screeria -- nigeria. - 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 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 a deeper impact because you have to get the money where you have to get it. you can't shed it quickliness.

you can't shed excess infrastructure quickly enough. you can't terminate contracts because of the penalties involved. even if you're taking more than you should out of readiness. i think readiness suffers more than you think. >> thank you. mr. secretary, i share in the terms of my colleagues and the other o if i believes in the detriments of sequestration. but i'm also skbresed in efficient ways. specifically, i'm thinking about the fact that we really don't know the kind of money that we are spending when it comes to service contractors. there is still yet to be enterprise. i believe the goal was to have 95 compliance by 2018. i don't think you're probably going to make that goal.

so despite the numerous commitments on a senior level dod officials can you tell me when you will restart work on the ecmra? when you're going to use accepted army methodology? and when will you be insisting on compliance from the components in agencies to review and reform decision makings on taxpayer dollars in the department? >> well, thank you for that. and some of that detail, i'll have to supply to you spratly. >> that's fine. >> but the general point that you're raising is not for goods, it's for services. so as we talk about acquisition reform and improving our game, we feedneed to improve how we acquire services, as well.

and the initiatives you cite are some of the ways in which we're trying to improve improve our services. >> and i'll give you that answer on the record. >> thank you. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, mr. chairman thank you for being here and thank you for all of your hard and diligent work. we're all very pleased and very happy that you're in your position. you do have very did i have couple difficult times. we need some plain answer and some talk. let me tell you where we are and why we need your help. right now the president had submitted a budget that had a base amount of 561 and our

budget committee is coming up with 5233. the aggregate number would be somewhere around 613. you sort of said however you cobble it together. how you cobble it together does make a difference. i want you kbie guys to help us with this. i have told the budget committee that making up with occo does not work. 70 members of the house signed a letter asking the president to honor the 561 that the president asked for. what i have said to the committee is that they should ask you guys. mr. secretary, you said, one, it i e e effects because this is the basis upon which you build your next budget. that's certainly important. but we don't need to here the issue of rather.

i think there are structural issues that are important. tell us why there's a bags of 5234 with an occo of 90 plugs billion doesn't work. or you're going to be facing that. >> i'll start first, chairman. it doesn't work because the strategy that we've laid out. we need the budget not just in one year x one year, but in the years to come. so budgeting one year at a time and this proposal is a one-year-at-a-time thing. it's not going to permit us to

carry out the strategy as we've planned. >> you said the president would veto a bill if we pass sequestration. if we send you the national defense authorization act which is a base of 51223 of 90 plus billion, is that within that veto threat? i think what the president meant was that a budget that did not not relieve sequestration, not just for defense, but as i mentioned earlier for others, as well. >> now mr. chairman rngs there

are restrictions. won't you have almost a quarter of a year where you can't use the money? >> yes. if this is done without an appropriation, yes, you're right. and i think your earlier point, to, the approach being opposed to the house committee would be acceptable to the president. >> you guys have 40 more seconds to tell the congress why they shouldn't be doing this. >> you build the institution through the base budget and you

respond to contingencies with the fund call. we won't have the kind of certainty we need over that period if the current strategy is followed. but look we're at the point where it's better than doing nothing. >> it's going o be before december that we have an authorization bill. senator mccain and i are determined to move -- i know it's different than we've had in the past. but it's going to move a whole lot quicker. mr. o'rourke. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, you said in your opening comments that you wou