>> 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 would never send our men and women

into harm's way without necessary readiness. i'm having a very difficult time in light of the six months that we've been at war in iraq and syria against isis and in light of the president's authorization for the yoous of military force or aumf that is now before congress for this krgsz. i'm having a very hard time understanding what the strategy is. and i want to make sure that, as my colleagues have said, that we fund our military well beyond the budget caps in the sequester levels. i agree with them there. i think perhaps more importantly, that we have the necessary strategy in place. could you answer the strategy question for me? >> certainly. first of all, strategy is does

take in addition to geographic perspective, a multi-year commitment. which is why annual budgetary turmoil isn't consistent with our strategy in taking a strategic view. with respect to the strategy against isil, the first thing i'd say is we'd not only defeat isil, we need to defeat them in a lasting manner. we can defeet isil, but defeating them in a lasting manner means having somebody on the dwround who keeps them defeated after we assist them in the defeat.

>> we'll just take the iraqi portion of this. from my understanding, our strategy there largely relies on training equipping and advising iraqi national army. we have spent tens of billions of dollars doing just that from 2003 to 2010 to awful effect. >> it will hinge on a multisecretary approach by the government of iraq. without that, it cannot succeed. and what happened to the iraqi security forces a year ago was

they clapszed and the people swept over by isil were not willing to 5:00 september or support the iraqi security forces as they were then con figured. they need to be con figured in a nonsectarian manner, or it won't be possible to have that lasting defeat of isil on the iraqi side of the border. it's as critical now as it was last year. >> mr. secretary, the strategy, i think it's insufficient to achieving the president's aims of degrading and destroying isis, to your aims of ensuring a lasting defeat of isis.

we should not depend on iran-backed shield militia's. >> we do have the resources to support our strategy. the one very important ingredient that you left out was air power.

and how we are applying air power in a very important way. only local forces on the ground can impose a lasting defeat. and this's our strategy. >> in the interest of time i think that will be the path to enduring defeat. but i'll take it for the record. >> thank you both. >> mr. rogers, thank you mr. chairman. and thank you all for being here. secretary carter when we start off with a shamelessly parochial issue, i'm very interested in seeing it maintain the u.s. army depot. do you know who's going to make that decision and win about where the source of repair is going to be made?

>> i do not know when that source selection will be made. >> general dempsey, based on open source reporting russia is planning tactical nuclear weapons and the illegally seized territory of crimea. what is your best military advice of how we, as a nation, should respond to that. >> there's several things. i haven't seen it reflected in intelligence. if i had, i would have suggested that we had this conversation in closed session.

i'm curious, how much longer do you think it will be before we do provide some sort of response. >> our response is twofold. one is to a diplomatic one, which is to try to get the russians to come back into compliance with the inif treaty.

on the military side, it's a two-way street. we ax septembered restrands for the soviet union. sts a two-way street. meaning that we can take action, also, that we both decided years ago it was best for neither of us to take. so we are looking at our alternatives in the areas of defense against the system that they field.

>> defenses are the cat goirs of response that we can consider. >> thank you very much. that's all i have, mr. chairman. >> i wanted to ask a little bit about what's hatching in hawaii. there's been a lot of talk regarding the drastic reductions in army troop levels, which i believe is contrary to the defense strategic guidance that called for the rebalance or the shift to the pacific. does the president's fiscal

budget provide you with the resources to conduct a rebalance? and how would drastic reductions in this theater affect this capability? >> it does provide for the rebalance. but i want to second what the chairman said. we are on the edge of which the asia pacific rebalance is a central ingredient. so if we don't get some budget sister and brother and we keep doing things one year at a time, one piece at a time we are going o have to reconsider our strategy. the way i put it earlier it's not just the size, but the

shape: we're on the ragged edge in our strategy and something will have to give. >> thank you, mr. secretary. the other purpose of this hearing is to talk about the president's request, the aumf request. so i wanted to shift gears a little bit and talk about that. and ask you to clarify some aspects of the request. in subsection c, called limitations, it says the authority granted in subsection a does not authorize the use of united states forces in offensive ground combat operations. so what is enduring ground combat operations? does this refer to the length of time which the operation is on going? the scope of the operations? some undefined relationship between time and scope? >> well, thanks.

the aumf, for me, two things are important. one is that it gives us the flexibility to carry out our campaign. and that speaks to the provision. i'll come back to that in a minute. the other is that it's about a past up here on capitol hill up here. it's very clear to our men and women who are conducting the campaign against isil that the country are behind them. that's very important to me. both the content e tent and the provision that it's supported widely. for the chairman and me we need the flexibility to conduct the campaign against isil and the way that defeating that enemy requires.

it does rule out using language that you described what the president has said in iraq or afghanistan-type, long off-period offensive of combat operations. and that is -- that language by taking that possibility only out, leaves to me, our department, the flexibility we need to conduct the campaign against isil, both practically and geographically. we don't forsee having to conduct another campaign like iraq or afghanistan. and that's the one thing that is ruled out in the formulation. you describe it. elsewhere, we have substantial flexibility. and i welcome that. as i said, flexibility and widespread support are the two things that we need most. chairman, do you want to add to that? >> there is no doctor determine

in our military ax onmy that is enduring offensive. but it's clearly a statement of intent by the commander in chief. it does allow us to execute the campaign as it is currently designed. >> i think it's important to define the provision of the request. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we've heard a lot about how we are going to address future challenges in our military.

overshrill not on the funding side. should there be different authorities in acquisition? and what do we really need to do as far as acquisition and well, acquisition reform. >> thank you, and thank you for your process. i appreciate the fact that this committee is committed to it. i'm sorry i can't give a simple answer to that. there's so many ways that we need to improve our performance in acquisition.

there is acquisition of services there is the requirements process and the role of the service chiefs. i think we could get some of that back. there's an enormous amount of simple process that encumbers good sense. there is some training required to better interact with our industry and understand how to give appropriate incentives and partnership with the industry that we serve. there's the technology point that the chairman was pointed to earlier where we have to work very hard to stay up with today's 8 generations.

of iphones. there are many, many dimensions to this. . >> this is something i believe we will be continuing to struggle with for a long time. technology changes. the world changes. we have to keep up if we're going to continue to have the best military in the world. >> general dempesey? your perspective? yesterday, some of the chiefs said they'd like to be able to have the thresholds heightened so that they could be more involved in that decision-making process. in getting your perspective as secretary carter said, how do we get technology,ed ideas, innovation more quickly to the war fighter?

i align myself to what the chief said yesterday. in my way, doomed it from a graceless death. at the moment that's seven congress cycles of the united states. i think we have to take a look at the pace. >> secretary, it seems like what you're add voe kating is putting more authority and also accountability in the hands of decision makers.

taking it more away from process. >> we've gotten to a point where there is as many checkers as there are doers. we need the doers to be held acountable. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. congratulations on your recent confirmation. and general dempsey i want to say thank you not only for your generosity of time before this committee, but also with new members in general. you've been very, very kind. so, thank you.

first i'd like to start with mr. charter. one 00 years ago, the military diver was created. one the 100th year upon us, i would much appreciate support for the military diver to honor those who have served, are serving and will serve for our country. >> first of all, thank you for hosting our folks and for support ing

supporting service members in your district. thank you for that suggestion. thank you, i really appreciate that support. yesterday, i asked about the wounded warrior care programs. >> i would like to learn what is the department of defense's doing, what is the department of defense doing to ensure the transition from active service

and what can we do to make sure we identify every discharged service member. and i appreciate your answers. >> first of all, thank you for your interest in that, too. we are fortunate lyly in a period where on a weekend, we won't find ten wounded warriors. we can't forget that those who have been wounded that are 20 years old. they have a long life ahead of them. i am concerned that our country

ebb remembers the sacrifice of these service members in the -- in all the years that they'll live. and i think we owe them that. and, of course, we hand them off to the va. i think there's more that we can do and should do to smooth that transition and prepare them for the life ahead. to me, it's really something from the heart.

>> thanks, mr. secretary. you know, we've actually -- the service chiefs in our end and with the help of the department have included two aspects of this. we've got to make sure that we can sustain our expertise. >> thank you very much. our hearts are in the same place. i yield back the time i don't have left.

three things. first one is this. instead of doing a policy change, if you can use technology and actually change the system itsz, it takes forever. i wanted's a test on the spot. you have entire departments that spend years and years simply testing.

they aren't e aren't happy with things like that. you literally have tens of thousands of people wo test. that's their job. they don't like it. that's the first thing. number two, we talked about isis in syria and iraq. you have jordan.

even if you change the rules, it will take a year or two. the jordanians owe those aircraft, a fix to this, has taken some of the aircraft that we have now that are in warehouses letting the jordanians fly testimony. and basically have the contractors do this. i just want to run that by you. >> thank you. that is one of the actually many forms of assistance to the jordanians and other coalition partners that we're looking at.

the logic that you described and the possibility that you described is a real one. to get back to your testing thing, i think that's a very good point, also. technology can transform the way we do tests. >> there are many requests coming in. and you're right, your letter is being addressed that the department is state right now. >> the last thing, i'm going to have a piece of legislation due to all of the hostages that we had taken in iraq and afghanistan.

it's on an unprecedented level. the fbi still has purview over hostages. even if they only have three ajents at the embassy and iraq or 12 ajents or whatever, they don't have the ability that jsoc has, that any of our special operators or just big army big marine corps, whoever. i think there needs to be a buck stops here person.

whoever has the resources to bear, that's the way we should go. you're right. this is an example of something. we need things to be done in a way that is law enforcement sensitive, but, in many cases we have the assets or the intelligence community has the assets or it involves homeland security. this gets to the point that i was making earlier. i have to take a view of security and looks beyond all of the instruments of national power and everything that's going to carry us into the future. and these kinds of operations are a perfect example of that. with e where you need all of those parts to come together. you're right.

we do need a choreographer when that time comes to bring all of those pieces together. the times in which we live require it. >> there's a lot of frustration with the way the budget is being handled at present. the question therefore, is how do we get there? one question is is there a role in ensuring our national defense? secretary carter, you've made your view quite clear on that.

>> everything we do around the world is done with other government partners. so, yes, there is a role for security. >> okay, thank you. >> if you could both comment, what are the top five weapons systems that you want to cut.

>> there are more than five, i'm sorry to say, some of them are programmed, some of them are older platforms. there's been a lot of debate around the a-10 because their budget doesn't provide room for it anymore compared to things that are a higher priority. we're willing to work with people here. i want to find common ground with people. but we can't just continue to be frustrated year after year in these program areas or in a whole number of compensation areas.

>> i'd be happy to provide that to the committee. >> thank you. general dempsey, as specifically as possible outline what things would be on your list? >> well, i actually can't, congressman. the services build their program to deliver integrated services. so what we've submitted was actually what we need we believe to ensure the strategy. i'm not in a position now toell you that there were ways we could have done it otherwise t.

we've given you our best advice. we need the capableties we've described in our budget. >> fair enough. >> is there are a number of u.s. designated terrorist financiers operating openly in katar.

hue e how can the u.s. hold them acountable. >> the thing is, katar, in the fight against isil, are being very helpful in the case that we do. at the same time, not everything are things that we think are supportive or con strukt i, with respect to the isil fight or other things. so all of our partners there are areas where we disagree. and we have disagreed with almost all of our coalition and we try to work through them. >> but secretary, i understand that we may disagree on this or that issue but when their

policy is cutting our heads to what we're trying to accomplish, i've got a real problem with that. we have problems with that, too. >> >>. >> secretary carter or general dempsey, on the amf, i have a real problem with the two major limitations that the president has put into his proposed language. a limitation on time and scope.

if you've already addressed this, i apot jazz. >> no, i did not. on the scope of the proposed aumf, it gives us wide scope to conduct the campaign that we're anticipating against isil. the time limitation has nothing to do with the length of the campaign. that feature is included. they're related to the fact -- they're derived from the fact that we will have a new president in three years. now, that's not something that comes from the secretary of defense or i would say from our thinking.

but we understand it derives from the way the constitution regards the use of military force as a very grave matter in which both the congress and the executive branch play a role. so i understand that. i respected that. but the number three doesn't come from the campaign. i understand and respected that. and i hope the result of all of this is that an aumf tells our troops that we're behind them in this fight that. 's the key thing to me in addition to have the flexibility that will carry out the campaign that will win. >> >>. >> i think what you're sensing is the state actors nation states, and these groups of

nonstate actors. i think the use of force was probably eisenhower's orders on the eve of the invasion of europe where he was told to take the armed forces of the united states and defeat nazi germany. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i waunt e wanted to talk a little bit about the aumf that was just discussed in this wide scope that you just mentioned. one of the questions i had was the hostility. it doesn't say anything about determination of hostilities at the three-year period. we could have actions against

isil beyond the three years as currently written and it is a recognition of the way our political system works. a congress in three years may wish to revisit this issue. i understand and respect that but it isn't a prediction about the duration of the campaign against isil.

>> if i understood the question, the enemy get a vote as we say, in how long hostilities extend. . i don't understand the question. >> sure i guess what i'm trying to understand is as proposed if congress gives the authority to use military force, we have this three-year window which you said offers flexibility but a more political discussion and allows the new president to make that determination, absent a new discussion about aumf, could hostilities continue in perpetuity beyond the three-year window? >> i think the aumf would require action by a new administration and a new congress in three years in light of the circumstances at the time

which we can't foresee. >> sure. one of the other pieces that isn't discussed is detention policies within the aumf and this was discussed in another hearing that this committee had as well. could you provide us with examples of what u.s. forces could and could not do with respect to detention policies under the aumf, under the proposed aumf? >> under the aumf, the law of armed conflict and all of the applicable and international law would apply to detention as they would apply to this campaign. >> general? >> i have nothing to add to that. >> thank you. i yield back. >> dr. fleming, thank you mr. chairman and secretary carter and dempsey, thank you for

coming forward today. the president said his goal is to destroy isis. he has submitted a proposed aumf. in the aumf it says a limitation is no enduring offensive ground combat offenses and that suggests no boots on the ground, sort of a colloquial expression, and can you tell us about wars america has won with peace without substantial ground forces in relation to the foe? >> excuse me. i'm sorry. i'm not a historian so i'm not sure i can answer your question from a historical point of view. i can give a logical answer and a common sense answer to the

boots on the ground question as it applies to a campaign like the one against isil. and it has to do with the -- who sustains the victory after isis is defeated, because we seek the lasting defeat of isil -- >> well if i can interrupt -- >> if i can respond, because who wins the territory after it is won back and that is our strategy otherwise we have boots on the ground for a long time. >> many experts believe the main reason why we have the isis problem we have today is we didn't have a status of forces agreement and we didn't have a stay-behind force. so again, i will ask you, chairman dempsey, can you name the wars that america has won without sustained boots on the

ground against a significant foe? and i do believe -- i remember that boko haram has now given its allegiance. the forces are growing with isis and we know how barbaric they are and can you name forces without groups on the ground? >> we've had -- with the philippines for example at the turn of the century and generally the campaign is the same as it is today, and to find a coalition and indigenous forces and now we call them regional partners to do the lion's share of the lifting because unless they own it, they'll allow us to own it. >> can you tell us who these forces are going to be? i get we're trying to stand up an iraqi army that fell apart because we left, and can you explain in other regions outside of iraq, where we're getting these forces and where they are

coming from and taking action? >> i will. but i want to align myself that we are at the cause of the current crisis. i think the secretary mentioned earlier that iraq had an opportunity to demonstration to the -- demonstrate to the population that it would work on behalf of all groups and failed to do that and rose to the challenge that now arose. we have a 20 -- coalition, two of which are the kurdish and iraqi forces. we're working for a moderate syrian opposition and hardening regional allies and you heard that discussed moments ago and it is actually -- the reason that the campaign has a defeat mechanism is the coalition. it is not all of our activities. >> who are going to be the core forces, in syria for example? again, we hear about the free syrian army which nobody seems to know who they are.

they were referred to, of course, as doctors and pharmacists before and we're going to, i guess, offline train them someplace in kuwait. but again isis is growing every day and they are killing a number of people in very brutal ways, specifically going after christians and jews, so my question is who is this core force going up against isis in the near future? i'm still vague on who this force is? >> there are forces. it depends on which side of the border you are talking about. on the iraqi side there are the forces that -- >> well i get iraq. i'm talking in the limited time i have. i'm talking about syria. >> on the syrian side, as the chairman indicated, we are trying to build -- >> trying to build. so we don't know who they are. >> the reality is you have the forces of the assad regime and

the forces of isil, neither of which we want to align ourselves with and they are the largest forces on the ground in syria. that is the circumstance in which we find ourselves and we are trying to create a moderate syrian force that will be able to defeat them and own the future of syria. that is our objective. >> mr. chairman as i yield back, i have to say we're not finding out who these people are. there is no answer here in this question. i appreciate that. >> mr. ashford. >> thank you. mr. chairman and secretary. pardon my parochialism, and i'm going to ask a broad question related back to our people in our district, nebraska and omaha. i absolutely agree about president ghani and there is

hope there and in his ability to start reforms in the armed services and open up discussions with pakistan which are meaningful. it was interesting, when we went in to visit with the president, one of his first comments to me is how is my friend tom gut gutaer and he is a friend of the president's. and that was nice to see and the peter institute at the university of nebraska at omaha is doing research into isis and had been doing the research prior to -- prior to june of last year. and the ebola work done at the university of nebraska medical

center. and it is pretty significant and we're very proud of all of that. having said that, i guess my question is, when i visit those institutions and talk to the principals, it is clear that not just the university of nebraska, but all over the country there are partners at that level that are sophisticated significant partners in our efforts in the middle east and would you comment on how you foresee the partnerships continuing to develop and evolve and move forward? >> well it is critical, because we depend for our technology, all of the research and development that under lies our development, we depend on our universities, our r&d centers, in industry. i always have to remind people, we don't build anything in the pentagon. this isn't the soviet union.

our way of doing things is not to do it in the government, it is to contract with private entities because we think that is the best way to stay up with technology and to get excellence and that is how we -- so we depend upon those institutions. our great university systems, our great laboratories and our great defense industry to make us the best military in the world. >> i just think that is absolutely right. and i think it does differentiate us from everywhere else in the world, really. and we're proud of what we've contributed in nebraska, obviously. but every state has similar experiences. one other -- and thank you for that answer.

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

veterans coming back, the military coming back now and needing sort of that outpatient in the mental patient and women's health issues not being addressed and i don't need a comment on that because that is a different department, but if you have a thought on that, kind of the new way to deliver healthcare. >> i would echo what the chairman said, that by sad necessity over the last dozen years, we have learned a lot and in a sense pioneered techniques in treating amputees and burn victims and very importantly tbi, pts and we need to make sure, as the chairman said earlier, we remember those lessons and that we transfer that knowledge to society more widely, which i think is happening in our medical system and including the medical system of the veterans administration. >> and i agree. and my only thought would be that clearly in our area of the country where we have a robust medical system at the university and other facilities is being able to develop those new options as we move forward is part of the strategy in the mideast and generally everywhere. so thank, secretary. >> mr. gibson. >> thanks, mr. chairman and greatly appreciate the panelists. thank you for your leadership and commitment to our nation. general dempsey i noted in your opening remarks you laid out a case for continued forward

presence, put some passion behind that. some of us, myself included, have been arguing for thinking and acting differently, certainly recognizing the need for some forward presence, particularly with naval forces for open sea lanes and access to markets. and then in places like korea, of course, there is a need for land forces there for the near term, at least. but that when we rely on this, as we have really since the end of the cold war, we end up with free rider problems, and friends and allies them not fully committing on paper what they would do and i have been arguing for a peace through strength approach that puts alliance on strategic maneuver and restoration of the global response force capability, with the idea that -- and of course

we deal with nation states and we deal with transnational actors, here i'm talking about the former, not the latter, the society of deterrence and being defined by capability and will and here is where i get to the point on the global response force. and we had the chiefs here yesterday and they gave a response to this and i'm interested from the department standpoint, from the secretary and the chief, leadership as it relates to the global response force and how you see that factoring into our going forward. >> i'll start. we do have the grf, the global response force. which is -- we provide very carefully for just the reason you described, namely, it is the most ready force, it is the most deterrent and it is the most

highly ready. and one of the things that is concerning about this whole budget drama of sequester so forth and year after year and the effect on readiness is that -- if it continues in the way that it is, it is going to effect our readiness, even at the grf level. and that is not good for deterrence or the picture of american strength so necessary of avoiding conflict in the first place. >> congressman, you've touched on two things that are near and dear to my heart. one is the grf. we have to restore its readiness. there are times of late because of increasing demand and reducing supply we've had to actually reach into it and send it forward, which is not the intention, but we're forced into

that position on objection. and the other one is the issue of presence. i think we have our forward stationing right. and what we are doing is looking at how we can be less predictable to our adversaries and through our alleys and maintain what we are calling our dynamic presence. and so we are very much interested in pursuing that idea. but the sequestration makes this -- both of those almost impossible. >> i appreciate those responses. and to be clear, even the vision that i'm laying out here requires the world's strongest military as a deterrent to those that would do us harm.

and also this vision includes american leadership. it is just a different conception of power and how we would array it that would look for contributions from our friends and allies at the level we would expect and also recognize the moral strength of our country as evidence through diplomacy and commerce and trade and in the way we are able to strategically maneuver our forces with the real capability, i believe, strengthening the hands of our diplomats that would allow us to, i think, reach a level of security that we're striving for. so thank you very much, once again, for everything that you do for our servicemen and women and their families. and i yield back. >> mr. courtney. >> thank you mr. chairman and i want to thank the secretary and general for your service and all of the witnesses here today. i think when the historians write the book on this administration, one of the overlooked achievements was the new start treaty which was ratified on a bipartisan basis. and in the wake of it, we've heart a lot of testimony at the c-power committee about the triad is going to change as a result of the realignment that

the treaty created in terms of the leg of the triad that will carry the heaviest burden is the sea based deterrence, about 7% according to the navy witnesses we've had here. in the wake of that and the existing ohio fleet, admiral greenert, secretary stackly and yesterday secretary mavis made it clear the navy program is at the top of the list, because of the timing and even with the president's robust of timing work, which is another reason we should support the top line, there is really just no margin for delay in terms of making sure that we're going to be able to implement new start. so mr. secretary, i was reading your testimony over at the appropriations committee and

others again about hearing about this for years at the -- what the impact is going to be on the ship-building account. so last year's defense build when we created the sea based deterrence fund we thought we had the sea lift defense fund which again was an effort to take pressure off the ship-building account for once in a multi-generation investment, missile defense, et cetera, i was wondering if you could talk with us a little bit about what your thinking is because there is no question that something is going to give when the resources are needed to build those boats in terms of the ship-building account if it has to all come out of there? >> well, thank you for that. and you're right, the triad is part of our future. it is part of our future planning. nuclear weapons aren't in the news very much, thank god.

so they are not the answer to the isil crisis. but they are a bedrock of our security. and we have to -- we're going to need a safe, secure and reliable nuclear deterrent as far into the future as i can see and we need to provide for that and the sea base leg is needed because it is survivable on a day to day basis it is a long tennant and it is true now and the ohio class basis is expensive and we are trying to get the cost of that down like all other things and we have to pay that bill. and it is more complicated as i'm sure you would say also, than how we label the money. the money has to come from somewhere and we're going to have to make difficult trade-offs, particularly in the decade between 2020 and 2030. and that is just a fact of life if we're going to have an ohio class replacement and if secretary mavis and admiral

greenert said it is the highest priority, it is something we have to do, and we have to find room in the budget and there will be tradeoffs there that will not get alleviated by calling it this or that. >> and i firmly believe that the triad, all three legs which is long range bomber and the ohio submarine are necessary to make our deterrence credible and survivable. and because it is an unfortunate happenstance of time, the triad are requiring modernance over the next decade, this is our strategic responsibility and we'll have to find a way to do it. >> no quarrel with your argument, but when you look at the legs it is a funny looking stool because one of them is a lot longer than the other, if you look at them. and as long as i have a few

seconds left, admiral, the first time i met you when in iraq when you were in charge of training the iraqi forces and you are passionate about training them. and we had a troop leave out of hartford, and the expectation was that the reserve force was going to stand down as the troop drawdown took place and for some people it was a little jarring to still see national guard forces going over there and i hope you are keeping an eye on those guys because it caused a lot of dislocation for those families to have a 60-day call-up when people's expectation would change with the draw-down and with that i yield back. >> thank you. mr. franks. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and secretary carter, some of us were surprised at your

appointment and i have to say to you, it was a pleasant surprise and i for one am very gratified, sir, you are where you are. i think it is a good thing for the country. >> thank you, my wife and i were surprised also. [ laughter ] >> well, as you know, producing fiscal material is by far the most challenging component of developing nuclear weapons and i know you also know that once the 4.5% enrichment level has been reached, that about 75% of the work or the enrichment has been done to gain the weapons-grade material.

requiring iran to dismantle its mechanism to enrich iranian or plutonium was the centerpiece of a dozen u.n. security counsel resolutions because we considered that in many ways the whole ball game. but in direct contradiction to that reality and the u.n. secure resolutions, mr. obama's agreement with iran, astonishingly provides a protected protocol to enrich iranium. and if you forgive the political in opportunity of the question, do you believe a long-term agreement with iran going forward to allows them to enrich iranian or enrich plutonium is key for the united states? >> i think it is a key question and for the united states but does it provide an assurance against break-out and the development of a bomb by iran? i'm not involved in the negotiation there and so i can't discuss an agreement that hasn't been concluded yet. but that has got to be the underlying principal and i think that is the underlying principal with which the negotiation are being conducted and i associate myself with that deal is better than -- that no deal is better than a bad deal.

but for me and my department, we have other obligations associated with this. and one is to continue to deter iran's other detrimental behavior in the region and in the gulf and protect allies and partners there and to protect our important partnership with israel, as a very strong ally and that is important. and then the third is our general presence in the gulf. so those responsibilities, which are also related to iran and iranian behavior. those are responsibilities that fall on the department of defense and we take very seriously and i know the

chairman does also. >> well i certainly wish you the very best in everything else that you do, sir. and general dempsey let me express personal and collective gratitude for the whole country for the galant service you have offered to the human family. this has been an amazing thing you've done and we are grateful to you. and so with that i ask you a tough question. >> let me go on for about 25 seconds for thank you. >> what is the troop deployment in iraq, i think around 2500, and is there a justification for that troop level and is it an arbitrary level and is that the best policy to expeditiously defeat isis? >> my military upon on defeating isis and levant is through our partners with a coalition and using our unique capabilities, whether they be training or precision strikes or working to build institutions, so that the iraqis, notably, understand -- and other regional stakeholders

who have more to lose and gain by the defeat of isil are in the lead and therefore that number is not arbitrator and it is purpose built to that effect. >> mr. chairman, i'm going to yield back. thank you, both, again. >> thank the gentleman. mr. nugent. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and to mr. carter and first of all i want to thank both of you. mr. dempsey, i appreciate your service to the country and particularly the uniform that

you wear of the united states army. it means a lot to me. secretary carter, the first time i get to meet you. but the question i have, and i guess where i'm kind of perplexed is what is going on within iraq today, where we have the general of the cuds force leading the charge basically and i get our reluctance to have boots on the grounds, because let me tell you, my kids have been there. and i don't necessarily want to see them go back. but on the same token though, i hate to see that iran now has taken the lead in particularly when you go back in history of iraq with us, recently in 2011 when i was there, we had five u.s. service members killed the night i was there by an advanced ied supplied -- go figure -- from iran.

and now we're allowing them to take the lead and -- and you remember back when we had our forced in iraq at the draw-down and american troops being killed and ambushed because of the status of forces agreement particularly as it related to iraq, they kept us from going and hunting or capturing or killing the guys that were killing our troops and we knew where they were laying their heads down at night and these are the same people now that are taking the lead in iraq, and do we think we're going to see a different outcome with the iranian regime today than what it was then and the pressure it will put on the iraqi leaders and ghani i think has brought the fresh air but i don't know how he will operate when the iranians are saying we're going to give you back your country. how do we deal with that? >> it is a very good question, because what defeated the iraqi forces last summer was sectarianism. and if the fight against isil

becomes a purely sectarian fight and not an iraqi fight, then we -- >> just let me interrupt you because time is limited, because isn't it going to turn back into a sectarian fight when you have iran providing the leadership and training to the troops that are going to push isis back out of iraq? >> well, it is actually a complicated situation. in many places the iraqi security forces, including with sunni elements and the support of sunni tribes are participating in the recapture of ground. in other places it is our air power and iraqi security forces entirely.

in tikrit, you're right, there is a heavy presence of popular mobilization forces which are shiite in sectarian orientation and getting some support from the iranians. that is concerning to us. so it is a very mixed picture. but the side that we're on is the side of the iraqi government operating in a multi-sectarian basis and that is the only way in which we're going to see success. >> i don't disagree with that. but when we talk to the forces there in place in 2011 and the training we did for the iraqis, it was pretty evident then we had some very, very good brigades within the iraqi military and then we had some that were the sectarian split-off that were incompetent. and i think that is what we saw happen. and i think that is kind of the remarks we've heard, is that having an enduring force would

have prevented it, i don't know, but we would have had a much better chance of preventing it had we been there to train and keep the pressure on the iraqis and i want to make sure we don't do the same about afghanistan. >> i'll say something about afghanistan if the chairman wants to say something about iraq. we have fortunately at the moment a different situation in afghanistan. namely a bilateral security agreement in place welcomed by the government of afghanistan and a partner in the government of afghanistan in the national unit of government of ghani and abdullah that is not sectarian in nature, that is welcoming of the american assistance and the american training. so it is a different situation from iraq and the reason why, as i said earlier, we may well be achieving our objectives in afghanistan in a way that a few

years ago when i was working on that campaign, i would not have predicted that we get as far as we did. it is a very different situation. fortunately in afghanistan today, and from iraq a few years ago. >> and i appreciate your comments. chairman, i would love to hear from you. but i've been gavelled back. >> and i would love to chat with you, but the time is up. >> well thank you mr. chairman and thank you, gentlemen, for being here today. as i look at the aum, it says the responses of taking military action against isil leadership and again this is a proposed aumf. does that include capture? or is it kill only? >> it includes capture. >> so, my question is, we talk about capture and the use of all of our tenants of war, military, and economic and all of those things, i have ideas of forming coalitions, nato and middle eastern coalition and working together with command and control, this is good versus evil and that is the message the

world should hear and when it comes to holding, though, i have some ideas about the holding those we capture and how we try them and how we involve maybe the nation of incident, whether it is isil or the global war on terror, how we involve the nation of incident and the national of origin and are they going to be part of the process and those that we capture. so my question is if we capture, what do we do with them? >> well, thanks for that question. let me go back to the logic of capture. obviously our objective where possible is to capture rather than -- >> have we been capturing anyone in the last couple of years? >> well -- >> especially since we started.

>> our coalition partners have been doing that. and they have been detaining. for afghanistan, in afghanistan they are detained by afghans and subject to afghan law. >> and you say their mission is to capture or kill and so if we capture, what are we doing with them? >> the answer is it depends on the circumstances and the location. the willingness of a host country to take custody of them, to prosecute them. i'm not an expert on this. you have to talk to the justice department about that and they are involved in these decisions. but since these are -- your question concerns capture that take place outside of u.s. territory, their laws respecting that, we obey. >> mr. secretary, are we capturing and then hands off and

we turn them over? are we involved? the collection of intelligence is what i'm after here. so what are we doing and if you can't answer, maybe general dempsey can, what are our current posture is. >> well, the answer is it depends on where -- the circumstances of the capture. but to get to the point you are making, which is interrogation and intelligence value, that is an important value to us. it is important that whatever the ultimate disposition of the detainee is that we have the opportunity to interrogate and debrief and that is very important to us. whatever the ultimate disposition of the detainee is. and the chairman can add to that if he wants to. >> congress, i think this is

probably an important enough question that i'll have my legal team work with the secretaries and provide you a longer answer for the record. but i will say that in places where we are in support of the host nation, for example in iraq, we are literally in support of them. so they will do the capture operation, they will give access to the prisoners for us to conduct the kind of interrogation you describe and exploitation. where someone is a direct threat to us, to u.s. or the homeland, we have conducted operations with the department of justice representative and those individuals -- there has been a handful, have been brought back to this country for trial. >> thank you, i appreciate that answer. >> and mr. secretary, if you could finish this answer for me, publicly stating we will not use ground troops, but i'm in agreement with using other troops, but publicly stating we will not use ground troops is a good idea because -- if you could finish that answer for me?

>> i'm not sure what you are getting at. >> i'm wondering why we want in our aumf to say that we will not use this entity that we have? >> oh, the aumf -- >> even if i'm not in favor of using them, why would we say that? >> what the aumf says is that in the campaign against isil, we have a very wide range of authorities to wage that campaign, including those that we anticipate are necessary to conduct the campaign and there is one limit to that, which is an afghanistan or iraq-like long ground campaign. that is not foreseen and so the aumf does not request the authority to conduct that. >> that doesn't really explain to me why it is a good idea. but i thank you for your answer and i yield back. >> mrs. warski. >> thank you for being here. mr. secretary, in follow up to representative winthrop questions, it brings to mind

gitmo, talking about people taking on the battlefield intelligence gathering, i just came back from gitmo and during my short time here, do you support the president's plan to close gitmo and transport those terrorists back to their countries. >> i don't think the president has a plan to close gitmo and transport them because there is a law that prohibits that. the president does have the stated intention to close gitmo and i'm in favor of the safe closure of guantanamo bay. i've been there too -- >> would that include the core that can't be released to come back to the united states. >> they have to be incarcerated in some way, there is no question. >> the u.s. prison system. do you support them coming back to the u.s. prison system?

>> that is an option available. >> what is the other alternative? >> just a moment. but it is now forbidden by law to do that. >> this president has been known to override the law. it is not that this would be breaking news. so do you support -- not that -- what is the other alternative in if the u.s. prison system is not the final destination, what is the alternative, where would they go? i think that there -- we need to work with those of you on capitol hill to find a lawful disposition for people who cannot be transferred or released safely from guantanamo bay. the reason why i think it is desirable to close gitmo, i realize it is now unlawful to transfer people to the united states, is that i think it still provides a -- a rallying point

for jihadi recruiting and i think that is unfortunate. that is the reason to close it. but i say safely close it. we need to find a way to safely close it and lawful and done in cooperation with you. >> i appreciate it. and as you know this committee is undertaking an investigation of the taliban five to gitmo and in light of the committee's responsibility to conduct a assessment based on the review of this important subject will you commit today where the previous secretary left off to continue the department's engagement in ensuring all of the requested materials provided and to work with the inner agency to make sure the information is provided in the limited instances in which other organizations and the government have an interest.

>> yes i will. >> i appreciate. and the president said in the state of the union that the number one threat is climate change. admiral mullen a few years ago said he believes the number one national defense issue in our nation is the debt in our country. do you believe that the debt this nation is carrying, nearly $18 billion as we are sitting here having budget conversation, is more of a threat to this nation's nation security than climate change? >> there are a number of serious dangers to the future of our country of which -- >> i don't know you well. i'm trying to be getting your perspective as we are voting on a huge leap in the budget and i

think the people want to know where the national defense leader is coming from as well. do you believe the nation's debt is a greater issue than climate change? as our commander and chief has stated? >> i think they are both serious problems and there are other serious problems that are not those too and we have to deal with those strategic challenges. you are naming two of the problems. >> i'm naming what the commander and chief says as he puts forth a budget that you have been defending for three hours now. he said the greatest threat to our nation is climate change and we're trying to make a argument that the greatest threat to our nation is that we have an issue of debt that an admiral went on the record said is a great threat to this country. did you agree? >> i think that to the extent that the deficit drives a budget behavior like the year to year struggle with sequester that we faced, that is a challenge to our national security because the challenge to our national defense and i think we have threats around the world that are very danger to us, and i think that, to get to back to an earlier line of questioning, the strength of our nation depends upon other instruments of national power than our military

power and in the long run the strength of our nation depends on the ability to education people and to have scientists and engineers and there was a discussion of our scientific base earlier and there are many ingredients for america and we need to tend to them all and we need to have balance in how we approach these. so i would appeal for balance and a strategic view that looks at all of these issues. >> thank you. mr. zinc. >> thank you, mr. chairman and gentlemen.

the country is in your debt. general, i've known you a long time and certainly for your service and mr. secretary, i had not known you as long but thank you for taking the job. having said that, this committee, i'm a freshman. and before this committee, we've heard the testimonies of general abersy and general conway who i know well and fought with in fallujah and i'll quote, there is not a snow ball's chance in hell that our challenge will defeat isis and they have embedded commanders in their forces and even though it is a modern shia force which has great ramifications long-term, and i've been a fight or go home

guy. if we're going to fight, fight to win. i was never a flag officer, i was a deputy commander in iraq and i was a commander at seal team six and i've looked at protection of our troops and making sure they had the right training and the ability to win decisively. and having said that, if we are to embed as iran is going to do and looking at admiral and general conway and your senior leadership and my concern is if we imbed, we don't just imbed with a few, and should an individual get captured he will die in a -- die a heinous death in a cage and so this will take a package of weight and then we'll have to have a med evac because if one of our guys gets hurt we'll have to bring him out and a u.s. facility somewhere close and if our guys get down we have to have a qrf, because that is american forces because

we don't want another somalia or benghazi and we have to have a logistics arm to make sure our allies, the sunnis an the kurds directly, and the centralized government, have the ammunition, food, fuel, everything that it takes to win. because now we're -- we've committed and imbedded. my question is do the current authorization as proposed, does it allow the flexibility for you, should the decision be made to imbed the structure i've laid out, does that authorization that you are asking, does it include the flexibility to imbed that forced package to win? >> first of all thanks for your own service and thanks for bringing -- what is evidently a

great store of knowledge to this committee. so thanks for that. and the answer is yes. in fact, the president, when he first described the aumf, enumerated a few things that were specifically permitted by it which include many of the items on your list so the answer is yes. >> thank you, mr. secretary and mr. chairman, i yield the remaining part of my time. >> thank you, mr. knight. >> mr. chair. >> i'm going to talk about air power a little bit. over the last 15 or 20 years we've diverted away from ex plain technology and put it into a different phase of different exploration and now we're in a phase of flying the wings off an aircraft after 40 or 50 years and not going on to the next generation and it seems to be in a quicker phase to stay up with

technology. everybody talked about the iphone here today and i have a 16-year-old today that doesn't know anything different than living with the iphone even though it has only been out for eight years. so in the 50s when we had five or six fighters working through the program and we worked through an eight-year program and now we're looking at fifth generation fighters that will probably go through 2050 or through 2060. is that a concern or is that a concern that we can do something quicker? we talk about how we acquire things and how we can get through the acquisition phase quicker? well if we can do that with technology, say do a sixth generation fighter today, it would be much more advanced than our captors in the -- raptors in the air but how can we do that in a quicker phase of 15-20 year

period and fly them for 50 years? >> thanks for that and that recalls a word the chairman used at the beginning of this hearing which is "agility" and if we don't have that agility and our programs take 15-20 years to develop, we don't have the best military in the world. and they remain in the aircraft for a long time. they are not the same aircraft. their technology and armament is changed. and few realize, but i'm sure you do, that 70% of the cost of a military system is in owning it, not buying it in the first place. so as we talk about acquisition reform and cost control, as we began this morning discussing, we must pay attention to sustainment costs. and in the fifth generation aircraft, the f-35 and so forth, we are trying to be very

attentive to sustainment costs because they are going to be the lyon's share of the total life cycle cost of the airplane. >> and mr. secretary, i don't argue with you, in the phase of an aircraft, we are talking about armament and how to change the aircraft. now some of that was with aviation or guts but a lot of that is what we hung off the airplane and today it is changing quicker and yearly and in advancement and how we detect them and how far they can get into the battlefield without being seen. those are the things that are our young airmen should be worried about because the advancements are coming so quickly. for about 50 years those

advancements weren't there. it was just -- if we were faster than you and we could shoot first, then we beat you. >> i'm with you, and i'm very concerned that we keep up in the electronic warfare field which i think you are referring to in that, some of our potential opponents have made advances in that area, enabled by the spread of technology around the world and so if we're going to keep the advantage we've historically had, we need to keep up in those areas. so i am completely with you. >> okay. in my last 50 seconds i'm going to say that if there is some way we can do this in d.o.d., that companies do this all of the time, we've talked about one today, that talk about how quickly they can get it out into the field because the quicker they get it out there, the quicker they make money. the quicker we can do that in d.o.d., the quicker the war fighter is safer or is ahead of the technology curve and we've seen that with u.a.s. where the

soldiers on the field where they could see the enemy where they couldn't see them without them getting around and so i would ask that we do something like that in d.o.d. that might replicate what they do in the private industry. >> we have a number of initiatives in our budget that have exactly that intent and i would be pleased to provide you with more information on them. but i think you are on to something that is terribly important. and it is one of the areas where we are trying to make investments and we need the funding to make -- those investments. >> thank you, mr. secretary. and general thank you, you have helped the freshman class very much and i'm sure you've helped everyone on this dais and i thank you for your commitment to our country. >> miss mcsally. you're on.

>> thank you mr. chairman and thank you secretary carter, general dempsey. i was a masters of public policy graduate so you were one of my instructors back in 1988 and 1990 so it is good to see you again. we've both been able to find a good job to make a difference. >> thank you. you make me proud. >> well i look forward to working with you in future. i want to talk a little bit about combat search and rescue capabilities in iraq and syria. i was 26 years in the military and i was an a-10 pilot, just truth in advertising and ran our joint search and rescue center during the operation southern watch and then the early days of the afghanistan war. so i know there is tremendous challenges in trying to make sure if someone has to eject or get shot down, that we're able to rescue them very quickly. also in the environment that we've seen with the fate of the jordan pilot to locate and protect them and get the forces to get them right away.

i'm sure you're aware of that. and i'll have a more classified briefing tomorrow on that posture and i know we'll have to talk more classified about our response capability and our posture and whether it is limited by the 3100 person on the ground limitation because we've got to be able to make sure, especially with guys flying single engine airplane if they have to eject and sometimes this takes tremendous resources if we can get them out and if you can speak about that and follow-up. >> i'll speak generally, because as we, you know full well, and thank you for what you did, we need to talk details about this in a classified session which we can do. but in general, it is not -- it is not the 3100 limit that in any way paces the search and rescue effort there.

it is time and distance. and we're very attentive to that. again, i don't want to say more here. but i'm sure you can well imagine what i mean. i'm very attentive to that for our air operations over both iraq and syria. i'll see if the chairman wants to add anything. >> yes, thank you. speaking to you about combat search and rescue is like talking about nuclear issues sitting next to a nuclear physician. but that does not limit our ability to do search and rescue. and you know where we are postured. our staff will articulate that tomorrow. and if we think the mission is high risk, we can put the package airborne as part of the order but i think you can find our staff can ease your question tomorrow. >> and i want to follow up the a-10 and now it is deployed over

into the european theater dealing -- working with our allies related to at gression that we've seen coming out of russia and deployed to iraq and sear but the president's budget requests moth bawling them and we don't have a suitable replacement and i asked secretary james if that was strictly a budgetary decision and she said yes and i want to hear if that is the case. we hear many different arguments over the last few years, quite frankly, which are all over the map, that if you had the resources, would you keep the a-10 flying to its life span, which is 2028? >> i agree with secretary james. it is strictly a budgetary issue. we're squeezed on all directions and we're doing our best under -- to give the country the defense it needs for the amount of money that we have. the a-10 is a proud aircraft and

has done an enormous amount for us over the years. and i think we tried to find common ground with those here on the hill. and the -- and very important to me which is not a money issue is to make sure that our close air support from the air force to our ground forces is a real enduring capability. i'm satisfied it is. i'm sure that secretary james said the same thing yesterday. you want to add anything? >> congressman, we have aircraft providing close air support from the apache helicopter to the b-1. and the a-10 is in that suite of capabilities. but it is -- we are faced with a budget issue and trying to make sure we keep enough capability that can operate both in contested and uncontested air space. >> great, thank you. my time is about to expire. for the record, i do have a

question i'll be following up with, i know we're talking about making sure that women can be fully integrated into all jobs in the military, but i also want integrated into all positions and i know we've seen only male deployed issues and there were specific positions that were male only, but across the board military and civilian i would like to follow up with male only deployment positions that are male only. thank you mr. chairman. >> mr. mcchord, as promised i want to come back on the audit issue. because we had two secretaries yesterday who said the biggest achievement to a -- to the achievement for the pass of the clean audit was the defense finance and accounting service over which they had no control. are you aware of the problem and are you going to fix it? >> thank you mr. chairman. yeah, i think we have a lot of hard work to do on audit and we're making good progress.

i think you probably heard both of those thoughts, both of those sides yesterday. the issue that came -- audit is very much a team sport in two ways it. requires the military departments who were here yesterday to work with service provides which is the most important one in the department in that respect but the second way is it requires a collaboration of people throughout the department, people who do audit like the dfas folks, it is a primary responsibility of their and it requires the people in the community, people who don't think audit is my primary job to work or we can't make it work because it requires information from all of the systems so in that respect it is like if the secretary were turn to general dempsey and ask him to setup a task force, it would require the people at the tip of sphere and the load stigss and the same from our audit task force and

the loadist ises and the people that own the information across the department. so with respect to the issue from yesterday as i understand it dfa is an entity of itself and it has passed a clean audit 15 times in a row and so they are not incape able and they are -- incapable and they are getting people to do the independent auditing and they have had four areas where they have had a clean audit which is the bread and butter areas of military, paying civilians and paying contractors and disbursing. the issue that came up where they did not pass was called financial reporting which is the most involved complex spreads across the whole department issue and that is where the challenge lies so they were given ten years where they didn't

-- where they didn't pass. they were given nine items to -- 12 areas that didn't pass and nine that require more time. and that is why you do audits and that is why you have an operational readiness inspection of a unit to find out where you are good and where you are not and the d fas is a capable partner and they do have a problem but financial reporting is not strictly d fas because it is across the department which is one of the real hard parts of audit for us. >> mr. secretary, all of this talk about budget up here and this makes a big difference in -- and those of us who believe we need to spend more on defense, if we can't improve the accountability for how we spend that money it makes our job much, much more difficult. and i appreciate how complex this is, but i'm just as an editorial comment, it makes a

big difference in getting budget support up here if we can meet those deadlines for an audit. and if we can't it undermines that effort. so i know you know that but it particularly in the middle of the budget discussions it is -- it is very much on my mind. mr. mcchord let me ask you one other thing. you've heard the discussion about what with -- we can use o code for and it is my understanding there is omb guidance and department guidance that helps directing the uses for o-o-ko funds and we bought f-35s in the past for o-ko funds. >> and yes.

there is a department of defense -- and i was responsible in negotiating that and we felt it needed to be tighter than it had been when we got here and that agreement dates to 2010 and it has geographic aspects to it, things that happened in this country and that country and things that happened in the countries that may not be in the agreement and we've had some modifications to that. and you are correct in that congress plays in a role -- o-co has to be approved by spending and that was followed by this administration and the previous administration as well and so both parties have a voice and you mentioned f-35s have been an issue of contention in the fact. in fact just a few months ago we requested to buy f-35s to replaces aircraft lost at kandahar and training losses and several were approved and so there was division and remains

division on what is appropriate use of oco. >> would you do me afavor and would you and your folks commit to -- submit to us in writing on efr view -- an overview of how oko runs now. this is not the best way to run a railroad. and i hope we can have a different way of funding the department as we move down the many steps ahead in the budget process. if, however, we end up with a substantial amount of oco with gaps in the base i want to understand what all of those restrictions, administrative or legislative may be, because those are things that we can obviously address in the authorization bill. i don't know how this is going to go. i just want to be ready and you can help us in understanding that. i would appreciate it. >> certainly will provide that information for the record. >> mr. secretary last question i've got is about ukraine. mr. smith has introduced

legislation along with me that would require lethal assistance provided to the cranans so they can defend themselves sand do something about the tanks pouring in from russia and what we've been told is that we're studying it. well every day that the white house dithers about this, more equipment is pouring in for what i believe will be a renewed offensive at some point so can you help me understand a time line for a decision from the administration on providing lethal assistance to the ukrainians? >> thank you chairman. two things. the first is you're right, our support for ukraine as it tries to create a place for itself in europe situationed as it is between europe and russia is

very important. and know you are asking about the military side of it. the part i preface though, is that, that is principally a political and above all economic challenge because the economy of ukraine is in -- in serious trouble. and so i think the assistance of of -- the financial responsibility is the most important thing. we are supplying military assistance to the ukrainian milt. the president just made an announcement about a week ago about military systems in a number of categories, vehicles and so forth that i think that will be of material assistance to the ukrainian military. there are also under consideration, and yes, it is under consideration, some additional categories of assistance which are defensive

lethal assistance. and those are being considered. i think they should be considered. and i've said that before. but it is a complicated decision that involves other kinds of assistance that we're giving and the paramount fact which is that we -- we need to support the ukrainian's politically and economically and in particular our nato partners and our european allies need to support ukraine economically and in the end that is the key to keeping what we want, which is an independent ukraine that can find its own way and isn't pushed around by the russians. >> i don't disagree about the importance of financial assistance but what concerns me is while we study to death and do not provide them the means to defend themselves, the armor and artillery attacks and so forth, the positions in the eastern

rebel-held area are strengthening and last point is countries around the world are watching how reliable a friend we are. and i'm concerned this has tremendous detrimental effects, encouraging putin's aggression and discouraging countries to be friends of the united states because we're sitting here ringing our hands and providing a few blankets and what not. i don't think that is a good way to go. i realize this has turned into a white house call but it does -- and i'm sorry last point is there is tremendous bipartisan support in both the house and the senate for providing this assistance. and i really think the administration is isolated on this issue and that is also something that is not good for the country. i'll -- unless you have something you want to add, i don't want to cut you off. >> i would simply say that from

personal observation, i was in bud a pest in 1994 when the agreement was signed that the russians have violated, so i'm very alive to the -- the possibility that we had then and i think still need to stick up for of independent ukraine able to find its own way politically and economically is the only thing i would say. in the first instance it is terribly important that that occurment and occur. and the other thing i will say is that nobody should mistake that ukraine is a very important country to us. it is not a nato ally and i just want to make the point that as far as nato allies are concerned, that raises a whole other set of issues that i hope

anyone who is considering encroaching upon a nato ally takes very seriously. >> well i hope so too. i'll be traveling to that region shortly and talking with some of those folks about it. >> thank you for doing that. >> thank you all for being here, mr. secretary. welcome back general dempsey. you're going to miss us when you're gone. >> yes, sir. >> thank you all for being here. with that, the hearing stands adjourned. deputy secretary of state anthony blanken will update on negotiations with iran. this comes as a deadline nears for the p5 plus 1 countries to reach an agreement with iran. live coverage starts at 5:30 on c-span 2 and here watch live

coverage on the republican budget at 1030 a.m. eastern. now isis rears their ugly head and this army is very shaky. we shouldn't be surprised by that. you can't undo decades of soviet era and saddam era stuff with eight years. especially when you've taught them on a model where they'll have u.s. advisers and partners with them. if afghanistan according to the president announcement, we have 10,000 troops in an advising training role but we'll draw down to 5,000 troops and zero after that and i warn we'll see a similar result when isis attacks. that is going to be shaky. >> daniel bulger on the f strategies in iraq and afghanistan and what we should have done differently, sunday

night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's q&a. up next a senate panel investigated inaccurate government records. officials from the social security administration testify about errors in what is known as the death master file. we're hear from a woman listed as deceased by social security. wisconsin senator ron johnson chaired the homeland security and governmental security. >> in particular we have an interesting witness who has certainly been the victim of inaccuracy in our death master file and miss judy rivers from logan, alabama and i have to say i read your testimony and i would recommend everybody reading the full testimony, it is quite the story. but i was struck by -- very early on. you made the statements often been said that washington, d.c. is the capital of unintended

consequences and we're going to see that here today. but i would like to say that we're going to start off with miss rivers testifying and then i will offer every senator a opportunity to ask one question. no statements. and we are time constrained. this is a powerful testimony of unintended consequences. but i have a written only statement which i will enter into the record with no objection and i would like to turn it over to our ranking member carper which is the yo man that has been trying to correct improper payments on the federal government and i'll turn it over to you. >> thank you for pulling this together and to our witnesses for joining us today. as you know, the work i've done on improper payments i've done with tom coburn whose birthday was this weekend. he's retired and i know he is

here in spirit with us today because he bear -- cares about the money we're leaving on the table. and william sutton he said why do we go after the banks that, where the money is and why do we go after improper payments are that is where the money is. and we still have a big budget deficit. and it is still too much. we have a debt about $18 trillion, when agencies are facing tight budgets and facing sequestration we can't afford making $125 million in improper payments like we apparently made last fiscal year. this represents an almost $19 billion increase over the last year. $19 billion increase after going down for a number of years, an increase of $19 billion. this comes from over 70 programs and more than 20 agencies in programs from medicare to

medicaid to the department of defense and if we're going to get a better handle on our debt and improve american's impressions of how we care for the money, then we need to sharpen our pencils and stop making the expensive avoidable mistakes that lead to wasteful spending that make us-- lead us to abuse. and improper payments were addressed through legislation that were in the house in 2002 and the act requires agencies to address the level of improper payments made each year. in 2010 dr. coburn followed up with the recovery act which expanded the requirements for agencies to identify and prevent and to recover improper payments. in 2012 senator susanzanne collins and scott brown and i went further and recovery improvement act. building off of very good initiative of the administration, the law made the

president's do not pay program designs to screen all federal payments in order to double check basic eligibility requirements. simply put do not pay allows a government agency to check whether someone should be paid before the government pays them. i think that is common sense. hope to have a discussion with our witnesses today, especially our witnesses from omb and jo about how all of the legislative issues are working and are not working and what additional measures we should consider and we'll spend time discussing the specific problems of agencies paying people to people who are actually deceased. for example the office of personal management inspector general reported that $600 million were made to those found to have died over five years and this is not unique to this one program and including the collection and use of federal agencies of data on individuals that died will help curve millions to billions of dollars