sir, there is capability with countries in the region but no countries have come forward and volunteered to put boots on the ground in iraq. >> thank you sir. well, good luck to you, and again, i appreciate your determination and resolve. i hope you're as successful as you believe you'll be. >> we will be successful, sir. >> thank you mr. chairman. and thank all of you for all your efforts. general votell, i'd like to talk about one other issue for just a minute. that is i want to thank you for your top down leadership on mental health with special operations. you've been incredibly frank about this challenge and that alone sends an important message to the troops. can you talk about the psychological component of your preservation of the force and family program and how that's going today? >> thank you for the question,

senator, and we appreciate the continued support we get from congress in this very significant challenge to us. we are looking at a variety of things. we are looking at pier to pier programs that we use within organizations to help provide access to our members and their family members and others to reach out and talk to their friends and their peers about that, and i think this has been an important component of it. likewise, we are pursuing training programs to ensure that our leadership our chaplains and others are well trained in the ability to identify those behaviors that we think are related to stress and potentially which can lead to suicide. and third, i think one of the most important things we are doing is trying to send the very clear message across the entire board that it is absolutely normal and expected to ask for help when you need it. and you can do that without any

stigma or concerns about your standing in the command. we are working double time to put effort on that particular theme and message throughout this. the real goal of our program is to empower people early and often by trying to enable them by giving them easy access to programs and resources so they can get help and then encouraging them with this message. >> will you work with us to help us take the lessons you've learned in socom and work with the other parts of our military? >> absolutely. >> thank you very much. general austin, it appears that the efforts to critter have stalled at the moment, so my concern, my -- one of the areas i'm looking at is how do we empower the moderate sunnis? are they the key to making this work?

and if you're a moderate sunni the concern would be why would you want to team up with a shiite militia when isis is also sunni? they may be like the bad cousin that shows up at the event, but they're still your cousin. how do we empower the moderate snin sunnis and do you see them as the key to moving this along and having success in iraq? >> i do believe getting the sunni population involved is really, really important in terms of being successful going forward. and you're right, the previous operation did stall, and it stalled because i think the wrong approach was taken. many of the forces that were being employed were not controlled or supervised by the ministry of defense or governor of iraq. that has recently changed. as of the last several days and

today -- yesterday when we started supporting this effort, we think that this effort will begin to move forward with the employment of the special operations forces and the help of our enablers. but i think it's absolutely key that, number one the government has to be accommodating to both the sunni and the kurd population and we have to increasingly get the sunnis involved. >> can you help make that happen? because the concern is a body -- a lot of the folks that surround him are still from the previous administration. and the other part about this is you've had extraordinary experience in the al ambar area and all the service you've done for our country throughout iraq. can you help identify the key sunni moderate leaders to make them part of this? and is that what's going to --

you know, you look and you say hey, we think we're going to get it right this time. how do you think this turns out? >> sir to answer both your questions, we are encouraged -- we continue to encourage the leadership in iraq to be more accommodating to the sunni population and do some things that are demonstrable that increases their confidence in the leadership and the government. and you may know that we are helping the iraqi security forces and the government of iraq reach out to the tribal elements of ambar and bring in some of those elements to train them and get them involved in the fight as well. those we have trained and equipped have performed remarkably well. >> thank you mr. chairman.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. general votel when we met last week, you talked about how the resources allowed you to meet threats with moderate risk. and over the past year we've seen that terror trap increase, small problems become more serious, they become driszcrisis. you believe this is part of the results of the strategy that accept moderate risk? are we less able to nip those problems in the bud so that they grow into these serious threats? >> nor thanks for the question. first of all, i think we can continue to -- i think all commanders operate in an area where they are constantly balancing risk of their forces and missions that are being done on a regular basis and i think that's what i'm principally paid to do. as we move forward and continue

to deal with changing and complex situations, for me i think it gets down toeg prioritization. for us, what we will attempt to do is offset the risk that is associated with increased operations by ensuring them we prioritize on those operations for which we can have the biggest impact and we can help support the broadest national objectives. >> is libya a place where we're going to accept moderate risk? >> again, i think that perhaps may be a policy question. certainly from my perspective and working with my partner in africom, we are looking at the things we can do to address the threats that are in libya today. >> thank you. general rododrigues, in your opening statement you say libya-based threats are growing. if left unchecked, i believe they have the highest potential of security challenges on the

continent to increase risk to u.s. and european strategic interests in the next two years and beyond. you also describe libya as emerging as a safe haven where terrorists, including al qaeda and the islamic state of iraq and the affiliated groups can train and rebuild with impunity. that to me doesn't sound like we're on the right trajectory. do you think our approach to libya is not adequate? are we accepting too much risk? >> thanks, senator for -- first of all to make sure everybody is clear on what we're doing in and around libya. a significant effort is going in around libya to prevent that from spilling over. so when you look at what is happening in tunisia, in egypt we are working with our partners as much as we can and as much as

we have the authority to do that to strengthen their capacities to limit the spillover of that effort. we're also working with our european partners to increase their effort and we are supporting at this point in time the u.n. effort to come to a diplomatic solution and anything past that will require a policy decision. >> how would you rate the success of the things you just described, the spillover and the work with our partners in the u.n.? >> the work with our partners has, for the most part, gone very well with the exception of one or two sensational tacks that you read about in tunisia the other day but their capacities have continued to grow, and they can handle that threat every day, as does nuger and chad, and the work of the european efforts in the u.n. has

not had as much progress as anybody wants to date yet, ma'am. >> thank you. and general votel if i can just return to that idea of moderate risk for my closing questions here. over the long term, do you think that if we see risk continue to increase and those smaller problems continue to accumulate how do we prioritize that? if they're viewed as smaller problems at the time but yet they continue to escalate and become greater and greater risk to this country not just the region they're in how are you going to prioritize? how are you going to address it, and do you have the resources you need? >> thanks, senator. right now i think i do have the resources that i need to support the gcc commanders at a moderate level of risk for the things i'm being asked to do today.

what i think we will do for the future, as i mentioned in my opening comments here, i think soft plays a particular role in the gray zone in the area before operations, before we get to open conflict. and so i think the important piece that i bring to the geographic commanders is our ability to come in and help shape, develop partnerships, help build capacity and support relationships in all of those areas so that we can strengthen partners before big problems grow into -- before small problems grow into big problems. and i really think that is the direction in which we should be focusing sof into the future. >> general rodriguez, did you have a response? >> thank you, senator. as far as those products that goes to our security interest, and the additional risk is what our partners can handle and what they're doing themselves and we

prioritize it based on a whole of government and interagency effort and who can help most in different places. so i think that's what is done every day in the defense department, ma'am. >> thank you, gentlemen, and thank you for your service. thank you, mr. chair. >> thank you. i'm now determined that budget gimmicks have no attachment to party, that both parties are capable of using budget gimmicks as we approach the challenges of sequestration and defense spending. it is now being used in the current budget we're debating and the budget that passed the house yesterday. rather than confront sequestration and be honest about the challenges we have in our base budget that we've all given a lot of time in terms of rhetoric to, we are now going further down the road of using oco as a slush fund. it's not good for physical

accountability it's not good for restoring faith in the american people that we can face the tough decisions and not retreat to rhetoric and gimmickry that is not really true. we're not going to build, as my colleague has said we're not going to build a px someplace in america with oco funds. the question is, can we used, and i'll ask you all, do you believe the army can buy back force strength with oco funds? >> i do not, senator. >> do you believe that the navy can address the shortfalls in shipping with oco funds? >> no ma'am. >> i just think that we've got to be -- believe me, i'm not saying that we come to this with clean hands. as democrats, we don't, because we have engaged in gimmickry also. but i know the chairman wants to face this head on and i know it's a challenge in this political environment, but i did

want to bring it up that we have obviously not met the challenge with the budget as it's currently configured. i wanted to specifically ask you, general austin about something that's very troubling to me, and that is that i've been told there has been a determination that operation freedom sentinel is a new contingency operation. do you see it as a new contingency operation? >> it's a continuation of our efforts, senator. so, you know, in terms of the types of things that we're doing, you know, we're continuing to train and advise and assist the afghan security forces, but in terms of you know, how we account for the funding that we're allocating to that, that's a different issue. >> well the reason i'm asking this is i'm told that there is an effort under way of naming a new lead inspector general in

afghanistan as opposed to the inspector general of afghanistan. if that determination is made i want to make sure everybody understands that's going to impose a lot of additional burdens in terms of oversight requirements, on contracting. i know there is continuity in cigar. i don't understand the value right now of changing inspector generals at this point. the projects are ongoing, that the inspector general in afghanistan is aware of and working on. i don't get it. and if there is really a sincere attempt to replace him, by labeling this a new contingency, someone is going to have some explaining to do i think, to me, and i hope others on this committee, as to why that would be a good idea. are you aware of an effort to do that at this point? >> i don't know -- i'm not aware

of the effort, but certainly i'll find out. i'll look into it, senator. >> that would be terrific. as you know, we worked very closely with the inspector generals both in iraq and afghanistan. i think the body of work they've done is incredibly helpful to our nation's military as we look at how we honestly confront sequestration. one of the ways is being better stewards of the resources we have allocated to these efforts. general rodriguez i understand that most of the service members who deployed to africa as part of the ebola response united assistance have begun returning home. is there any effort to keep track of the number of contractors around this effort and how many of them have been pulled and how many of them remain in ebola as we continue to try to stay on top of contractor costs? >> yes, ma'am, there is. there is a very, very strict accounting that's done. we've had oversight from the

d.o.d.i ig from the beginning and we were very cognizant of contractor oversight and also paying too much money for contracts with the u.s. as well as the host nation is providing. we have a strict accounting, yes, ma'am. >> that's terrific. we would love if you would share that with our office. also general austin, if you could share with us how many contractors have been drawn up in iraq as a result of our efforts against isil. we've gotten to the point we were just counting contractors in afghanistan, now we're back to counting contractors in iraq, and we would appreciate an update on that number also. >> yes, ma'am. i'll take that for the record. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you gentlemen, for all your service and for the men and women sitting behind you, not just on behalf of all the troops you represent, but you personally. i know you spent many years down range. general austin i want to return to the topic senator kaincain was

addressing. do i understand that there are now no iranian forces in decrete? >> the forces are operation forces, special forces and federal police. and as of this morning when i checked with my commanders, the shia militia and pmf have pulled back. >> by "pulled back," do you mean there are still shiite militias or iranian forces like cut force in the center of decrete? >> i'm sure they're still in the area. there are probably forces on the east side of the river. the city of decrete is on the west side of the river. >> do we know the whereabouts of kosum silamante? >> to my knowledge he was not

in decrete or in that area. >> in any way have we implemented fire control measures to ensure that we don't strike any of the shiite paramilitary forces or iranian elements that are in the vicinity of decrete? >> we certainly have -- we caused itthe iraqi security forces to develop a scheme or maneuver that can effectively accomplish the mission of clearing the town. and our fires are supportive of that effort so we're focused on that. we always do everything that we can to ensure that there is not excessive collateral damage. but our focus is on the isf forces that we're supporting.of]ñ >> would you consider collateral damage if members of kosum sing

kosum sulamante? >> i believe i would. >> did he have freedom in iraq? >> i believe he does senator. >> six months ago, president obama cited yemen as a success story. do you believe yemen is a threat today? >> they certainly put us in a different posture right now, particularly in the threat we were focused on in al qaeda and the arabian peninsula. it's much more challenging today than it was when we had people on the ground. >> general austin do you consider yemen a success story today? >> certainly yemen is a very troubled country today with the challenges it's facing and the activity of the houttis, so i

think the country is in turmoil. >> approximately ten months ago, the president released five taliban commanders in exchange for bergdahl who was charged with assertion in his chain of command. i believe the agreement expires in two months; is that correct? >> i believe that to be correct senator. >> do we know what will happen with those five taliban commanders in two months in cutter when that agreement expires? >> i don't, senator. >> will they have freedom of movement both inside and outside cutter at that point? >> i think that's -- we probably have to consult a cutter government and the results of our government that are in charge of monitoring the movement of these elements. i can't answer that, senator. i can't take that for the record and try to do the research on it. >> i would like to get an answer for the record. thank you, general austin.

i'll address this to general austin and general rodriguez. given the situation in yemen, if there were action by the militants there to block the men mendez strait, i assume americans would act to open that strait? >> we would work with our partners to make sure that strait remains open. it's one of our core interests to ensure that we have free flow of congress through both straits. yes, sir, it would also work with both the host nations of africa as well as our european partners to support those efforts, sir. >> thank you gentlemen. i appreciate your answers and once again i appreciate your service to our country. >> for the record i'd like a response to senator cotton's question. do you consider yemen a success story or not? yes or no? it's a pretty simple straightforward question. >> it's currently not a success

story, senator. >> it's not a success story today. >> thank you very much. senator cain? >> when the president made that statement, he was talking about an anti-terrorism efforts against aqap, was he not general votel? >> i believe that's correct, sir. >> he wasn't talking about yemen itself, he was talking about the success of our counterterrorism against aqap. naturally the deterioration of the situation in yemen is compromised. are we able to continue that in aqap, or is that in abeyance pending the dust settling in yemen? >> we'll obviously be doing work in connection with general austin's headquarters and other partners in the area to try to look at how we regain the situational awareness an understanding of what's happening on the ground and how

we can continue to address the threats that eminate from yemen. >> i would like to talk about general austin's comments about the sequestration problem. it obviously doesn't go to the base budget and it's unpaid for. it's just absolutely the wrong way to approach this problem and i hope the congress can find a more realistic and responsible solution to sequestration. also, general austin again, without -- because you talked to senator donnelly about this it seems to me that it's critically important that we use the leverage we have which apparently was used in the decrete battle, to be sure that this isn't a shiite militia-led offensive. because if this becomes another version of a war of shiites against sunnis, we've lost.

this has to be inclusive, and i hope your relationship with the presidential body and government emphasizes that, because it's just essential to a successful outcome in iraq regardless of the short-term strategic advantage in decrete or mosul. would you agree with that? >> sir, i would, and i take every opportunity to emphasize those exact points to the leadership in iraq when i engage them. >> and it sounds like the airstrikes in the last couple days in decrete were, in fact conditioned on that kind of consideration; is that correct? >> that's correct, sir. this operation had to be under the control of the government of iraq and iraqi security forces. there had to be a force once the city is cleared to maintain stability in that city and that force needs to be an iraqi security force.

and so those things, those conditions were met early on in terms of the planning and sink synchronization, so we can offer some support. >> i think you can argue that the problems are the malaki's behavior. we heard a wonderful, passionate speech from president ghani this week. i'm concerned we're still in a calendar-driven status in afghanistan, and even though the president has allowed troops to stay through 2015, we're still talking about kabul only at the end of 2016. do you believe that's going to be sufficient in order to support the afghans? we've made such progress there i would just hate to see us pull out in terms of air support and

training and services. give me your thoughts on that. >> i agree with you that the new leadership in afghanistan causes all of us to be encouraged and optimistic. and i think from what i've seen both president ghani do and also the ceo of abdullah do in terms of reaching out to the international community in terms of reaching out to the folks in the region as well it's all encouraging. the relationships with the security forces they're supportive security forces. their statements of common goals with the u.s. i think, are all very encouraging. this gives us opportunities we never had before, and we really have to think about what we want our relationship to be with afghanistan going forward and what it means for the region.

>> i certainly hope you will counsel the white house to think seriously about what i would consider a modest additional investment to maintain the tremendous gains that have been had. it's not for sure that the regime or the government of afghanistan can withstand the taliban on their own, and after what we've invested over the past 13 years, to walk away at five minutes of midnight and see it all collapse, i think, would be a real shame. so i hope you will urge that on the policymakers based upon general campbell and the other information you're receiving from the field. they need not only those troops, but they need authorities. president ghani talked about air support. i think that's going to be crucial. so carry that message, will you, sir. >> thank you mr. chair. gentlemen, thank you very much for being here today and also to your staff. thank you for your many years of

combined service to the united states. general votel, i just want to mention in your testimony today, i would like to thank you for mentioning not only our active duty forces but the reserve and national guard component. your operators, your decisions, your analysts and so forth, it's a one team one fight, so i appreciate you acknowledging that today. something else you brought up and a couple others have mentioned, too, is stress and suicide with our active duty members and with our veterans, those that have gotten off of active duty. it is important that we continue with resiliency programs and making sure that not only are they physically fit for the fight but they're mentally fit as well. so thank you for bringing that forward. a number of us are working on initiatives to make sure they are well cared for. i would like to address my question and thoughts, general austin and general votel.

last week was the 12th anniversary of our entrance into iraq with the iraq war. we've had 3,000 -- excuse me 4,000 american servicemen and women who have lost their lives in iraq and we've had another 40,000 that have been injured in that war. and i want to thank you for your service in that war. i know all of you have engaged at one point or another in the war in iraq. many of our servicemen and women will come home with not only invisible injuries but physical injuries that will impact their lives for many, many years. but before we ever entered into iraq on march 20th of 2003 the iraqi kurds were already engaged in preparing the battlefield before we ever got there. they have been an important part of our effort in iraq. and so i would like your

thoughts on involving -- more involvement of the iraqi kurds the peshmir in this fight and really what their role has been from 2003 forward. if you would please address that, general austin? >> thank you, senator. and i agree. i was, as you probably know, with the elements when we went into iraq back in -- 12 years ago. whereas i didn't initially make it all the way up to kurdistan, i can tell you what the kurds were doing in the north at that point in time was very instrumental to our forces that flowed in later and facilitated our work there. most recently with their efforts in the current fight against isil, they really have done a terrific job. and i've talked with president

barzoni and his staff on numerous occasions about what we're doing, what the requirements were and what they needed to do more. as you look at what they've done in the north up there in terms of actually inflicting damage on isil i think their efforts have really shaped this overall fight in a very positive direction. and they continue to do more on a daily basis. they're a big part of this fight. they've punched above their weight class and i think they'll continue to do so. >> general votel? >> thank you senator. i absolutely agree with whatu[c general austin said. i would only add that a key part of the kurdist relationship really has been a long-term relationship with them. they were a key partner with sof forces when we were there from 2003 to 2011 and helped us address a variety of networks. and i do believe the great and enduring relationship we've had

with them from a sof force and kurdish force aspect was one of the things we were able to achieve last summer. we were quickly able to renew those relationships, draw on those partnerships and get going very quickly in some areas. to me that highlights the importance of the long-term relationship we've been able to develop with them. >> do you believe the long-term resources would be better if we armed the kurdish forces? >> i think that is a policy question. certainly they are very capable forces and i think they would make good use of any resources provided to them. >> yes, i think they have an exceptional force and ally too, in our american forces in that region. thank you, gentlemen, for your service and also your staff being here in support today. thank you, mr. chair. >> thank you mr. chairman, and thank you to the witnesses for your strong testimony this morning. i want to begin with yemen.

i was intrigued with the account in the news this morning about the saudi and other action in yemen. and in particular the number of partners that have been part of this in addition to in addition to saudi arabia, bahrain, kuwait, qatar uae, jordan morocco there is press report that egypt is involved. and perhaps a little surprisingly, pakistan and sudan. so nine nations in addition to saudi arabia springing into action to deal with this threat of the houthi takeover of the government in yemen. i'm gratified by that. i want to see a region that will stand up and try to deal with its own problems rather than telling us quietly they think it's a problem and not doing anything. i was struck by the fact those nine nations haven't come together and acted with dispatch against isil. they're involved. but they are not acting with dispatch against isil even nearly a year in to isil's sort of accelerated taking of

territory in syria and iraq. just as experts who spent a lot of time in the region, what explains why these nine nations would react with such speed and force to the houthi takeover in yemen but would not be so engaged in the fight against isil? >> sir like you i am very encouraged that we've seen what we've seen here recently with the number of nations coming together to address the problem. the core of these nations are gcc nations, and i certainly believe that they all think that yemen is a very critical piece of real estate, just based upon the geography. most important it shares a border with saudi arabia and oman. and i think, so the gcc countries are naturally predisposed to helping protect another gcc country.

and then there's the relationships between the saudis and the egyptians and others are really what's driving their participation there. i would remind you, i know you are wel@ ]i e)rák ut the night we flew into syria for the first time we had five sunni arab-led nations fly in formation with us which is really unprecedented. we continue to see them offer support in terms of material support. they have offered to train and equip forces. throughout, they have remained with us in terms of flying strikes against syria. they have continued to participate in that now. as they begin to focus on the yemen problem, naturally because of resources, we'll probably see less of an effort in syria. >> you indicated you thought

in response to earlier questioning that you thought that isil was our most pressing challenge but iran was our greatest long-term challenge. as a possible explanation for the force of the action against yemen, is that all of these nations believe that iran is the more pressing challenge and they actually don't think of isil as the same kind of pressing challenge that they view when they look at iran? >> i can attest to the fact that they do see isil as a pressing challenge, sir. i do think a big driver here is that, you know the geography associated with this yemen border saudi and oman and clearly the direct threat to their homeland. >> each of you work in the military lane but with partners. partners, state a.i.d., doj

dea, dhs, the intel agencies. there's been questions here about the effect of sequester on the military mission. but would you not also agree that to the extent that sequester affects your allied agencies that you work with in your special forces that that is also an aspect of sequester that we need to take seriously if we're trying to avoid challenges to our national security? >> i agree. >> i do, too, senator. >> i definitely agree. >> general rodriguez, the attack in tunisia was particularly troubling. tunisia, a small country, but you know kind of a bright spot in a way in terms of how they have come out of the arab spring with a constitution, with islamic parties participating in democracy, even stepping back from power. what has your observation been about the tunisian government's newly formed, newly elected government's reaction to the terrorist attack at the museum in tunisia and what's your

assessment of how they are going forward and how we can help them succeed? >> i think their response has been very effective. their military institutions are strong. and was also a state rising influence is they went through that transition, and we continue to work with them to build some of their capacities with some of our interagency partners. those elements were involved in that effort, and we continue to share intelligence with them, and we will continue to build up their capacities to ensure they continue moving in a positive trajectory. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and gentlemen, thank you for your service. mr. chairman, i want to let you know, ten years ago as a marine corps major i had the privilege of serving with general austin. and i can tell you he's one of the finest officers i've ever

served with. i am heartened he is in this very important position. >> he is not generally very nice to marines, so i am glad to hear that. >> i see he has one on his staff, so keeping in full tradition of the centcom respect for the marine corps, i appreciate that. general votel i want to ask you a question relating to really some clarification. one of the things i think is very important in congress and the military and the administration is to speak with language that gives our citizens a sense of what is really happening. one thing you hear a lot about now, the president, the administration talks a lot about winding down combat operations. combat operations are over. we have ended combat operations in afghanistan. that has been stated several times. the president of afghanistan even mentioned that in a joint session of congress yesterday.

you also mentioned we have a robust ct effort. are we speaking on both sides of our mouth? isn't a robust ct effort the very definition of combat operations? don't we still have combat operations going on in afghanistan? >> we are, senator, thanks for the question. we are obviously supporting our afghan partners and their execution of what could be termed as combat operations at their effort. to your first part of your question with respect to counterterrorism, you know, counterterrorism, i think, as we pursue this here is not just a kinetic aspect of it. >> but it is kind of the epitome of combat operations. aren't american soldiers when they're conducting combat operations in afghanistan, or counterterrorism operations in afghanistan, isn't that the definition of combat operations? they are going in with weapons and killing bad guys, correct? >> we are not doing that today.

>> there's no c.t. operations? >> there are c.t. operations. but c.t. operations involve not only helping and enabling partners who are helping us with our c.t. objectives, the conduct of discreet action that we are taking like kinetic strikes that are specifically against threats there. and then how we address the overall ideology and narrative aspect of this. >> but our c.t. operations are not members of the u.s. military in action against enemy forces? >> right now today we are -- we are not putting people on unilateral u.s. operations in again forces on the ground in afghanistan. we are supporting our afghan partners. as we get at those. and we are doing other operations related to those networks. >> okay. again i think that clarification is important just because it

seems to me if we have special forces operators in afghanistan in direct combat we should let the american people know. if you are saying that is not the case, that there is no combat going on, there is no sf actions direct actions against al qaeda operatives or anything else like that? >> i'm not saying there's no combat going on. what i'm saying is there's no unilateral u.s. combat going on. we are working through our partners. when we do operations on the ground. >> do we have j-tacs on the ground either in syria or iraq calling in missions? >> we have j-tacs that are operating at command and control locations. >> they're not on the ground -- >> they're not. they're accompanying forces doing operations. >> general austin i was mentioning you mentioned the whole of government approach with regard to isil.

i appreciate that. appreciate the fact that you're focused on the military aspects of that, but what are the other instruments of power we are bringing into bear with regard to american power with regard to isil? and i just haven't really seen the administration articulate that at all. you mention it in your testimony, i think that's very encouraging. but what is it? we haven't really seen it. again i know it's not your realm that you're responsible for, but it would be heartening to know what other instruments of our american power we're integrating to the fight with regard to defeating isis. >> there are a couple of important things that have to be done, senator, as you know, in order to really defeat this enemy. the kinetic piece of it is one issue. but you really have to do some constructive things to cut off the enemy's ability to resource themselves. countering the threat financing is one issue. stopping the flow of foreign fighters, or slowing down the flow of foreign fighters. both of those issues

have to be worked by our government, whole of government, and they have to be worked in conjunction with other countries, not only in the region, but internationally. also there is a requirement or i need to counter the narrative. and so i think we have to do more there. i know there are some initial steps that have been taken to begin to do that, but there is a lot of work yet to be done. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, chairman. i want to thank the witnesses for being here. of course what you've done for our country and continue to do. i wanted to ask general austin a questions about yemen. senator kaine pointed out in addition to the saudi's there were nine other countries participating in this coalition to assist in yemen. so just to be clear, we've been

obviously participating state department side on negotiations with iran for very intensely probably for the last year, at least. or more. and during that period, what has iran been doing in yemen? and is it not the fact that iran's influence and support of the houthis which is in part prompting the saudis and others to engage in this? >> certainly, iran has been enabling the activity of the houthis as they've done what they've done. i would go further to say iran's desire is to be a hedge mon in this region. >> meaning regional domination? >> right, right. as it expands its influence it does so through the shia

populations in these countries. that won't allow iran to dominate any specific country in the region. what it does do is it increases -- it starts to increase sectarian tension, and thereby it serves as a destabilizing effort. >> let me be clear. when we're talking support of i know general votel you're familiar with this when we're talking about the support we're talking about money and arms, aren't we? we aren't just talking about we support you because you are shia we are talking about actual support on the ground? >> yes, we are talking about materiel support, as well. but i think that support is provided through the shia -- >> they give them money and arms, which has undermined our interest in the mission that we had and cooperation that we had to try to deal with al qaeda. isn't that right, general votel, in yemen?

>> yes, senator, i think that is true. >> the other thing i want to ask ask about is bahrain. we have an important partnership in bahrain, do we not? in fact we have the location there of the united states elite correct? >> that's correct, senator. >> and what's iran doing with regard to the bahrain government right now? which is the sunni government as i understand it they are also trying to destabilize that government, which, of course, would, in my view, threaten our interests there. >> correct. we see the same reach through the shia population, which increases sectarian tension, and serves as a destabilizing effect. >> which you know, obviously bahrain is a different country than yemen but it's a similar playbook in a different country, is it not? >> it's a similar approach. >> similar approach. but obviously they're very different countries. >> yes ma'am.

>> but i think we need to be clear here what iran's activities have been. and as i look at your testimony, one of the things you pointed out is iran routinely engages in activities through the threat network. iran is engaging in line activity through support proxy actors such as lebanese less blah, and hamas which threatens the sovereignty and security of israel. this has all been going on in addition to undermining our interests in yemen, correct? >> that's correct. >> this is obviously, as we look at this issue of the -- attempts at regional domination by iran, this is of deep concern to us in the long-term, and even in the short-term, in terms of how this region could be destabilized further. is that true? >> there is a significant concern for long-term effects in terms of this type of behavior

destabilizing the region and having effect in other parts of the globe as well. >> and it further fuels a sunni shia fight in the region. as they continue their efforts toward regional domination. would you agree? >> i would. >> thank you. i just wanted to comment as well on senator cotton's question to you about the status of the taliban five. i know you are going to get back to him about it. i find it shocking the fact you are commander of africom and the state department has not already coordinated with you. it's not -- not putting this on you, as my point is the fact that we've got these dangerous -- you know, you're the commander of centcom these two countries qatar and also where the taliban five is from and could return and present great danger into afghanistan.

it would seem you would be i hope most closely consulted on this. i am dumbfounded they are not consulting you now and there does not appear to be a plan. i look forward to the follow-up. to the state department and everyone else out here, it seems to me the commander of centcom needs to be brought in this in terms of the five potential commanders that could get back on the ground in afghanistan and threaten our troops. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you to all of you today. and to the men and women who serve under your command. and all you do to help protect us. last year i expressed some reluctance regarding the syria train and equip program based on concerns that any lethal assistance that we may provide might end up inadvertently or in

some cases, perhaps, purposely end up in the hands of some of the very extremists that we're attempting to fight against. and that could possibly fuel further violence in the region. while i believe that there's service members who are under your command, who are in the process of executing this program, are the most skilled in the world at what they do. that is what gives this program the best chance of success. the loss of u.s. provided equipment last year and in yemen this year are stark lessons the fluid and volatile nature of the middle east can compromise our best laid plans. i am concerned that for this program to have the best chance of success, the united states

will need to become more militarily involved in this conflict than many americans may realize. secretary carter stated recently when referring to the forces we equip and train in syria quote, we will have some obligation to support them after they're trained. closed quote. yet we don't know what that support would look like nor do we know at this point what the costs associated with that would look like. this program is part of the administration's strategy to address the isis threat, should be fully and openly debated in this body so that the american people might have a say in how their military forces are used. general austin since this program was conceptualized it was reasonable to expect the situation in which syrian rebels we armed might face a larger or better equipped army. larger or better equipped enemy. why was the decision made to start the train and equip program, why was that decision made before determining whether

the united states would provide further protection or support for the groups, once they were trained and equipped and returned to syria? >> it was made because we will need an element on the ground to complement the work we are doing with our fires to begin to counter isil in syria. my best military advice is as we go forward as we introduce forces that we have trained and equipped then we should provide them support. introduce forces we have trained and equipped, we should provide support. we should provide logistics. we should provide intel support as well. i think that gives the best opportunity for success. >> do you think assad forces in

syria will attempt to attack some of the opposition members we have trained and equipped? if so, what level of military involvement should we expect from american forces? >> i think there is a likelihood that could happen. we'll put them in those positions where they are focused on isil. that is the first task at hand. if they are attacked, we should protect them. >> what do we do if the forces we train and equip end up attacking assad's forces? >> that is not what we are focused on. we will discontinue providing support for those forces if they

vector off and do things that we haven't designed them to do initially, and ask them to focus on initially. >> do you think the success of the opposition groups that we're training and equipping, that we're supporting, do you think that will require a new governing structure in damascus? and if so, would the u.s. military be involved in helping to facilitate that change? >> i think eventually forces will need to plug-in some type of structure for sure. again, that's not what the military typically does. this is a whole of government approach here. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> general, i'd just like to follow up on what senator lee said. in syria, these young people are training, and we send them back in to syria, if they're attacked by assad, we're not going to protect them?

are we going to protect them? >> my recommendation would be we protect them. no matter who is attacking them. we have to protect these forces once we've trained them and put them on the ground. >> are we going to have a provision to protect them? >> we currently don't have that. that policy decision, sir. >> we are going to train them to go back into syria, and we don't have a policy as to whether or not we protect them? >> currently that decision has not been taken. >> then why are we training them if we're not going to be able to tell them whether we're going to protect them or not? >> i'm very hopeful that we will be able to tell them that, sir. >> i'm very hopeful too. but hope really doesn't stop barrel bombing. could i ask you again when it is that the saudis notified you that they were going to begin attacks in yemen?

>> sir, i had a discussion with saudi chad the day of the attacks. so it was not much before that they actually started the attacks. >> isn't that quite a commentary on our relationship with saudi arabia and the other 13 countries in their coalition that they would, on literally the day of the their attacks they tell you that tell the united states of america that they're going to launch a major campaign? that is really a fantastic indicator, the deterioration of the trust and confidence that dcxt these countries have in us. and it's been quoted quite frequently some people believe it's better to be an enemy of the united states than a friend. this is quite remarkable.

finally, i do not know how you recruit young people to fight and tell them they are going to go back into a country and we do not have a policy yet whether we will protect them or not, that is immoral. it is not only unworkable, it is immoral. if we train them and equip them to go and fight, we have not yet got a policy on whether we protect them or not. i would say that would also be something of a disincentive for recruitment. so i hope for the sake of these young people's lives that we are training now that we at least have a policy decision as to whether we are going to protect them or not. and of course the best way to do that is with a no-fly zone which was recommended years ago with

out any result from this president. senator gillibrand? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to follow the chairman's line of questioning. so what do you believe the strategy is for this new campaign, and what is the ultimate goal in yemen, sorry? >> i do not know the specifics of their goals and objectives. i can tell you that they're interested, number one, in protecting their homeland. they have a border with yemen obviously, and also that they received requests from the president of yemen to help with military assistance. >> what advice have you given or will you give the president about what our role should be? >> current position is that we

will help the saudis with the intelligence and logistics and planning support, and again, they are great partners and i think they are very appreciative of the help that we'll provide them. >> what is your assessment of their likelihood of success? >> in yemen? >> yes. >> i do not know the specific goals and objectives of the saudi campaign and i'd have to know that to be able to assess the likelihood of success. >> i hope you get the information sooner than later because more than $500 million of u.s. military assistance to yemen can no longer be accounted for and has fallen into the wrong hands. we have a role in yemen that we have to have much bigger accountability for. how does something like that happen? given the instability in the region what steps should the u.s. be taking to protect or

prevent losses like that in the future? >> the $500 million as i understand it is the amount of investment over an eight-year period that we've made to help the yemeni government, the yemeni military forces, or security forces, build capacity. this not only includes materials but also training. as you know, training can be costly. when we are there we have the ability to monitor how this equipment is being used but of course the embassy is no longer there and it does not have an office of security corporation that would typically do these things. so we do not have the ability currently. if we have the ability to go back in and partner with a new

government or a government, i think that will be one of our focus areas. >> given that they are still in control, how do you believe we should deal with al qaeda in the state of yemen? >> as we have done and will continue to do in every case where we don't have people on the ground but there is a threat there that we need to be concerned about we'll use every intelligence collection capability that's available to us to continue to monitor what's going on with this extremist network. we do have resources that are in the region that we can use to apply to counter this network once we've developed the appropriate intelligence. >> what do you see as the presence of isil in the region and is that going to be affected

by the state of yemen today? >> if i could get you to -- if i could ask a question, get you to ask the question again, i missed a piece of it. >> how you see the threat of isil in that region? >> i think the threat of isil in the region is the greatest threat we're facing. >> in yemen? >> that's really undetermined. i know that the most recent attack was attributed to an isil element in yemen. i think the intelligence agencies are working their way through that. determining the veracity of whether or not this is a hard-core isil element or someone claiming to be isil. or what this really is. clearly aqap is dominant in that country, and whether or not isil

and aqap can coexist is left to be seen. >> thank you very much. >> thank the witnesses. >> senator mccain? >> senator cotton. >> one point to follow up on something that he just said. there's a breaking news alert from the associated press general austin that egypt and saudi arabia have begun a ground incursion into yemen. that saudi arabia or any other country give you or central command advance notice if this report is accurate? >> no, i did not have notice. >> thank you. >> quite a commentary. this hearing is adjourned.

you're watching c-span3. coming up next a look at this year's conservative political action conference held in national harbor, maryland. we'll hear from dr. ben carson, u.s. senator mike lee, a panel on repealing the affordable care act, as well as senator joanie ernst and oliver north. this morning at 11:45 transportation secretary anthony foxx and epa administrator gina mccarthy will sit down with politico's mike allen for discussions on transportation and environmental policy. wrap that live on c-span2. in february, the american conservative union hosted their annual conservative political action conference or cpac at

maryland's national harbor, just south of washington, d.c. up next our speeches from dr. ben carson, and senator mike lee. ♪ life is a highway i want to ride it all night long ♪ ♪ whoo ♪ ♪ you're going my way i want to ride it all night long ♪ [ applause ] >> thank you very much. thank you. thank you. i am absolutely delighted to be here once again, and it seems like each time i'm here we're getting closer to critical time periods in our country. you know, i started to talk about all of the failures of the current administration, but i figured that was too depressing

and you know, it's so depressing. i think that's why they always try to rename everything and redefine everything and it's probably why they're ready for hillary, too. it's interesting to me how the left in particular loves to relabel and name things. for instance, if you're pro-life then you're anti-woman. if you're pro-traditional family then you're a homophobe. if you're white and oppose a progressive black person, you're a racist. if you're black and you oppose a progressive agenda, you're crazy, and if you're black and if you oppose a progressive agenda and you're pro-life and you're pro-family they don't even know what to call you.

i mean, you end up on some kind of watch list for extremists. unbelievable, but you know what? we're not going to pay attention to that. [ applause ] what we do have to pay attention to is how do we use the incredible brains that god gave us to recognize when things don't work and to recognize when things do work and to fix problems. for instance, you think about there's a large number of people in our country who are the downtrodden, and how do we treat them? well, starting in the '60s with the great society programs, we figured if we just threw money at the problem and we had all these welfare programs that we could solve the problems. what has happened since then?

in 1969, 1.4% of our population was on food stamps. today, more than 14% are on food stamps, a tenfold increase. we have more broken families, out-of-wedlock births, incarceration, crime. everything that these programs were supposed to fix has gotten worse. so what do people do about that? intelligent people would look at that and they would say we need to change course. people who -- [ applause ] people who perhaps failed to utilize their intellectual capability would look at that and say we need to do it more. we didn't do enough, and you know, that's the difference, but we need to move in a very different direction. we need to understand what true compassion is in order to reach

out to individuals who think that maybe being dependent is reasonable as long as they feel safe, and it isn't. it really is not compassionate to pat people on the head and say there, there, you poor little thing. i'm going to take care of all your needs, your healthcare and your food and your housing. don't you worry about anything because there are all those bad people who are causing your problem, and i'm going to fix it. that's not compassion. that's the opposite of compassion. lf that is making people dependent. what real compassion is is using our intellect to find ways to allow those people to climb out of dependency and realize the american dream and that's what we need to be thinking about. [ applause ] it's about investing in our fellow human beings just like muhammad eunice who won a nobel

prize in 2006 with his program of microlending lifted millions of people out of poverty in bangladesh in that area of the world, and you know, we are very smart people and we're very compassionate people and we need to find out how do we strengthen the fabric of this country and it is our responsibility to take care of the indigent. it is not the government's responsibility. [ applause ] some people say well, it doesn't sound very compassionate. it is compassionate. i was in the airport a couple of months ago and a lady came and sat down next to me. african-american lady, and she said i really like what you have to say. it makes so much sense. but why don't you want poor people to have health care? i said you've been listening to the propaganda. there's all this propaganda. i want everybody to have good health care.

we spend twice as much per capita as the next closest nation and we still have terrible access problems, inefficiency expense, and we can do so much better. and that's why i've advocated a system and i hope congress will listen very carefully to what i'm about to say because they need to grasp a health care alternative before they try to remove obamacare if they really want to get some traction. and what i'm talking about -- what i'm talking about is health savings account system. they work extremely well and available for everybody. we don't force people into them but i can tell you when people see how these work you won't have to force them into it. and there are a variety of different ways to pay for it. but even the indigent, and that's what i want to talk about, because she said i don't care about poor people. we can fund the indigent how? we spend $400 billion a year

according to the heritage foundation on medicaid, $400 billion a year. a quarter of our people are involved with medicaid and that's 80 million people. divide 80 million into $400 billion, $5,000. $5,000 each. now boutique practices, concierge practices on average cost $2,000 to $3,000 a year. so you could put everybody in a boutique practice and have thousands of dollars left over for catastrophic health care. that's how wasteful we are. that's how wasteful we are. we don't have to use that much money, but i'm giving you an example of what we're doing and even asking for more. it really isn't the affordable healthcare. it's not affordable and it is absolutely about redistribution and control, and if we really want to use our intellect we would come up with somebody that wants to work for everyone.

it makes a difference. what are the things that will destroy us as a nation. our debt. $18.1 trillion and rising. we need to get out of the mindset that says because the debt didn't go up as fast in this quarter it's a victory. the debt needs to be going down. the size of government needs to be going down. we need to be able to deal with that in a logical way. the other thing that threatens to destroy us, radical islamic terrorists all over the world. and let's not get distracted by just isis. we need to recognize that the shia in iran are every bit as dangerous and perhaps more dangerous and we can take our eye off the ball as they develop nuclear weapons and we also need to recognize that we have friends over there and let's not

turn our back on israel. let's listen to netanyahu and what he has to say.ñ8( but i have so many things to talk about and only 12 minutes to do it and now i'm just down to just three or four, but you know, what am i for? what am i really ready for? i'm not ready for hillary, but what i am ready for -- i'm ready for a country that puts our constitution on the top shelf. every part of it. 9%hjç and for those who have any doubt, that includes the second amendment. i'm for a country where we take the restraints off the most dynamic economy the world has ever known. let that economic engine work for us. i'm for a country where we develop our natural energy

resources. we have been blessed with them. let's not make that a curse. that's a wonderful thing. and it doesn't mean that we can't also look for alternatives and take care of the environment. some people think it's one or the other. it's not one or the other and that's why god gave us these fancy brains so we can do more than one thing at one time, you know? i'm ready for leadership on the world stage, not just sitting around and waiting to see what other people do. i'm for -- i'm ready for school choice. you know we need to recognize education is the great liberator in our country. no one has to be a victim. i'm for putting health care in our hands and not in the hands of some bureaucrat, and for balancing our budget and for a fair taxation system that allows us to get rid of the irs.

and for a strong military, wasn't it wonderful seeing those cadets from the citadel? and for taking care of our veterans the way they should be taken care of, and for honesty and integrity and common sense and courage because courage is what we really need. we don't -- we shouldn't submit to the pc police and to people who are trying to control us by intimidation and by irs audits and by messing with your job. you know, the only reason they can do that is because we sit silently by. that's what they want us to do.

we have to stop sitting silently by and not expressing ourselves. in the pre-revolutionary days our ancestors, they got together, they talked about what kind of country do they want. what were they willing to fight for and they did fight for it. we need to be willing to fight for it, the baton is now in our hands. we need to talk to our uncle who hasn't voted in 20 years. go to your grandmother who is an invalid and make sure she has an absentee ballot and help her fill it out. the baton is ours. freedom is not free. it must be fought for and remember, we live in the land of the free and the home of the brave, but you cannot be free if you're not brave. thank you very much. [ applause ] >> thank you. thank you.

now -- i think -- i think we're going to have for the first time at cpac we're going to have a little q&a. >> yes. >> so where's -- >> i'm here dr. carson. good morning. >> hi. >> hi. please behave for me. this is my first time doing this. we actually have conservatives all across the country via twitter sending questions for you to answer, and as you all know, it's a different format this year. so anyone that the media perceives as a presidential candidate will be subjected to these same questions and answers. >> no problem. >> let's start with the first question, and the question is what is your specific plan for national security and managing the threat against isis? >> okay. well, the key thing is concept. you have to recognize that if i decide to run, and if i were in the office of president, i have

to say those things, i would recognize that there is a role for the commander in chief and his staff and that is to define the mission. what is the mission? the mission is recognizing that we have radical islamic terrorist groups in their adolescent stage that wish to destroy us. we have two choices. we can wait and see what they're going to do and react to it. or we can destroy them first. and what i would -- the mission that i would give our military is to destroy them first, and i wouldn't tie their hands and let them get it done. >> are you ready for the second question? >> okay. that was good. the second question is how do you plan to restore the american dream and make us feel more united and less divided? >> well, first of all, i think

the bully pulpit and the position of the presidency is very, very important because it sets the tone and, you know, we have a nation now where we have people in the highest levels who exacerbate the division. you know, they've created a war on women, race wars and income wars, age wars, religious wars. you name it, there is a war on it. the real enemies in our country are the people who are the purveyors of division no matter where they are and i think -- i think we have to call them out on that and recognize when we say a nation with liberty and justice for all, all means all. that means everybody. it means we don't pick and choose the laws that we want to enforce.

we don't pick and choose the people that we want to favor. everybody gets treated the same, and when our policies are that way and when our leadership begins to talk that way i think we're making a dramatic difference for our nation. >> thank you. thank you. we're moving right along here. you're good. so the next question is a simple one, but a complicated one and an important one. how do you feel about common core? >> well, i think as i mentioned before, education is the great divide in our country. it doesn't matter what your ethnic background or any other background, you get a good education, you write your own ticket. now, the best education is the education that is closest to home, and i have found that, for instance, home schoolers do the best, private schoolers next best, charter schools are the next best and public schoolers worse.

so that's why we need school choice. common core is not school choice. i do believe in standards, but those standards obviously are set by parents and people who do home schooling or they wouldn't be doing so well. those standards obviously are set in our private schools and our public schools need to learn how to compete with that, but aq;g they don't need some central government telling them how to do it. [ applause ] >> okay. this is going to be the last question just because your answers are so succinct and concise. >> i'm a surgeon. >> okay. so the last question is how do you plan to bring your message to the minority community and make them feel more included and also how do you plan on making them feel inclusive? >> i think the key is to tell

them the truth, you know. no more of this hiding what's going on and to -- see, what i want people to have is real freedom and to have real prosperity and, you know, i hear some people saying well, carson, when he was a kid, you know, he benefitted from welfare and all this stuff and now he wants to get rid of it. i'm not interested in getting rid of a safety net. i'm interested in getting rid of dependency, and i want us to find a way to allow people to excel in our society, and as more and more people hear that message they will recognize who is truly on their side and who is trying to keep them suppressed and cultivate their votes. thanks. >> dr. carson we really thank you for your remarks this morning. good luck to you. >> thank you. ♪ life is a highway i want to ride it all night long ♪

♪ living a prayer take my hand and we'll make it a swear ♪ ♪ oh, living a prayer ♪ >> thank you very much. it's a beautiful day in america. for those of you i haven't had a chance to meet yet, my name is mike lee. and i am not running for president. now i think i'm one of a very few people who can say that today and at least have any of you believe me in saying it, but that's exactly why i'm here, and i think it's part of the reason why i was asked to speak at the very beginning of the program today. as i see it, i have a different task up here than a lot of the other speakers today. i'm here to talk very candidly

with you as one conservative not running for president to another conservative not running for president, and i'm here to talk to you about the immense task that lies before us over the next year or so because you and i, we have a job to do. i hope everyone here realizes that because over the next year and a half everyone in this room, for every single one of us, it's going to be our job very, very soon to choose the next president of the united states of america. now that's going to be our job, if, that is, we're up to it. so i'm asking you right now, what do you think? are we up to it? are we, as conservatives, ready to pick the next great president of the united states? are you sure?

i hope so, because, let's be very, very honest here for a minute. in recent years we haven't been. since ronald reagan left the white house in 1989 we've had six presidential elections. my party's nominee, the republican nominee, has lost the popular vote in five of those last six presidential elections. i'm here to tell you, if we don't choose a serious, principled, proven conservative in 2016, that number is going to be six out of seven. and we can't let that happen. those are the stakes. now for the conservatives running for president, the hardest part of their job will begin on january 20, 2017. that sounds great, by the way,

doesn't it? the hardest part of their job will begin the day they take the oath of office. the day they assume the presidency, but for those of us conservatives who are not running for president, the hardest part of our job starts right now. now is the time, right now before the campaign truly begins in earnest, for us to think long and hard about the kind of candidate that we're looking for. about the kind of candidate that we want, the kind of candidate that the country needs. i've been thinking a lot about that, lately, and if it's all right, i would like to tell you about the kind of leader that i'm looking for and why i think you might look for him or her, too, right along with me. principled, positive and proven. it seems to me that conservatives need to be looking for these three characteristics, looking for a candidate who is principled and positive and proven. so let's go through each of these individually. first, what does it mean to be principled? i think it means that you're being a conservative every single day, and not just

during the campaign. principled means there are no buts in your conservative communication, as in i'm personally pro-life but. or i want to repeal obamacare, but. a principled conservative doesn't hide behind talking points. he tells you what he thinks and he tells you why. that's not to say that we all have to agree on every single issue because we don't and we won't. serious conservatives disagree on issues all the time and real conservatives don't run from these disagreements, in fact, we embrace them and we run toward them. speaking at this very conference in 1977, ronald reagan explained the importance of open, robust dialogue. not only as a way to purify the conservative movement, but more importantly as a way to expand it. here's what he said. he said, quote, if we truly

believe in our principles, we should sit down and talk. talk with anyone, anywhere at any time if it means talking about the principles for the republican party. conservatism is not a narrow ideology nor is it the exclusive property of conservative activists. this is crucial for us to remember as we make our choices in 2016. very often you can learn a lot more about a candidate when he disagrees with you than when he agrees impeach when a principled conservative disagrees with you on an issue he admits it. he admits it right up front and he has an authentically conservative reason for doing so. you see, that's how you can tell the difference between someone who is a conservative on the

stump on the one hand and on the other hand, someone who is truly a conservative in his head and in his heart all the time. okay, so that's principled and we talked about what it means to be principled. next, let's talk about what it means for a candidate to be positive. a great man once said that a true soldier fights not because he hates what's in front of him, but rather because he loves what's behind him. conservatives need to hold to this exact same standard because true conservatism isn't just about the kind of government we don't want. it's about the kind of country we do want. this has been true ever since america's founding. as much as we honor it, the boston tea party was just a protest. traumatic and inspirational and necessary, yes, absolutely, but it was also inherently limited in its effect. today, the boston tea party would be remembered at best as only a minor footnote in history.

if that very same generation of american, that same generation of americans whose patriots boarded ships in boston harbor and seized tea, english tea and cast it into the harbor in symbolic protest in overtaxing and overregulating government in london they did not want. it would have been only a footnote in history if that same generation of americans had not made their way to philadelphia 14 years later to write the constitution. our 227-year-old founding document. like our founding patriots, the positive conservative i'm looking for can tell us more about what he's against. he will always tell us what he's for. he's got a plan. he has specific political ideas about how to unite and grow our coalition and he has specific policy ideas to reform our

government. now, he doesn't hesitate to tell you in specific and concrete terms exactly what those ideas are. specificity here is crucial. it's critical and it's essential. generalizations and abstractions are the province of candidates who say one thing on the campaign trail, but do quite another thing once they're in office. so if conservatives truly want a government that is of, by and for the people we need to demand that our candidates tell us specifically how they'll fix our tax code, how they'll reform our broken health care and education systems. how they'll put an end to corporate welfare like the export/import bank and too big to fail wall street banks. so we're looking here not just for platitudes, but for policies. please join me in that effort to find that candidate.

okay. so we've covered what it means to be principled and we've covered what it means to be positive. finally, let's talk about what that means for a candidate to be proven. to me, it means two things. first, i'm looking for someone who has proven himself by winning big, difficult fights on election days and then secondly, i'm looking for someone who has won big, difficult fights after election day. while in office. we shouldn't be looking for just one of those and then rolling the dice on the other. that won't work. conservatives must demand both and a candidate who has shown he can win elections and later shown that he deserved to win those same elections. in other words, we want someone

who has stood on principle when the going got tough and someone who has the battle scars to prove it. yet, we also want someone who has shown he can win, broad mandates and build diverse coalitions to overcome entrenched interests, and not just the special interests in the other parties, but those in his own party. the conservative candidate who ignores moderates is as misguided as the moderate candidate who ignores conservatives. the candidate we all deserve, every one of us, can attract both without alienating either. right now we don't have any candidates yet and everyone deserves an equal chance to meet that standard, but make no mistake, that should be the

standard. this leads me to my final point. meeting that standard that i've described, principled, positive and proven. it isn't just going to be up to the candidates themselves. it's going to be up to us. every one of us and lots of other people all over the country just as businesses in the free market follow consumer demand, political candidates take their cues from the voters. we have the power in this process, but only if we're willing to use it. only if we're willing to expect more out of our would-be leaders and only if we're willing to expect more out of ourselves. we have a job to do, and that job is not just to find the guy who can shout freedom the loudest. not just the guy who can tell the best joe biden joke. by the way, did you hear what joe biden said the other day?

never mind -- it's too easy. if that's what conservatives reward, and if that's all they reward in the next year and over the next two days here at cpac, if that's what they reward with cheers and standing ovations and straw poll votes, then that's all that we as conservatives will ever get, talking points and platitudes and empty promises, but when conservatives elevate on serious presidential candidates, candidates who are not principled, positive and proven, it's not the media's fault. it's not the establishment's fault. it's our fault and we can't let that happen. republican presidential candidates in 2016 are only going to be as conservatives demand them to be in 2015 and that's why we're here today.

so let's demand, starting right here and right now that these candidates are going to be extraordinary. not one candidate we will support will be anything short of that. imagine for a moment the impression this audience could leave a candidate if each of you refused to give a standing ovation to every trite one-liner every empty platitude or every hollow political slogan that you hear over the next day and a half, and yeah, you will hear some of those. or imagine if no one in the conservative movement, not a single soul donated a dime of their money or a moment of their time to any candidate who talks a big game about cutting big government and never gets around to explaining how he would fix broken government.

i guarantee you every one of our serious presidential candidates would immediately run on a positive, innovative and unapologetically conservative agenda. yes, they would run on an agenda that would take our timeless principles and applies them to the unique challenges of our time. an agenda that empowers the individuals, the families and communities that washington's corrupt nexus of big government, big business and big special interest leaves behind. imagine the conservative leader who would emerge from that campaign, what he could do to reunite our party, to reconnect it with the american people and reform the government policies holding them back. that's a candidate and that's a campaign we can all look forward to.

more importantly, far more importantly, that's the candidate and that's the campaign the american people have been waiting for. it's the candidate americans deserve and the one conservatives can produce. if and only if we stayed true to our own highest ideals. that's the candidate i'm looking for in 2016, and i am here to ask for your help to find him. thank you very much and may god bless the united states of america. [ applause ] >> good morning, senator lee. thank you for your remarks. i'm kimberly and i'm the moderator for all of the potential presidential candidates. are you sure you're not running? >> i'm sure. i'm sure.

>> okay. but i can still ask you a couple questions? >> absolutely. >> okay. great. the first question is from the twitter feed from conservatives across the country #cpacq. would you stand with congress if they choose to fund dhs? >> will i stand with congress if they choose to fund dhs? >> yes, sir. >> this question is focusing on something that the president did in november. november of 2014. the president of the united states chose to effectively rewrite our immigration code. this is one of the solemn responsibilities given to congress under article 1, section 8 of the constitution. it's our job to write laws. all legislative power meaning all power to write laws, congresses to congress. and we have a series of laws on the books that govern immigration and naturalization. the process by which people come into the country and eventually

in some cases become assimilated as citizens. the president issued an executive order that would make legal millions and millions of people who are currently inside the country illegally. our laws don't authorize this action and so if it's carried out, if it's implemented this action will have the effect of undoing something that congress has done and doing so in a way that circumvents the constitution. now, we have the means at our disposal to stop that. the means to do this or the means described by james madison in the federalist papers. we have to use the power of the purse. we have to withhold funding when the president does that. so if the question is whether i will vote to fund the president's executive amnesty program, no, i will not, and i ask my colleagues in congress to stand with me. [ applause ]

>> thank you for that answer. and since you're not running for president i want to just say we think you're great. >> thank you. >> and the second question -- >> i will be -- no i will be on the ballot in 2016. but it will be in one state, my home state of utah. >> okay. sounds good. and the second and last question is what is your biggest criticism of president obama? you only have a couple of minutes to answer that, by the way. >> there is a poem that comes to mind. let me count the ways. okay, so our founding fathers put together a government and they put together a government under a system, a constitutional system that has fostered the development of the greatest civilization the world has ever known. we're great as americans and we've been successful as a

country not because of who we are, but because of what we do. we're successful as a country because we believe in freedom and freedom is great not just because it's awesome in the abstract. freedom is great because of the things that free people do when they are allowed to be free. they come together and form voluntary associations like families and churches and synagogues and charitable organizations. the founding generation understood that free markets and voluntary associations like these don't happen. they can't happen if government becomes oppressive and they also understood something about power, that there's great harm that can come from government if you allow too much power to be concentrated in the hands of one person or in the hands of a few people and so they split up power very, very carefully. they split it up and you can see as british colonies we had experienced a lot of problems

from this. we were subject to a national government that was too big, that was too expensive and that taxed us too much and regulated us too heavily and it was so far from the people that it was slow to respond to their needs. does any of that sound familiar? and so when we set up our new government we instinctively split up power. we split it up along the horizontal axis first. along a horizontal axis and then we split it up on a vertical axis. meaning we put most of the power in the states and the local governments where the power was closest to the people. we put a few powers in our national government. we put it in charge of just a few basic things, national defense, weights and measures, trade marks copyrights and patents, the power to declare war, and this is my favorite power of congress the congress to grant letters of mark and reprisal. it's sort of a hall pass issue by congress that allows you to be a pirate on the high seas in the name of the united states. really cool stuff. so they split it up by putting

most of the power in the states and localities and they split it up within the federal government by saying congress will make the laws and the president will execute and enforce the laws. and the judiciary will interpret the laws. he's disregarded these powers. he's disregarded these limits. he's allowed too much power to accumulate in the federal government. he's drawn more and more of it in. and most of this power he has put in the executive branch. he has put in himself. this, my friend, is not a good way to run government. this, my friends is a way that leads to bad things. we've got to turn it around. we've got to bring back our separation of powers. we've got to bring back the power when it is limited at the federal level and we've got to restore a state of affairs that james madison described in federalist 45 when he said the powers of the federal government are few and defined. while those reserved to the states are numerous and indefinite. when we reserve power to the

people we all benefit. freedom is maximized and free markets and civil society will flourish and everyone in america does better. the poor get out of poverty. the middle class can get ahead and that's what we're about and that's what it means to be a conservative and that's why i'm here with you today. we've got to restore these separations of power that have been lost. thank you very much. [ applause ] >> senator lee we so appreciate you being with us this morning. god bless. ♪ halfway there living on a prayer ♪ ♪ take my hand and we'll make it i swear ♪ >> also at the conservative political action conference, a panel focused on repealing the affordable care act. ♪

good morning cpac! yeah. what a great turnout today.know, if we were on msnbc i think we'd be their highest rated program. next month marks the fifth year anniversary of obamacare being signed into law. as the destruction of our terminal liberties as we have seen in our lifetime. passed with votes from only one party and over the objections of the american people, conservatives have never wavered in their opposition to it. recognizing that this law was nothing more than a political agenda masquerading as health care reform. today, the law is even less popular.

surveys showing more than 2-1 that obamacare is hurting our families rather than helping. as the implementation of obamacare grows, millions are experiencing just how expensive painful and crippling this law truly is to our health care. president obama and his party ignoring the outcries of millions of honest, hard-working citizens victimized by obamacare and hurled the same response at us telling us over and over again, too bad it's the law of the land. well, the reality is as commentator dana perino so aptly stated, no obamacare is the lie of the land from obama's phony promise he would make health care cost less to his deliberate deceit in telling us that we could keep our doctors if we wanted to to john than grouper's

delight in calling the american voter stupid. together with dozens of other falsehoods, it is abundantly clear that obamacare's dna is more impresented with lies and fresh treachery than the ink with which it was written. conservatives, they have no alternative to obamacare and the government takeover of your doctor's office is the only path to making medical care more accessible and affordable for working americans our poor and nation's senior citizens. of course, this is just another flimsy attempt to deceive the public from the same discredited bunch that named a bill with a $2 trillion price tag, the affordable care act. to date there's been more than a few legislative allternatives to obamacare filed by house and senate as comprehensive proposals to free us from high costs, higher taxes and limited choices of obamacare.

today we have the privilege of listening to an outstanding panel who know exactly how we can reform health care the right way repeal and replace obamacare and set america free from the government prison built around our doctor's offices so today we're going to set the record straight and put the lies to bed. for good. now, this is an interactive session. i'm so excited today so in order to have a great session, participation from the audience is where it is. so i would love to incorporate your questions and have our three panelists come up. they'll speak for five minutes then we'll sit down and have a discussion. and that includes your questions so please tweet, frederickpanel, #frederickpanel and get them incorporated. first up our good friend to senator john barrasso. in 2012 he was re-elected to the senate with 75% of the vote to

represent his home state of wyoming. during his 24 years as an orthopedic surgery senator barrasso served as president of the wyoming medical society and was named wyoming physician of the year. he currently leads the senate working group developing solutions should the supreme court rule that obamacare's federal exchange subsidies are unlawful. please join me in welcoming senator barrasso. thanks for having me here today. it's wonderful to be back at cpac because we talk about freedom at cpac. one of the pose important ones is the right of americans to decide what's best for our families. that freedom is fundamental to who we are and includes us making our own choices about our health care. over the past six years people's freedoms to make our own health care choices have been under attack. the freedom has been assailed by

president obama and his democrat allies in congress, the freedom has been assaulted by the disastrous destructive and expensive law known as obamacare. now, as a doctor who practiced for 24 years, i have said from the beginning that this health care law was a terrible idea. we all know that the health care law continues to be unpopular, unworkable and unaffordable. we fought this law and i was in the middle of that fight from day one and i'm still fighting so that -- and for everyone in this room i will tell you why i will continue to fight until this national nightmare of obamacare is over. [ applause ] hassan rouhani

should.]tññ %-d÷eqiv14hv?-+áifr whether it was right #jqdnot for your family. it was washington us people of wyoming what they 6u]qq" because of, of course, better than the folks at home.=m7w and, of course,7gu omeone hadñg÷ to pay for all those ñlyowmandates. saw their3n insurance premiums

go promised everybody's premiums wouldsu e39x 3%ç$2500 per family. rates would go down.$2500? the expense+++m-rm;

they'll have to answer a simple question, does the law mean what it says or does it mean what president obama wishes it said? it's that simple. the president and the democrats in congress wrote this law and they forced it upon the american people and now the president has expanded it even further and taken away even more freedom from american taxpayers and american families. illegallp power grab by the end of june. if that happens we know that president obama will launch an aggressive campaign to bully congress into ratifying his illegal actions. that's what he's done. we've seen it before. conservatives in congress will offer a better solution and we'll talk about today. we are committed to repealing and replaces obamacare while we

protect the people hurt again by the president's broken promises. [ applause ] a conservative solution will give people back the freedom to make their own choices. a solution will give the power and money out of washington and back to the states and people. that's what conservatives are fighting for and i'm not letting up on that fight and i know no one in this room is going to let up on that fight either. so the fight will go on. it will go on for our patients. it will go on forw3 health care providers and it will go on-'nz[;z s-aguçí hard-working taxpayers. all united by the value that we at cpac hold so dear and that value is freedom. thanks so much for letting me be with you today. [ applause ]ó[w3 next representing tennessee's 7th congressional district congress congresswoman mar; h!lackburn has been a vocal and

unkafshgerring crusader for conservative principles and individual liberty from the very moment she was sworn in. she remains today one of the house's most renowned and respected lieutenants on health care, six years ago a leader )$wroducing a bill on health care portability. congresswoman blackburn. >> thank you. yes.w3 thank you for letting me with you this morning. i am absolutely thrilled. i love the new format of cpac and the fact that this is like boot camp to take on the liberals.