >> we do five-year updates to go back in their neighborhoods and make sure they're good citizens

and so on. we do continuously do training throughout their careers, but in many ways it comes to individual accountability. each of us, if you see someone in your presence not performing properly, we've got to step up individually and correct it. as well as of course the supervisors have to do it, but as an agency, we've just got to work together to try to get through this. >> yes, sir. when the question expect your report on the reviews of professional standards at the secret service as required by the confidence report to the fiscal 2015 homeland security appropriations act and as a follow-up to that, do you intend in that report, sir, to address concerns that have been raised on both sides today? >> i'm sure that will be addressed in that report. i don't have a date.

does anyone have -- near future, it's in the near future, but we'll give you a more definitive date when we conclude this hearing. >> i wish you every success and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you. >> thank you for yielding. i've been looking at some numbers over here while we were talking. my estimate, you have about 4,600 people in your agency who either carry a weapon or are eligible to carry a weapon. >> yes, sir. >> okay, so mr. stewart made a good example. you're not in the army, you're not in the military, but you have an armed force in your command, 4,600 armed men and women. the kind of responsibility that chiefs of police in major cities have. where they have that responsibility. the chain of command has to be rigid. maintain the kind of discipline

that is necessary to handle an armed force. just that simple. it's dangerous by its definition. it's a dangerous group of people. whether it be the houston police department or whether it be your force. okay. now, the concern we hear is that and let me say something. on the i.g. i think i know why you did that. because you want to make sure this is a clean investigation from the start. but having dealt with -- and i'm not criticizing any i.g.s here, it's also a place to put something to go away for a while and that could take a long time in an i.g. investigation before it becomes a current event again in washington, d.c., a lot can calm things down in that period of time. having that experience in our veteran's administration, some of the i.g. investigations and

the results of those investigations, they can be disappointing. so i don't want this to be a policy of, well we've got a problem, punish the a.g. bit the time they get their job done everybody will have forget benn the problem. because i'm not going to forget about the problem. and i don't think anybody up here's going to forget about the problem. and the i.g. i hope has been told they better build a fire under themselves and get us a response very promptly as to what's going on here. but in reality, you're the head, you've got people above you in the chain, but you are in charge of these armed people. and there has to be a strict chain of command. the managers of those people should be all over today. if these two people were senior management, you should be all over them today. and i realize you've got union contracts.

you've got, you know, civil service issues and all those issues protect worker, sometimes to the detriment of the agency. the it's a weakness that i find appalling. one of the things that if i could wave a magic wand in washington, the ability not to terminate someone for dangers or bad behavior immediately, quite honestly, i think is unacceptable. but it's not your fault. that is the way it is. i recognize that. but you're in command. you're the two-star. you've got a division under your command. and you've got to make sure that everyone in your command and control structure are meeting that obligation. if everybody's just sitting around and watching me talk on television to figure out what it is, you know, i could chew their ass, too. but that's not my job. that's your job and the people in the chain of command.

it needs to be done whether the i.g. is making a recommendation or not. i think it's a barrel push, bare bump. the question is you're both holding badges. get out of your car, walk through the crime scene and say, what's going on, instead of being so arrogant as to think you can intrude into a crime scene. that's another issue. if they were stone sober. that's an issue you have to ask them. are you such a big shot in this agency that you think you can just drive right through one of my taped off crime scenes? that should be a something that they get called for. if they were stone sober. they were arrogant. >> yes, sir. >> and part of it you can have in an agency like you have, is is people who think they don't put their pants on one leg at a time like everybody else. they're supermen, so they can act like supermen. they can't act like supermen and

that's what we are really all talking about up here. your job right now and you know, some of these outside reporters told the president not to hire inside the agency. and so, you've got a big responsibility because you've got 30 years of friends, but you've also got to start jerking a knot in their tail. >> yes, sir. >> and that's your job. and i believe -- when i met you i believed you're the guy who can do it. i still believe you're the guy who can do it. but recognize what your authority is and exercise that authority. >> yes, sir. >> that's not a question. i just wanted to say that. because i think sometimes we get so off acting like bureaucrats, we forget you are a dangerous bunch of people. >> yes, sir. >> as dangerous people you have to be within a set chain of command regulated from top to bottom. or something dangerous is going to happen.

>> yes, sir. >> that's what we're all worry ed about up here. we don't want anybody under your tutelage to get hurt or to allow someone that they're supposed to be protecting to get hurt. whether it's the president, the pope, people at the u.n. or whatever. those are big responsibilities. and i think your chain of command is haywire. work on that. >> yes, sir. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and let me just associate myself with comments made by the chairman. i, too, believe that you're up to the task and can do it. last december, the protective mission panel made a number of recommendations for staffing, training leadership and protective enhancements at the white house complex. and i have a few questions that are related to that. first, what can you tell us about your schedule for fulfilling those recommendations, particularly with regards to the improvements

to the replacement of the white house fence, and is the budget request sufficient for allowing you to fulfill all of the panel's recommendations as expeditiously as possible? >> first of all, the budget request is definitely a good step forward. and the recommendations from the blue-ribbon panel, the ones that we can do short term have been completed such as adding additional posts or some enhancements on security around the complex. the ones that are more longer term as you mentioned, the fence, we are in the process of the -- by the end of april, i should get some options to choose what is the best new fence or new structure to protect the complex there. and with that, the national parks service, we'll make a decision on where to go with that. but even after we pick and choose that option, then we go into a design stage. about six months. then a procurement stage. maybe two months. then a construction phase. so it's still going to take

almost a year and a half to complete that project. however, we have been testing at our facility some interim measure for fences. putting something on top of the fence that will deter people from climbing and will prevent people from getting over in a timely manner. we recognize that's a long time to wait, a year and a half, so we're looking at an interim measure to go in place this summer to get the proper approvals. >> and the mission panel also recommended that next director, which would be you, conduct an honest top to bottom reassessment of the agency and that he and this is a quote, move the service forward into an era and drive change in the organization. what are you putting into place to help you look more broadly at the agency's practices, processes and activities to identify places where improvements are needed so that the initial training of new

agents isn't lost and senior members help to reinforce the ethics and the training that young agents get rather than whatever's happening today. >> overall, we have begun a restructuring of the executive staff. first of all, with bringing in some new staff members, with new ideas and reinvigorate some of the things we want to do in the agency. but additionally, we're empowering and elevating our civilian professional subject matter experts. just as an example, traditionally, the secret service has had a director and deputy director. we now have and it should go out this week a vacancy announcement for a chief operating officer who will be on the same level as that deputy director. that chief operating officer will ensure that the business is run correctly, efficiently and we've put under this chief

operating officer positions that have traditionally been agent-held positions. we're using, for example, the chief financial officer. traditionally, the chief financial officer has answered to an agent. now we've elevated the chief financial officer so that we do a better job in the budget world. same with our technology. typically, that directorate was run by an agent. we've moved our engineer chief technology officer now to run that directorate. we have a nationwide search right now for a civilian private sector c.i.o., chief information officer. so we want to leverage their experiences, their professionalism, their subject matter expertise in our agency. additionally additionally, on the operational side, you mentioned the training piece of it. previous to me being named the director, hr and training director was one. one directorate. i've split them out to provide focus on training as well as the hiring process.

but specifically, the training. now, we're spending a lot of time ensuring that people get the right integrated training they need. since september 19th, uniformed division training has been increased 110%. the agent training has increased 78%. that's -- we've got to sustain that though. and that's why we've got this new directorate for training, so taken that level of training that our people -- they need. they need that training. so in general to your question, we're restructuring the management of the agency. >> i see that my time is up. mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. cuellar? >> thank you so much, mr. chairman. the department of homeland inspector general and i think the professional reinforcement

group have come up with different recommendations. i know you implemented some of them, but have you implemented all of them or are they still missing? what still needs to be done on those recommendations? >> to protect the mission? >> yes. >> the longer term projects for example you mentioned earlier, the training facility. out at our belsville training facility. the mock white house. mockup of the white house. we feel that's important. right now we use a -- we train on a parking lot basically. we put up a make fence -- makeshift fence and walk off the distance between the fence at the white house and the actual house itself. and we don't have on that parking lot, we don't have the bushes, we don't have the fountains, we don't get a realistic look at the white house. even our canine. they're responding on hard surfaces rather than grass. we think it's important to have a true replica of what the white house is so we can do a better

job of this integrated training between our uniform division officers, our agents, and our tactical teams. when i mentioned tactical teams, i think special forces before they go out to do some kind of operation, typically they have a model built first so they know exactly what they're getting into. and that's where we would like to be. we'd like to have a good mockup of the white house where we can train i think more efficiently. >> on this -- when you look at the secret service, you've got to look at the employees there are there and the employees that will be there. that is, the -- hopefully, a diverse hiring process. what -- how will you focus on the folks and i know you've gone over this, but just summarize it, on the employees there and on the new hires that will be coming in? to make sure you don't compound the problem. >> there is of course continual training. you mean the problems we've had recently, the march -- >> well, the problems that have been going on for years.

>> yes, i'm sorry. for years. we have continuous training. we hit it very hard in our first seven months of training when they first are hired. as well as that background check we do. we look for any deficiencies in their background and the polygraph. we lose a considerable number of candidates because of the polygraph. we're looking for the people with the best character and then we go through that background check. so we think we're hiring very good people. then we go through that seven-month training that the iktz and professionalism is stressed as well as the operational piece of our job. although we continue to train and we continue to give classes on ethics and professionalism throughout their career, i think as much as anything, it has to be how do we react to these mishaps, this misconduct. how do we hold people accountable? i think that's the piece that maybe missing and that's the

piece that it's my responsibility to ensure we hold people accountable. >> you lose a lot of people by attrition? >> we lose a lot of people by attrition. more recently, i'd say because of their quality of life. you know, when you're working 12 hours a day and you think you have the next day off and it's canceled, the amount of travel they do and the stress that we're under. i know folks don't want to hear us talk about -- >> do you lose some -- i'm sorry. apologize, sir. do you lose them to other agencies or do you lose them to the private sector? >> we lose them to other agencies. but what i've done since i've come here is, for example, uniform division. i've encouraged and insisted that these uniformed division officers who want to roll over to special agent positions, we've got to make that happen. we can't do it all at once. but we've got to make more of an effort to let them become agents. because they want to experience that side of our agency. and if we don't do that and we've invested a lot of money in

them, if we don't do that they're going to go to other federal agencies or the private sector. we don't want to lose them after all of the investment that all of you have supported. >> do you in the hiring process -- and i don't know how diverse your workforce is. but is do you work with historically black universities or hispanics institutions to expand the pull? you will have a small pool and then as you vet them you lose a lot if you expand the pool do you work with those universities to help expand the pools to look for potential recruits? >> part of this i will have to go on memory. i know we did and over the last few years our overall hiring process has been limited but now we are back on track and we are going to go out to those colleges. this fiscal year '16 we asked for additional money so we can have these hiring fairs at these universities and in the military as well as to get a good diverse group of people that we can

hire. >> the secret service has a tradition. how do you expect to turn this around? we have heard other folks, how do we take your new initiative to say this will be different this time? >> it has to start with building that trust and part of that building that trust is how we hold people accountable. that people's views matter, that we are listening to whether you are a brand new agent, officer or professional that we are listening to your concerns. if we don't act on their concerns and show their concerns are of value then they are going to lose interest and we are going to have discipline problems. but we have to do a better job of communicating, mentoring, teaching and each of us whether a supervisor or not have to take

responsibility to ensure that these types of events don't happen. >> i wish you the best. thank you. >> director clancy, you mentioned in your statement zero based budgeting. and one of the mission of the panel recommendations is the need for a new budget structure that is zero based or mission based as subject matter. how is this different from the budget presented in your fiscal year 2016 quest? what type of budget reform is being considered? how will it be implemented? how might a new type of budget drive future funding needs? have you already identified gaps in funding based on initial reviews of the budget? i can go back over those if you need. >> thanks mr. chairman.

this is fiscal year '16 budget is one that i inherited. i think it is a good budget, definitely a step forward in a positive direction. we are in the process now of identifying from top to bottom where are our deficiencies and that zero based budgeting which our chief financial officer has experience in that from a previous position in another agency. we are going directorate by directorate to see what the needs are so we can have our people best trained, staffed and get them the proper equipment. we are compiling a list of those priorities and things that we really need. >> my friend mr. cuellar has talked to me about budgeting in the great state of texas and when you have mission when we know you are defining the way it will cost to do a certain

mission then we can see where the failures are in each mission. and that's what you seem to be proposing which gives us a clearer picture, gives you a clearer picture and us a clearer picture of how the agency is functioning. i like the idea. i hope you do well. >> thank you. we are constantly looking at the emerging threats as we talked before in your office about what we need to address. that's all part of this budget process. >> just quickly i would like to follow up on the zero based budget. can you tell me what the timeline is for completing that kind of analysis? >> initially we were hoping that we might get into my chief

financial officer just gave me an answer here. 2017 you can expect a mission-driven program to identify budget. so by 2017 we will be well on our way to a zero-based budgeting. >> great. what are the central recommendations was to hire an additional 200 uniformed division officers and to increase the number of protective division agents by 85. the panel described this new hiring as an interim step while the agency does the necessary analysis to match requirements with mission needs. i'm also aware that the secret service has struggled in recent years to keep attrition from outpacing hiring and that you have recently taken steps to address that. so my question is are you satisfied that you have resolved the shortcomings in the hiring process and do you anticipate that the secret service will be

able to meet hiring goals for fy '16? >> yes. in short, yes. with regards to the protective mission panel i'm recommending 85 agents come to the president's detail. as of this date we have 30 reassigned to the president's detail. now thanks to your good work with the continuing resolution we can transfer more people into washington so that we can fulfill that 85 number requirement. and uniform division we are working with your staffs to look for retention measures that may allow us to keep people that are close to retirement or may be looking at other opportunities. the retention piece is important to us as well. our hiring we are going to surpass our goals. initially we planned to have six classes of agents. now we are anticipating nine agent classes and eight uniformed division.

>> okay. my time is up. >> mr. cuellar. >> no further questions. we want to work with the director. thank you. >> thank you. the budget once again proposes to eliminate $8.4 million for support of missing and exploited children investigations including funding that has supported activities at the national center for missing and exploited children. the justification materials indicate that forensic support for missing and exploited children investigations will continue to be provided through the agencies' field offices.

the secret service has a long standing partnership with the national center for missing and exploited children going back decades. while i understand there may be a need to prioritize funding for activities within the agency, it seems to me that we should be wary of weakening that partnership. what would be the specific impacts on the national center if we were to appropriate no funding for the support program in fy '16 and what are the benefits to the secret service from the existing partnership? >> we understand this is a pass through grant to the department of justice. this is a very important mission to us. it has so many good things such an important job. we offer a lot to our local law enforcement partners with the forensics that we can do and relationship building, as well. we can bring a lot to the table to try to help with this very

important mission. we are very thankful to be able to do this moving forward if we can. if no one else has questions then i guess we'll end this hearing. i want to say that this has been a tough day for you. it's all a learning process. once again, we are a part of that chain and we are willing to help. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> here are some of our featured programs for this weekend on the c-span networks. on book tv saturday at 10:00 p.m. eastern on after words eric foner on the efforts of abolitionists to help fugitive slaves. sunday night at 10:00 on the rise and leadership of isis in

the middle east. and saturday morning starting at 9:00 eastern and throughout the day on c-span 3 american history tv joins historians and authors at the abraham lincoln symposium live from fords theater. and sunday at 6:00 a visit to the national museum on health and medicine to view items. find our complete television schedule at c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. call us. e-mail us at comments@c-span.org or send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. defense secretary ashton carter said today that president obama would veto a proposed house defense budget if it uses emergency war funds to avoid

defense spending limits. that house arms services hearing is next. and then a senate panel investigates inaccurate federal records including social security death records. later remarks from rand paul. on the next washington journal a look at u.s. military efforts in iraq and syria and the president's request for the use of military force against isis. we will sit down with house armed services committee member rick larsson of washington. utah congressman chris stewart of the intelligence committee will discuss nuclear negotiations with iran as this month's deal deadline approaches. those conversations plus your calls, tweets and e-mails starting live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. defense secretary ashton carter and martin dempsey took

questions about the pentagon's budget, use of force against isis and u.s. relations with russia and iran and testified before the house armed services committee. before we ask unanimous consent that noncommittee members if any be allowed to participate in today's hearing, after all committee members have had an opportunity to ask questions. and by way of explanation, i might say that one of our committee members has tentatively been appointed to another committee. and his replacement has tentatively been named, mr. russell from oklahoma. but it has not been ratified by

the republican conference yet. so mr. russell is with us today but without objection noncommittee members will be recognized at the appropriate time. let me welcome our distinguished witnesses to today's hearing. secretary carter, thank you for being with us. you have been in this room in a variety of capacities over the years. but this is the first hearing since you were confirmed as secretary of defense roughly a month ago. and we are very glad to have you with us. general dempsey, thank you for being here. and i want to say again, all the committee members appreciated your participation in our retreat about a month ago at annapolis. the fact that you would take

time to come out there, meet with us, and discuss some of the challenges we face was extremely helpful, and meant a lot, and we are very grateful for that. for being here today, and for your many years of service. as y'all know, this committee has done things a little differently this year. rather than start out talking about the president's budget we have spent the last two months looking at the national security challenges that we face around the world. and i think that has put us in a better place to be able to look at the administration's budget request, and a number of the other issues that are before us. i would say for me, one of the key takeaways from the last two months has been the growing threat to our technological superiority. we have had classified and unclassified sessions on that. and to me, it is one of the key challenges we face. and as i mentioned, mr. secretary, as i was perusing

my bookshelf i came upon a very brilliant addition called keeping the edge, managing defense for the future. edited by one ashton b. carter, and john p. white. and there is a particular chapter talking about the technological edge that i had made some notes in, where essentially it said two of the things we have to do to maintain the technological edge, is to align our defense procurement practices with market forces, and secondly, to remain the world's fastest integrator of commercial technology in to defense systems. i kind of wonder how we're doing these days. i think that's very relevant for today. i just had a meeting with one of the leading defense thinkers last week that talked about the challenge of integrating commercial technology into defense articles, and how we are not doing as well as we should.

as you know, reform is a major priority of this committee on both sides of the aisle. mr. smith certainly shares my concern, as do, i think all the members here. and so that's one of the topics that we want to talk with you about. there are many others, including the president's request for the authorization to use military force against isis. we've had several sessions on that with a lot of concerns with the wording that has come to us from the administration. i know members will want to ask questions about that and other topics. before we get to those, let me yield to the distinguished ranking member sit-in for today, the distinguished gentle lady from california, ms. davis, for any comments she'd like to make. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. secretary carter, chairman dempsey, thank you both for being here today. i want to first send our best

wishes to the ranking member adam smith. we all know that he's been through a difficult time. and we wish him a quick and a speedy recovery. i want to ask unanimous consent that we put his remarks and his opening statement into the record. >> without objection. >> chairman dempsey, this will likely be your last time before this committee. you're probably going to find some excuse to get you back, i'm sure. while i'm sure you aren't too broken up about not coming back, we will surely miss your thoughtful discourse and your care of our young service members. thank you very much. sir, for your service. and secretary carter, i bet you'd rather have waited until after the ndaa was complete before coming up and speaking with us. but i think that it presents a great opportunity to help shape the budget during a very difficult time, and your expertise, your insights, are going to be very well received. thank you, sir. sequestration is obviously at the forefront of everyone's minds. but we must also remember that

we are still engaged in two conflicts facing unconditional threats halfway around the world, while still battling suicide, sexual assault, and retention and recruitment issues here at home. but these are only a few of the discussion points that we face when looking at the budget. we have to look beyond just defense to the entire budget and we realize that cuts to other portions of the federal budget will affect the department of defense more often than we realize. it was just yesterday that the secretaries and the service chiefs spoke about of those who consider going in to the service, roughly 75% do not meet the requirements today. and we have to be mindful of that, and maybe that's what we call a whole government approach to that particular issue. we must also ensure that this budget is in line with our national security strategy. we cannot address conflicts around the globe if our strategy is not in line with current threats and our budgetary

situation. we should not be finding piecemeal ways of fixing these problems in our budget, but we really do, and i know the chairman believes in this, rolling all of our sleeves up, and working to the in addressing sequestration as a whole. i look forward to both of your statements here today, as well as the opportunity for an honest and open dialogue. thank you, again. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank the gentle lady. mr. secretary, again, thank you for being here. without objection your full written statement will be made part of the record. please proceed. >> thank you very much chairman thornberry. thank you, congresswoman davis. thank you also. and all the members of the committee, thank you for having me here today. it's a pleasure to be with you once again. i've had the opportunity to speak with many of you before but this is my first time testifying as the secretary of defense. and i know that all of you, all of you on the committee, including the 23 veterans, on this committee, share the same

devotion that i do to what is the finest fighting force the world has ever known. and to the defense of our great country. and i thank you for that. and i hope that my tenure as secretary of defense will be marked by partnership with you on their behalf. i'm here to present the president's budget for the department of defense for this year, fiscal year 2016, and i strongly support the president in requesting a defense budget above the artificial caps of the budget control act. that is above so-called sequester levels. next year, and in the years thereafter. i also share the president's desire to find a way forward that upholds the fundamental principles behind the bipartisan budget act of 2013. and i support his commitment to

vetoing any bill that locks in sequestration, because to do otherwise would be both unsafe, and wasteful. the administration's therefore proposing to increase the defense budget in line with the projections submitted to congress last year. halting the decline in defense spending imposed by the budget control act while giving us the resources we need to execute our nation's defense strategy. as the chairman noted, strategy comes first. and that's the appropriate way to think about the budget. but, and i want to be very clear about this, under sequestration, which is set to return in 197 days, our nation will be less secure. and mr. chairman, as you and your colleagues have said, sequestration threatens our military's readiness. it threatens the size of our war fighting forces, the capabilities of our air and naval fleets, and ultimately, the lives of our men and women in uniform.

and the joint chiefs have said the same. and the great tragedy is that this corrosive damage to our national security is not a result of objective factors, logic, reason, instead sequester is purely the fallout of political gridlock. its purpose was to compel prudent compromise on our long-term fiscal challenges. a compromise that never came. and this has been compounded in recent years, because the defense department has suffered a double whammy. the worst of both worlds. that has coupled mindless sequestration with constraints on our ability to reform. we need your help with both. and i know that chairman thornberry, ranking member smith, and others on this committee, are as dedicated to

reform as i am. and i appreciate the -- your dedication to it, and the opportunity to work with you. because we at the pentagon can and we must do better at getting value for the defense dollar. there are significant savings to be found across dod, and we're committed to pursuing them. but at the same time, i have to note that in the past several years, painful, but necessary reforms proposed by dod, reforms involving elimination of overhead, and unneeded infrastructure, retirement of older systems, and reasonable adjustments in compensation have been denied by congress at the same time that sequestration has loomed. if confronted with sequestration level budgets and continued obstacles to reform i do not believe that we can simply keep making incremental cuts. we would have to change the shape and not just the size, of our military. significantly impacting parts of

our defense strategy. we cannot meet sequester with further half measures. as secretary of defense i will not send troops in to a fight with outdated equipment, inadequate readiness, or ineffective doctrine. but everything else is on the table. including parts of our budget that have long been considered inviolate. this may lead to decisions that no americans, including members of congress, want us to make. now i'm not afraid to ask the difficult questions. but if we're stuck with sequestration's budget cuts over the long-term, our entire nation will have to live with the answers. so instead of sequestration, i urge you to embrace the alternative. the alternative. building the force of the future. powerful enough to underwrite our strategy.

equipped with boldly new technology as the chairman stressed. leading in domains like cyber and space. being lean and efficient throughout the enterprise. showing resolve to friends and potential foes alike and attracting and retaining the best americans to our mission. americans like elite cyber warriors i met last week when i visited our cyber command. that's the alternative that we can have without sequestration. so mr. chairman, the world in 2014 was more complicated than anyone could have predicted. given today's security environment, the president's proposed increase in defense spending over last year's budget is responsible, prudent, and essential for providing our troops what they need and what they fully deserve. thank you, and i look forward to your questions.

>> thank you, sir. general dempsey i'm not quite ready to let you go so i'm not going to talk about this being one of your last hearings. but thank you for being here, and please make any oral comments you'd like to make. >> thank you, chairman, congresswoman davis, distinguished members of the committee, i appreciate the opportunity to provide you an update on our armed forces, and to discuss the defense budget for 2016. and i will add it has been a rare privilege to have represented the armed forces of the united states, the men and women who serve around the world, before this committee to live up to our article 1, section 8 responsibility together. and so if this is my last hearing, i thank you for the opportunity and if it's not, until we meet again. i'd ask you, chairman, to submit my written statement for the record and i'll defer the many -- i'll defer mention in my opening statement of the many security challenges we face because i'm quite confident they

will be addressed in questions. but i will say the global security environment is as uncertain as i've seen in my 40 years of service. and, we're at a point where our national aspirations are at risk of exceeding our available resources. we have heard the congress loud and clear as it has challenged us to become more efficient and to determine the minimum essential requirements we need to do what the nation asks us to do. and pb 16 is actually that answer. in my judgment this budget represents a responsible combination of capability, capacity, and readiness. it's what we need to remain at the bottom edge of manageable risk against our national security strategy. there is no slack. i've been here for four years now, and we've watched our budget authority decline. i'm reporting to you today there

is no slack, no margin left for error, nor for response to strategic surprise. funding lower than pb-16 and a lack of flexibility to make the internal reforms that we need to make will put us in a situation where we'll have to adjust our national security strategy. that doesn't mean it disappears in its entirety but we will have to make some adjustments to the way we do business. you may decide that's a good thing. i will certainly be willing to have that conversation with you. for the past 25 years the united states military has secured the global commons, we've deterred adversaries, we've reassured our allies and we've responded to crises and to conflict principally by maintaining our presence abroad. it's been our strategy to shape the international environment by our forward presence and by building relationships with regional partners. in general terms, one third of our force is forward deployed. one-third has just returned. and the other third is preparing to go. of necessity, even at that,

there have been certain capabilities who actually operate half the time deployed and half the time back at home. and this, as you know, puts a significant strain on the men and women and their families who serve in those particular specialties. sequestration will fundamentally and significantly change the way we deploy the force, and the way we shape the security environment. we will be at the end of the day, if sequestration is imposed, 20% smaller, and our forward presence will be reduced by more than a third. we'll have less influence, and we will be less responsive. conflict will take longer to resolve, and will create more casualties, and cost more. in an age when we are less certain about what will happen next. but i think we would agree quite certainly that it will happen more quickly, we will be further away, and less ready than we need to be. simply stated, sequestration will result in a dramatic change

in how we protect our nation, and how we promote our national security interests. mr. chairman, members of this committee, our men and women in uniform are performing around the globe with extraordinary courage, character, and professionalism. we owe them and their families clarity, and importantly, predictability on everything from policy to compensation, health care, equipment training, and readiness. settling down uncertainty in our decision making processes, and getting us out of the cycle that we've been in, which has been one year at a time, will help us keep the right people, which after all is our decisive edge as a nation in our all-volunteer force. and we will be able to maintain the military that the american people deserve and frankly expect. i'm grateful for the continued support to our men and women in uniform from this committee and from the congress of the united states and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, sir.

i might also note that we have mr. michael mccord the comptroller of the department who is available with us to answer questions, and mr. mccord i might just warn you that audit came up several times yesterday with the service chiefs, and if somebody else doesn't ask about it, i'm going to at the end, because there is concern that some of the defense white agencies are going to be the holdup, rather than the services. and we'll get into that as appropriate. mr. secretary, i very much appreciate your willingness to work with us and the senate on various reform issues. i think you make excellent points about the need to find greater efficiency in the department. but -- and again, thinking back to what you wrote 15 years ago, as the chairman just said our security environment is incredibly more complicated than we could have imagined in the year 2000 when you wrote those words. and so it seems to me that even more than efficiency, some sort

of reform, and especially reform in how we acquire goods and services, is needed to make the department more agile. because there's no way we're going to predict what's happening, and if we -- if it takes us 20 years to field a new system, there is no way we will be up with technology, or meeting the threat, so the need for agility is even a higher priority, in my mind, than the need for efficiency. do you have any comments about how that interplays? >> i think that's very wise. it's not just about saving money. if we can't keep up with the pace at which technology is changing in the world, as a whole, and we can't turn technological corners faster than a typical program duration now, in the department of defense, which lasts years and years and years, we're not going to be the most modern military. so it's not just a matter of

saving money. it's a matter of being the best. and the word agility is a perfect one. back when that was written, it was even apparent then, 15 years ago, that the era in which all the technology of consequence defense was developed within the department of defense, and within the united states, it was even apparent then that that era was coming to an end. now, a lot of technology, of vital importance to defense, is out there in the world. we need to be the fastest, and the first to have it in order to keep up with and keep ahead of all our opponents. so i couldn't agree with you more. >> and let me ask about one other area of reform. a number of people are concerned about the reductions in end strength for especially the army and the marine corps and yet as one looks at the pentagon, you

haven't seen commensurate reductions in the number of folks who work there. so there is interest, including from a number of people who've come out of the obama administration to streamline the bureaucracy in the department, and thin out some of those layers that add cost and time to -- that affect this agility we were talking about. is that something that is on your radar screen? and is there a chance we could work to the to give you some authorities to move folks around, but have the effect of thinning that out, and lowering the bureaucratic hassles? >> i would very much welcome and appreciate your help in that regard. now a lot of that is on us. we need to do it ourselves. but in many cases, we would benefit from legislative help. but if, as you use the example of end strength, if all we're doing in a period of straightened budget is shrinking

tooth and the tail remains the same size, that's an unjustifiable way of managing the place. so we've got to got to got to get out these headquarters, these offices that were set up once upon a time, seemed like a good idea at the time, but have lost their purpose, or lost their way, or lost their vitality, and we need to be aggressive with ourselves and rigorous. i would very much appreciate your help in working with you, and i don't know who those people are that you said but i associate myself with them. >> well i think there's interest on that on both sides of the aisle again. mr. chairman let me just ask you one question, when you were kind enough to be with us at our retreat you said, and you said we could quote you that the president's budget level was the lower ragged edge of what it takes to defend the country. the president has requested $561 billion in base, $51 billion in

oco for a total of $612 billion when you put it together. is it still your opinion that that is the bare minimum. i don't want to put words in your mouth. but how would you describe how that that figure, $612 billion, meets the national security needs of the country for the coming fiscal year? >> thank you, chairman. as i mentioned at our retreat, or your retreat where you were kind enough to invite me, the strategy that we developed in 2012, if you recall, we submitted a budget to support that strategy in 2012, and then in '13 and '14 and the budget has been continually pushing down from that level at which we said we could achieve our strategy at moderate risk. we're now at the point where the risk to the strategy has increased. and what we're reporting to you, as a group of joint chiefs, is

that we've reached the edge of that. so anything below that level of budget support, however you choose to knit it together for the total amount, will cause us to have to adjust our strategy. it's as simple as that. some of those adjustments will not be life altering if you will, or security environment altering, and some very well may be. >> thank you. ms. davis? >> thank you, mr. chairman. in line i think with the discussion that we're going to have today, could you go back and be a little more specific in terms not just the authorities that you need, but flexibility? how can we get that best value for the dollar that you were suggesting? what is it that -- what is it that the congress has denied, actually in terms of that

flexibility in the past, and what would you like to see? how can we best work together on that? >> well, thank you, and i'll give you some examples. and i realize this is not a popularity contest. in terms of these proposals. because they're tough things to do. and that's why there's been debate over them. >> that's why you're here. >> i think that's why we're all here. we have to do what we have to do for the country's defense. but it is tough. and it falls in to three categories. and i'm using the categories that i've learned from the chairman. one is in the acquisition area. where we need to have the discipline to stop things that aren't working. to not pretend that something is going to work when it isn't. just to keep going. that we can afford it when we can't. just to keep going. then we have to stop it and all the money on it has been wasted. so in the acquisition area -- >> is there one particular area that when you make that

statement, that you're thinking about, that needs work? >> yeah, i -- well, there's one is the process and the paperwork which is ridiculous. and which leads to these perverse results. because the system can sort of keep suggesting to itself that it's doing the right thing. and the other thing is the incentives that we -- remember we don't do anything in the pentagon -- we don't build anything in the pentagon. we contract out to our excellent industry. so we depend upon our industry and the incentives that we give them that to provide what we need that are included in contracts and other relationship is another place that's critical to think about in the area of acquisition. then there's compensation. how we compensate our troops, our retirees, families, all very important, very sensitive issues. but important part of our spending. and then a third is the one the chairman was mentioning a moment

ago which is kind of the overhead. the people overhead. the facilities infrastructure, and i know base closings are not a wonderfully popular thing either. but at some point, when the budget comes down, you need to make sure that you're taking away the tail the same way you took away the tooth. i organize in those three categories which i think are the same ones that the chairman does. but these are difficult chases, and no question about it, we can only do these things when we do them together. i know they're hard. >> and general, did you want to comment on that, as well? and flexibility for the service chiefs, i know that there's some concern that goldwater nichols has created some constraints. perhaps it's time to address those. >> speaking as a former service chief, the service chiefs have been uniquely limited in their influence over the acquisition process.

in terms of identifying requirements, and then it passes into the acquisition community. neither side is trying to in some way limit the other. but there's no kind of life cycle responsibility. so the -- so the requirements grow, and the procurement time lines stretch. and i'll just give you an example. many of you in this room probably have an iphone. iphone 6, i would imagine. the first iphone was introduced to the market eight years ago. so in eight years, we've got six variations of iphone. that's not the way we deliver our information technologies. >> thank you. thank you mr. chairman. go on to the others. >> thank the gentle lady. >> mr. chairman, thank you. general dempsey thank you for your service. and so secretary carter. welcome to this hearing today. and your new leadership of our nation and our military, and i would like to start with a article that i read back in december this year, and then get to a question.

the article is titled down the opium rat hole. if you spent 13 years pounding money down a rat hole with little to show for it, you might wake up one morning and say, hey, i'm going to start pounding money down the rat hole. unfortunately, the united states government does not think that way. and when that rat hole is afghanistan, the billions are essentially without end. mr. secretary, when i listen to all the threats to a strong military, and i have camp lejeune down in my district, and i think about all the problems we are faced with, it brings me to this question. we have nine years of an obligation, an agreement, that was not voted on by the congress and of course the president did not have to bring it to the congress, i understand that, so

i'm not being critical, but here we are in a almost desperate situation to fund our military so we will have an adequate and strong military and then you read articles like this, and there's one more that came out this week that says this is from john sotko by the way, afghanistan cannot manage billions in aid, u.s. inspector finds. there are people on this committee in both parties, and we have met unofficial i with mr. sopko for two years and listened to him, and i'm going to ask you and mr. mccord how in the world can we, for nine more years, continue to spend millions and billions of dollars in a country that we have very little accountability? and we had general campbell here last week, and i was very

impressed with him. let me take that clear. but the point is that we will continue to put money down the rat hole, and never say that it's time to stop putting money in the rat hole. why in the world can't an administration, and i'd say this if you were secretary of defense with george bush, or the next president, whoever it might be, why can't people like yourself, sir, be honest with the american people who pay our salaries, who pay for the military, and say you know what? we need to rethink where we are. we need to have a benchmark. we need to say in three years, if this has not been accomplished, and we have not reduced the waste of money, then we might need to change our policy and start pulling out. i want to ask you, sir, with mr. mccord there are you going to bring in john someko and these other people to tell you

about the absolutely waste of money in afghanistan that is taking away from us rebuilding our military? >> well thank you for that, congressman, and you're very straightforward question, i'll try to give you a very traitforward and honest answer there. kind of two parts to it. one is, the effectiveness, and the controls on contingency contracting. in afghanistan, and before that in iraq. there were and persist issues with contingency contracting going back years now. i know that mr. sopko tracks them. and i remember when i was under secretary for acquisition technology and logistics the difficulties in teaching our people to do contingency contracting in such a way that there were always that contracts

were awarded properly. that they were overseen when they were being executed. and that was not happening. in afghanistan in many places. i think the department's improved over these long years of war. but it's not perfect yet by any means. it's not where it should be. so i want to associate myself with your argument i guess indirectly, and mr. sopko's we've got some work to do. on the strategic question of afghanistan, i would say the following. it, to me, rat hole doesn't quite capture where we are in afghanistan. i certainly hope that where we are in afghanistan is that we are going to be able over the next couple of years to increasingly turn the security, the basic security for that place over to the afghan security forces that we have build in such a way that it doesn't -- that country doesn't pose a threat to the united states anymore. which is the reason we got in there in the first place. now that's a difficult task. general campbell is doing it, as well as anyone can possibly

expect, and we have in president ghani in afghanistan one new ingredient, which is a very bright one. this is somebody who, when i visited in my first week in office, kabul, the first thing he said to me was, would you please go back and thank americans, and especially thank american service members, for what they've done here and are doing here in afghanistan. that's a whole different atmosphere. so in partnership with him over the next couple of years, our objective is to stand the afghan security forces up on their feet so that we can have a very small presence there in the future, not the big force we've had, and leave it in a circumstance where it doesn't threaten us anymore. that's the plan we have. you can never say a plan is 100% probability of being successful

but i think this has a high probability of being successful. ghani is an important new ingredient in that. >> thank you. >> gentlemen, we've got the largest committee in congress. in order to get everybody a chance to ask questions, i'm going to ask members to limit their time to five minutes. if at any point you need to supplement and add because if a question lasts three minutes and you've got two minutes to answer it it puts you in a tough position. so feel free to add any that you need to at the end. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary carter and general dempsey, thank you for coming today. secretary carter it was a pleasure working with you in the past, and i'm glad to have you back. as i mentioned in the service chiefs, and secretary's hearing yesterday i appreciate your sharing the dangers of sequestration. it is a short-sighted policy that undermines our nation's ability to project power, work with our friends and allies, and

protect our citizens and i hope that our congress can show the courage to repeal this bill. now while our nation faces challenges across the globe we have made strategic choices in developing a focus in the asia pacific region. mr. secretary, it is my understanding that in many areas such as infrastructure, maintenance, when we take cuts today we end up paying far more in the future. can you talk about areas where we would likely see increased future cost, if sequestration cuts funding today? and if you could make your answers brief, please. >> i'll give you simple example of why sequestration is wasteful, as well as damaging to security. and that is when we are forced by the suddenness of it to curtail the number of things of the overall size of our procurement in such a way that

we drive up unit costs. or we prolong the duration of a contract. you all know that a short-term contract you pay more for than a long-term contract. that's the kind of thing we're driven to by sequester. and it's obvious to anybody who's contracted with somebody to get their lawn mowed or something, that that is economically inefficient. so it's more than strategically dangerous as the chairman rightly said, it's wasteful. which is not what people want. >> thank you very much. also i have another question for you. can you comment on how broadly speaking the fy-16 budget supports the strategic rebalance to the asia pacific region? how important was removal of the restrictions on the government of japan funds for the relocation of the marines in last year's defense bill? and also, are you looking to activate the guam oversight

committee, which i felt was a helpful internet tool to the dod. and how is revision of the u.s./japan defense guidelines going and how important is that to our bilateral relationship with japan? >> well, thank you. just the asia pacific so-called rebalance is central to our strategy. that's where half of humanity lives. that's where half of the economy of the world is. and you know, strategy means keeping everything in perspective. and while we're -- while we're focused as we need to be on isil, afghanistan, which is already mentioned, ukraine, and other trouble spots elsewhere in the world we have to remember that this is where much of our future lies. and the american military presence there has been the central factor that has kept peace and stability, and therefore prosperity going in that region.

we need to keep that going and you mentioned japan. and the revision of the guidelines there. this is a extremely important development. by the way, prime minister abe will be visiting the united states shortly. this is an opportunity for japan to become a -- help us maintain the peace in the asia pacific region, but the guidelines are global in scope. so it gives a military that is quite capability in japan, and a country that shares a lot of our strategic objectives and basic values a new way of helping us out. in the region and around the world is a very positive thing. >> thank you very much, secretary. my time is almost out so i don't have time for the third question. so, mr. chairman i yield back. >> thank the gentle lady. mr. forbes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. chairman, dempsey, the country owes you a great deal of

gratitude. we thank you for your service, all you've done for this committee, and for the country. mr. secretary, we thank you for being here today and it was my full intention to come in here and applaud you and talk about how talented you were, which i believe that to be the case and realize what a difficult job you have until i heard your opening remarks. and let me just ask this question, because you heard chairman thornberry mention the phrase that if we get the -- anything below the president's budget, that we would go below the lower ragged edge of what we need for national defense. do you agree with that? >> i do. >> and would you therefore say if we're going below that lower ragged edge, that it would be a crisis for national defense if we went to sequestration, as opposed to the budget the president's proposed? so that would be yes? >> yeah, yeah. >> would you also say that that would be devastating to defense if we went there? >> devastating. >> then help me with this, because what really took me back is when you said that you supported the president's

position to veto any bill that didn't do away with sequestration, because you do understand that the president's position is that he would be veto any bill that doesn't do away with sequestration, not just for national defense, but also for everything else. do you understand that's the president's position? >> i do. >> so then what you're telling me is the secretary of defense, you would be prepared to support a veto that would end up with a crisis for national defense, and be devastating to national defense, unless the president can also get all the funding he needs for epa, irs, and all the other nondefense items that he's proposed in the budget. is that your position? >> what we need for defense, congressman, is two things. we need stability -- >> no, no, that's not my question, and i don't known cut you off. but as the chairman said i only have five minutes. i just need to have you tell this committee that is the secretary of defense you're coming in here today and saying

that unless the president gets a full sequestration taking off the limits of spending, that he has on epa, irs, and other nondefense matters, you would rather have a crisis when it comes to national defense funding? >> no, that's not -- >> then would you support a bill that this committee would pass that would do away with sequestration for national defense, only? >> no, the president -- no, i would not. >> so then you would -- >> and i'll tell you why. we need relief from sequestration across the board. every other manager of an agency in the government -- >> mr. secretary, you're not managing all these other agencies. you're coming in here today telling us that you would be prepared to accept a crisis for national defense, unless the president gets the funding he needs for epa or the internal revenue service or all these other programs he has across the country? >> no, i -- no, congressman. i take a view of national defense and national security that is that takes in to account

the fact that to protect ourselves, and as part of security, we need the department of homeland security -- >> i'm not saying that. but i'm saying you don't necessarily need the internal revenue service -- >> we need our law enforcement agencies. i think each of those budgets can be looked at in their own terms. >> mr. secretary you are the expert on defense and what we need is that testimony today. and what bothers me is when you'll come in here and say that you'd rather have a crisis in national defense, which is what the president's saying, by the way, than to cut or have a cap on any nondefense spending that could be in anywhere else in the government. and i just find that a travesty. let me just say this -- >> i think what the president's saying, congressman, and which i agree with, is that we need relief from sequester across the board. it's no way to run -- >> but you're the expert on defense. and we may argue on irs or epa but what we need is when you come in here as secretary of defense to tell us that you're not willing to accept a crisis

in national defense if you can't get everything you want with the irs or epa some of these other funding programs. and just to put it on the line, when you talked about the flexibility that you need in department of defense, let's just recognize also, that sometimes congress has to hold up flexibility if we'd have given it to the pentagon in the '80s we wouldn't have stealth platforms, we wouldn't have precision munitions, you probably wouldn't have jointness and also sometimes when you talk about these outside cuts to facilities, remember what we did to the joint forces command. oh, we cut that down and said we're going to save all the money. all we did is take all those jobs and centralize them in the pentagon in a joint staff. that's what the pentagon should be about and we shouldn't have to hinge on what happens to the internal revenue service or

epa. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and welcome, secretary carter. it's great to have you and i look forward to working with you and have appreciated your insight and knowledge just in the brief testimony you have been able to make today. chairman dempsey, it's great to see you. as we may not see you again, i want to reiterate how much i appreciated your forthcoming testimony before this committee. and just to address briefly the sequestration, i share the view you have that we have to deal with it across the board. as we know, how we defend our country does not exist in isolation. i come from a state that is heavily invested in education and it is that educated community that leads so often on developing all the it technologies that all the service chiefs have acknowledged and are very important to how we move forward in defending our

country we remain agile. to protect our country, we have to invest in our minds in anything else. it's all linked. i appreciate your acknowledging of that. but two weeks ago, this committee had the chance to discuss the proposed against isil with general austin and the secretary, so i thank you for your presence here today to continue that discussion. at that hearing, i asked general austin about the complexity of the challenges that the united states has to address to successfully confront isil. i liken it to a multi-dimensional chess game. nowhere is that more apparent than in tikrit highlights the complexity of the challenge rooted as it is in a highly complex region and underscores the need for congress to way in and think

through the assistance that we are providing to the iraqi government as well as other partners. so with that in mind, secretary carter, how does iran's engagement with the iraqi government and its military efforts to confront isil and its military efforts to confront isil complicate our efforts to ensure a pluralistic order? as we know it was malachi's government's unwillingness to create an exclusive governing structure that created the opening for isil. as the iraqi government seeks out iran's help, how do you see it complicating our efforts going forward. and then, general dempsey, how does it complicate our military efforts? >> it can complicate our efforts. that's why we need the watch this very closely. because, as you say, it is sectarianism which brought the

iraqi security forces to the low place. we are supporting a government of iraq that is multisectarian and that encompasses the entire country. that is our preference. so our preference is that all operations, which we support, come with the iraqi government. we support them in doing that. when there are others without the authority of the iraqi government, that is the face of sectarianism rising again, in iraq. >> so, are you saying -- >> we're very concerned about this. >> are you saying that's what's happening in crete is without the iraqi government?

independent of it? >> no, but you're asking me would i be concerned about purely sectarian military activity there? i would be con serped. and the iraqi security forces would be controlling controlling and drekting all military activity. excuse me. on iraqi soil. and this's why the nature of some of the militia activities and so forth is so concerning to us. >> in terms of how it complicates things militaryilymilitarily, we're including military forces to contribute to inclusivity.

they are being the internal media blitz. we're trying to ensure that the iraqi security forces try to be the forces in the future. secondly, there's just an issue of deconflicting space, air space, ground space and decision space. and, so, yeah it does make it complicated. >> thaurk. thank you. my time is up. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for being here today. general dempsey, your service to our country we appreciate so much and wish you well in the future. secretary carter, best wishes for success in your position. i am very pleased in a way, to seek sequestration. in particular, general, thank you for pointing out the issue of writing this, putting our troops at risk. this needs to be addressed.

but it should also be put into context that actually, bob woodward, "the price of politics," identified that this was the president's policy. i believe that i hope he makes every effort to change that policy because the consequence of his reveal yesterday by secretary james, and that is it will have the smallest air force sent e since it was created in 1947. the smallest army since 19 p39. i believe the american people are at risk. this issue needs to be addressed. it should be pointed out. the facts are clear the house republicans, twice voted to address a defense sequestration but it was never taken up by the former senate. as we look at the world today, i'm very concerned. general jack cane testified earlier this year about the

spread of radical islam across north africa central africa, the middle east, central asia. i'm just so concerned that, on safe haven, so being created, which can attack the american people. and, in light of that, both last week, mr. secretary, was part of isil dash. what is the policy this week in central africa? >> as you say, the isil phenomenon is me tast sizing. there are groups that are rebranding themselves by calling themselves isil and being affiliated with this movement.

it is the ability of this group to spread through social media and whose younger members are particularly atrarkttracted to the isil etiology and that's what makes it so difficult to combat it where ever it arises. >> and is there any progress on releasing the kidnapped young girls in the region? >> you're speaking of the ones that were kidnapped some time ago? >> yes. >> yes i think the best i can say about that in here is that we continue to assist in trying to low kat them and return them to their homes. but that effort still continues.

>> it's such a clear indication of the bar barty of the people we're facing. i want to commend you in your visit to afghanistan. you expressed concern about a draw down and how it should be conditions based. and then action has been properly taken. what are the conditions that you're looking at in regard to the drawdown? >> there are conditions on the ground in terms of the strength of the afghan security forces t performance of the afghan security forces. they're conducting operations as we speak which are very impressive.

one i mentioned earlier is the successful creation of the national government with the president and ceo. their willingness and ability to do that and what that could mean for the political adherence of afghanistan. so they are both things at the military level over there and things at the political level. both of which are change. a very different circumstance a year ago or two years ago. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> ms. duckworth? >> thank you, mr. chairman. general dempsey, i join my colleagues and send warm wishes your way in thanking you many, many years of serving your great nation. >> i'd like to chat with you a little bit about the proposed budget that's upcoming. the house budget committee chairman has proposed boosting the fy '16 defense budget with

an increased allocation. is it just as useful as a base budget dollar? should there be limitations that congress needs to be mindful of? congresswoman, both dollars are useful to us if they're used for purposes they're intended and needed. we don't need $36 or $38 billion extra to occo. we need that money in the base budget. they're both useful to us and have restrictions in law and in regulation. >> so if you had your brothers you would rather have those dollars be in the regular budget as opposed o edd to ocoo funding? >> absolutely. that's where we asked for it. that's where we need it. that's where we've identified the needs. and that also, and this is very important, and this gets back to the earlier discussion of sequester, if it's in the base budget, it ees's -- it is the base.

in years to come, otherwise, we can't spend it sufficiently or strategically. we need that kind of horizon. and sell kweszer is what robs us of that. and this's why it's bad in a managerial sense for anybody who has their budget sequestered. >> general dempsey, do you want to speak to that and perhaps its effect on readiness? >> readiness seems to suffer