within the constraints. but if we don't go back and revisit the decisions of 2011, particularly in light of the reality of the world that we face today, we're facing a long-term catastrophe. i mean, you're a student of long-term federal budget. is this an accurate assessment, mr. secretary? >> it is. and it's -- i say it again this year. i said it at -- when i presented the budget last year, when i became secretary of defense. that's not something we can solve in defense. but we observe it. >> but we're trying -- we're being forced to try to. that's what bothers -- >> you're exactly right. and we're trying to solve an entire problem on the back of discretionary spending. and it's not enough. and it's not sustainable. now, all those other parts of the budget have to be in the picture. i understand that. i think that is what is

necessary to have everybody come together behind a budget future. and what -- one of the things that we're asking for here is stability and relief from those sequestration caps. i recognize -- >> we've gotten to the point around here where two years sounds like stability. we're feeling great when we have a two-year budget deal. let me change the subject slightly. we've talked a lot about the bow wave and the modernization. we're talking about ohio class submarines, long-range strike bombers, missile upgrades. all of those are what i would call capital expenditures. in the sense that they're 30, 40-year assets. and yet in this strange world of federal budgeting, they're treated as current expenditures. there's no way we'll be able to handle those expenditures and do all the other things. shouldn't we be thinking about them in a separate category? i believe there should be a capital federal budget. assuming for a moment we could figure out what it is we own.

but we should have a capital budget for long-range investments, like a 40-year ohio class submarine. as opposed to trying to fund them out of current operating expenses. is that something you would consider? >> well, certainly, we try to think that way. as we put together budgets one year at a time. we prepare budgets five years at a time, as you know. even though you only consider budgets one year at a time. so we try to have that long-term perspective. and i opened my testimony by saying we did in this budget take the long view. that's an important, new thrust in this budget, is to look ahead ten, 20, 30 years from now. now, in order to do that, you have to be confident that the reasonable resources will be available then. to the specific point about the ohio class replacement and the strategic forces recapitalization, for example, i've already made the point that even with sequestered relief there is going to have to be additional -- >> it just doesn't -- >> -- funds for that purpose

because it's so large a bill that we can't afford to have it squeeze out all of our other submarine construction or other shipbuilding. and so, we have to take that long-term perspective. i agree with you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. i want to continue along the same vein of questioning here. general dunford, any time your friends in the navy come to testify about their top priorities, we get a little stoplight chart based on different budget scenarios. no matter the budget scenario. the sea-based nuclear deterrent is always green. most other things might be yellow or red. can you tell us why that is? >> that reflects the priority of the department to provide an effective and safe nuclear deterrent, survivable, nuclear deterrent. which is why that's green. it really does address the most important requirement that we have in the department, which is to prevent a nuclear war against the united states. >> do you know what percentage of the department's overall budget is spent on our nuclear deterrent, not just sea base, but all legs of the triad?

as well as the infrastructure. >> senator, i don't know the percentage we spend on that. >> secretary carter, you look like you know. >> it is. it's about $20 billion a year. depends on what you include in that. but it's a couple of tens of billions of dollars. it's not an enormous part of our budget but it is a critical part of our -- >> that's a relatively small four or five -- >> it is. but it doesn't count the things that senator king is talking about, the bills that will come in the future to keep it that way. but just the -- what we're paying in this year for our nuclear deterrent is that much. >> i ask because of the sizeable bills coming due to modernize all legs of the triad, as well as the infrastructure. i sometimes hear people say, you know, why do we spend so much money on weapons we never use. and my response would be, first, we don't spend that much money on them, in the context of the defense budget. and second, we use our nuclear weapons every single day. there is a sea-based deterrence

fund that was created last year, i believe. in anticipation of the large expense of the ohio class replacement submarine. obviously, we also need to upgrade our bomber. that's why we have the b-21 program. and there are also land-based and infrastructure modernization that is needed. rather than having merely a sea-based fund, should we perhaps have a nuclear deterrence fund? >> i think that may make sense. certainly for whatever we decide to do with respect to the icbm force both, regarding missiles and their land basing. the b-21 bomber also one could put in that category. i just want to emphasize, we want the b-21 bomber for the nuclear mission and nonnuclear mission that will be capable of both. and like our current bomber force, we'll use it for both. >> why would you have a sea-based deterrence fund alone

and not a broader nuclear deterrence fund? >> i'm agreeing with you. i think a broader nuclear deterrent fund -- >> i recognize that the b-21, like the b-2 and other aircraft, have dual capabilities. but the foundational capability across all of these systems is the nuclear deterrent. i'm not sure we should have any deterrent funds, but if we decide that we want to treat our nuclear triad in a special kind of way, then i think we should probably do all three legs. secretary carter, i want to turn to the south china sea. you said two weeks ago that china must not pursue militarization in the south china sea. specific actions will have specific consequences. what specific actions are you referring to? >> the specific actions of china are actions to press territorial claims, not through international legal mechanisms and peaceful mechanisms, but through militarization. that's what the chinese have been doing in the south china sea.

they're not the only ones, but they're by far and away the largest militarizers of features in that region. and the kinds of actions we're taking are, and i'll give you some examples -- >> my next question, what are the specific consequences. >> we can go through them more in another setting. but just to give you some examples, in addition to our own force posture in the region, which is you know, we've been strengthening for -- as part of the rebalance for several years. we're doing some extra strengthening of that this year. it's detailed in our budget statement, particularly has to do with increasing the lethality of our platforms out there and their technological capability. but in addition, one of the other effects that china's behavior is having is it is driving many of our partners and allies to want to do more with us. give us more access.

we will have that in the philippines. we're doing more with vietnam. much more with japan. australia. india. and so, not only are we reacting, but the countries in the region are reacting, too. and our relationships with them, accordingly, are blossoming. we're doing much, much more. >> yes. obviously, our relationships are getting much stronger in northeast and southeast asia because of china's actions. but in the end, i think some kind of genuine action on our part is going to be necessary. otherwise they will present us with a fait de compli in the south china sea. my time expired. thank you, all. happy st. patrick's day. >> same to you. >> mr. chairman, i'm going to defer to senator manchin because he has to leave so i will give my slot and if you will come back to me. after the next turn, i appreciate that. >> senator sheehan, thank you so much. thanks for being here. and let me just say either to

secretary carter, general dunford or whatever, i'm concerned about the -- russia has recently announced withdrawal from the military forces from syria saying they fulfilled their mission. putin communicating with president obama on the russian military force withdrawal and the next steps required to fully implement a cease-fire with a goal of advancing political negotiations on a resolution of the conflict in syria. then i just have today -- i see where the syrian kurds plan to declare a federal region in northern syria territory. and i guess i would ask, do you anticipate a change in the u.s. military force role in syria? based on russia's military withdrawal? and also, is russia claiming success? and is their strength, their swagger political clout in that area? >> well, as i said before,

russia came in wrong-headedly because they said they were going to fight isil and they didn't. instead they supported assad, which prolonged the civil war, fueled the civil war. >> correct. >> so their effect has been the opposite of what they stated and certainly the opposite of what is needed. it hasn't had an effect on our prosecution to get to what we're doing in syria of our counter isil campaign. it has had the effect, in my judgment, of prolonging the syrian civil war. now, maybe russia can do what it should do, which is use its influence over the assad regime to promote the transition. and that's what geneva is about. and to get to the question about the kurds, that's exactly the kind of thing that's being discussed in geneva. but the russian contribution has not been positive. and we're watching its withdrawal. i don't know how far that will go.

but the russian effect was not what they said it was going to be. and it was, as i've said, wrong-headed. >> but i'm saying that still the kurds -- the syrian kurds establishing an area or claiming an area is not met -- it's being met with resistance from assad. and his regime, correct? >> that is correct. >> and you're thinking russia can negotiate that? >> no. i don't know that russia -- i -- we and others in the region, including the turks, will have a major role in geneva about deciding the manner of participation of the kurds. and so, russia will play a role in those talks. but we have an important role to play, as well. and i will say, with respect to the syrian kurds, that they have proven to be excellent partners of ours on the ground in fighting isil. so we're grateful for that. we intend to continue to do

that recognizing the complexities of their role in the region overall. >> general dunford, your posture -- the statements describes five strategic challenges, russia, china, north korea, iran and violent extremists of isis. and i guess i would ask in your assessment the greatest threat we're facing from that lineup. >> senator, first i guess i would say we don't have the luxury of racking and stacking. we have to address each of them in their own way. what i have said in the past i guess i would restate today. the one that has the greatest capability and poses the greatest threat to the united states is russia because of its capabilities. its nuclear capability, its cyber capability, and clearly because of some of the things we have seen in the -- in its leadership's behavior over the last couple years. >> and what do you make of the kidnapping of the young student in north korea? >> you know, i've watched that over the last couple days. and you know, you can't help but

feel for both him and the family. but i think it's just a reflection of the absolutely irresponsible leadership of north korea. it exposes the regime to those who may not have appreciated what the regime is, that behavior was certainly not a surprise to me in terms of north korean regime behavior. and i think that probably many other people who maybe weren't as attentive to it have now seen what north korea is about. >> why do we have americans still traveling in that area? why would they even be in the country? >> senator -- >> that was a religious group, i believe, was it not? >> it was a religious group. and what i heard this morning is that we probably had some 15,000 people go over to north korea as tourists over the last several years. and 13 of them have been apprehended. that was a statistic from the news. but this is clearly not something the department of defense is involved with. and i can assure you we don't have members of the department of defense visiting north korea. >> secretary carter. >> the only thing i want to add, if i could, because it's timely in view of north korea's threats about provocations, including

missile launches, that we stand alert with our missile defense forces, with our allies, the japanese and the south koreans. that's a daily task. all sorts of missile defenses, as well as our deterrent forces on the dmz and in south korea. i use the phrase fight tonight. that's their slogan. and, of course, nobody wants that to occur. but the way to make sure it doesn't occur is for us to be ready each and every night. and they're some of our most highly ready and capable forces. >> thank you all. my time is up. >> on behalf of senator mccain, senator reed. >> thank you, senator reid. thank you, gentlemen, for being here today. yesterday i joined bipartisan group of lawmakers to advocate for some incredible women who

really do deserve to be honored. they are the women air force service pilots, otherwise known as wasps. and, secretary, you know where i'm going with this. it is a travesty that these women who are pioneers in military aviation had the honor of having their ashes interred at arlington national cemetery revoked last year during the same year that historically you opened up positions that have been previously closed in combat to women. so i would like to see that addressed, and the pentagon should do the right thing and honor these women by restoring their rights to have their ashes interred at the national cemetery. and it's my understanding that a waiver can be done for these women to do so. so i would encourage you to do that. i would like to see that action taken. they are a part of america's greatest generation, as well. so, secretary carter and general dunford, i will submit a record or a question for the record and would love to have forthcoming response from you on this issue. it is something that we are very passionate about and making sure

that women are honored, as well. so first, secretary carter, i do continue to remain concerned about the lack of capacity and capability provided to u-com in order for it to perform its critical mission of defending our nation and our allies, and especially as we look at russian aggression. and we've heard a number of speakers speak on that today. general breedlove has come before our committee multiple times stressing the need to enhance capacity and capability for u-com to match the level of aggression and transnational terrorism. specifically, one area which he raised -- this is a top concern of his and i do share it. it's the lack of support for force protection of our service members of d.o.d. civilians and their family members. considering terrorists have displayed capability to plan, stage and execute attacks in

western europe and in recent bombings in turkey, i would just urge you to take immediate action to increase our force protection capabilities in the u-com aor. so with that, there is a request to quadruple funding for the european reassurance initiative in fiscal year '17 and specifically, secretary and general dunford, how will you build capacity and capability to enhance our force protection in that area? and u-com's war fighting functions to better counter russia's aggressions and as well as transnational terrorism? >> thank you, senator. as well as transnational terrorism? >> thank you, senato as well as transnational terrorism? >> thank you, senato as well as transnational terrorism? >> thank you, senato as well as transnational terrorism? >> thank you, senato, as well as transnational terrorism?

>> thank you, senator. first i look forward to answering the question. >> thank you, i appreciate it. >> and thank you for that. and secondly, both the issues you raise with respect to europe are serious ones that we're adjusting to, and i'll say how. with respect to russia and the potential for russian aggression, outright aggression, or the kind of little green men hybrid warfare phenomenon we saw, that's why we're quadrupling the european reassurance initiative. and what it pays for, it pays for the rotational presence of forces in europe, including in border states, states that is that border russia. it provides for increased prepositioning of heavy equipment there and also in germany and elsewhere. it provides for doing more exercising and so forth with the baltic states, with poland, with romania and so forth. and for equipment sets there that our troops fall in on. so the european reassurance initiative, which this year you're right, we asking $3.4 billion in our budget. it's extremely important.

basically, we're adjusting to a fact that we haven't had to face for a quarterly century, as i said in my statement, namely. that we have a russia that is threatening to -- western europe, and we need a new playbook that goes with that. i regret to say that but there it is. that's what the european reassurance initiative is about. now separately, you're right. this is something that general breedlove and i and general dunford watch very closely is the protection of our people. that's a paramount concern to us everywhere, is force protection. everywhere overseas. but europe, also. and so, we watch that very carefully, and we're making -- taking steps to work with our host countries to increase the protection. we're taking steps ourselves with our own people, procedural and technical steps. we can go into them with you in another setting. but it's extremely important. our people are protecting us. we owe them protection, as well.

let me ask the chairman if he wants to add anything on either of those. >> the only thing -- the exercise, senator, i mean, it's not only the capabilities we bring. and, of course, it's posturing of forces, preposition forces for responsiveness. it's the exercises to ensure our allies on a day-to-day basis. also to build the capacity of our european partners. so that collectively, the 28 nations of nato can be prepared to deal with the russian threat. and i would say that if we fully leverage the political, economic and military capabilities of the 28 nations and nato, it wouldn't be a fair fight, which is exactly what we wouldn't want it to be. >> exactly. thank you, gentlemen, very much. thank you, mr. chair. >> thank you. on behalf of the chairman, let me recognize senator shaheen. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you all for your testimony today. and for your service. i want to follow up on senator's questions about the european reassurance initiative because

as i'm sure you're both aware, europe is probably facing more challenges today than it has at any time since the end of world war ii. and the european reassurance initiative is very important in letting them know how committed we are to the peace and security of europe. and i was pleased to see the president's budget increased funding for the eri. can you talk a little bit more about what the risks are if we don't support additional funding for the reassurance initiative? and also, tell me if you share general breedlove's view that -- i don't think i'm misquoting him but when he was before this committee, he talked about the need to put more -- more of our troops in europe. >> well, the effect of not funding the european reassurance initiative would be physically that we wouldn't have the funds

to put equipment, position equipment there. that's equipment that then forces could fall into in a crisis, to reinforce the forces -- it's always been our strategy in europe, and it would be now that the -- we would have forces there already, but we would fall in with a much greater force. in fact, the full weight -- the full might of the u.s. military behind nato in the event of a crisis. but we need the equipment there, and we need our forces to be familiar with the terrain which is why rotational training is so important. we need them to know how to work with their allies. we need how to -- them to be able to do all the logistics that allow a force to flow quickly. that's the kind of thing that general breedlove needs to be able to exercise and prepare for. that's our approach, and we need

the money in the eri. that's physically what it does. >> and let me just say -- >> political play is also important because the reassurance is important. the allies want to know that we're there with them and that we see what they see in the behavior of russia and we do. we want to match our behavior to theirs. and their concern is growing, as well. we're asking them to do more at the same time we're doing more. >> i had a chance to visit some of the nato exercises last summer in latvia and it was very impressive. and you could see that the synergy that existed because there were a number of countries coming together to -- to work together and to work out the bugs of any future challenges we might face. let me switch topics here to the issue of energy. i had the opportunity at the readiness hearing this week to talk to the -- to ask all of the

vice chiefs of each of the branches about the move towards more energy efficiency and alternative sources of energy within our military. and the perception that some people have that this is being done because people are being forced to do it, as opposed to because there's part of our military imperative to improve our strategic readiness that we have. other energy sources that we can count on so that we're not so dependent on fossil fuels as we have been in the past. can i ask you all if you can speak to that? why you think this is an important strategic move as we look at our national security. >> well, it is important to our overall national security. energy security is. and we play a part in that. but everything we do needs to make sense for defense.

as well as play a part in the overall national energy strategy. but so things we do to increase the energy efficiency of engines, develop new engines, very important for our air forces. but also, will have a consequence for -- a good consequence for the economy, generally. we spend money in order to save money on facilities, making them more energy-efficient. we have a large, existing base of buildings, installations and so forth. we work on making them more energy-efficient. we do that for the very reason that it frees up more money in the future we can invest in real military capabilities. everything we do in the energy sphere has to make sense as a military investment. at the same time, these things are beneficial for the nations

overall energy strategy. and we do try to align them with the department of energy and the overall strategy. so that we're not doing something that somebody else is already doing. and that we're benefitting from what other people are doing, and they're benefitting from what we're doing. but it has to make military sense for us. >> general dunford, could you speak to the readiness benefit of our being able to take advantage of some of these new technologies? >> senator, i could. you know, from my perspective, there's a couple things about this. one is if you save money in base operating expenses that money is available for something else. read readiness. and then there's also an operational flexibility aspect of this, as well. the less reliant you are on fuel, the more operation and flexible you are. that is not only at the level of aircraft and ships and some of the bigger programs we talk about a lot. but it's also, if you just look at the load of an individual

infantryman in batteries as an example to some of the initiatives, we had to lighten the load. if you look at the weight our young men and women are carrying now, it's prohibitive. and so we've spent a lot of time trying to reduce the load of the individual soldier, sailor airman and marine. one of the ways we have been able to do that is simply by renewable energy sources that reduces the weight they carry in battery alone which is one of the biggest things that an infantryman has to carry. so, again, i think from a readiness perspective, you save money with fuel, you're able to reinvest that money. and again, both at the platform level and individual service member level, there's a lot of utility to that. as the secretary says, it's got to make sense. >> sure. thank you all. thank you, mr. chairman. >> on behalf of the chairman cain, senator graham, please. >> thank you. thank you all very much. the freedom caucus, i think, in the house -- do you want to go? okay. the freedom caucus in the house i think has taken a position that the house budget should go back sequestration levels for this year. general dunford, what would your response to that position be?

>> my immediate response, senator, would be we will have to revise the defense strategy if we go back to sequestration. we will not be able to do what we need to do right now. and when i say revise the strategy, it's important to emphasize we'll have to revise the ends of our strategy because we will not be able to protect our interests in the same way that's articulated right now in our national security strategy and our defense strategy. >> what effect would that have on our national security? >> it would cause us to expose the nation to risk. >> would you say significant risk? >> i would say significant risk. >> it would actually put our freedom at risk? >> it would absolutely effect it. >> okay. i sent you a letter, and you have given me a very timely response and i appreciate it, general dunford, about some have suggested we intentionally target civilians in the war on terror. and that we go back to using waterboarding or maybe even more

aggressive interrogation techniques. and you've given me a good response, which i'll share with the public later. i forgot to ask one question. what effect, if any, would this have on the war fighter, if we started telling our men and women in uniform to intentionally target noncombatants and engage in waterboarding or more extreme forms of interrogation? >> senator, what it have said publicly before is our men and women -- and we ought to be proud of it -- when they go to war, they go to war with the values of our nation. and those kind of activities you're described, they're inconsistent with the values of our nation and would have an adverse effect. there's many adverse effects. one would be on the morale of the force. and frankly, you would -- what you're suggesting are things that actually aren't legal for them to do anyway. >> i don't think i've ever met a tougher guy than you. and i think it would hurt your morale if you were ordered to kill innocents, noncombatants. so raqqah. do you see raqqah falling this year? taken away from isil?

>> senator, we're focused right now on isolating raqqah, limiting the enemy's freedom of movement. i can't put a timeline on when raqqah will fall. i can tell you we're working closely with indigenous forces on the ground? >> do you agree the likelihood of raqqah falling between now and the election is pretty remote? >> senator, again, i haven't put a timeline on it. >> when it came to liberating fallujah, how many u.s. soldiers or military personnel were involved? >> senator, we had 14,000 u.s. personnel that were involved immediately in the operations around fallujah. but obviously, many more in the surrounds that had an isolation effect. >> and if they haven't been there, would the outcome have been different? >> if the -- >> if we were not using american military personnel to deal with fallujah. >> at that time, senator, we did not have capable indigenous forces. there was not an alternative to u.s. forces in fallujah. >> compare the indigenous forces

in syria today with indigenous forces that existed at the battle of fallujah. are they more capable in syria than they were in iraq? >> today the syrian -- assessed a syrian democratic forces based on performance at shaddadi and other operations, more capable relative to the threat that exists in syria than what we had in iraq back in -- >> are they more capable be of taking raqqah than the iraqis would have taken fallujah? >> in 2004 and 2005, yes. >> how many arabs are in the syrian democratic forces? >> right now we have about 10,000 to 15,000 syrian democratic forces, of which 5,000 are arabs and an estimated 20,000 to 30,000 additional reserve syrian democratic forces. >> is it your testimony that the people we're training incentive in syria are capable of taking raqqah back from isil and holding it? >> at this time, senator, no. but we intend on growing their capabilities over time. and i would qualify that by saying they're also going to require some support from the coalition. >> okay.

iran. post agreement. is iran becoming a better actor in the region, or has their behavior gotten worse post nuclear agreement? >> senator, iran was a maligned influence in the region. prior to the agreement. iran remains a maligned influence today. >> do you think mosul will be in this the hands of isil by the end of this year? >> senator to raqqah, i wouldn't put a timeline on when we would secure mosul. again, i would emphasize that operations against mosul are ongoing. >> is taking mosul going to be more difficult than what we had to do in fallujah in 2004 and '05? >> significantly more difficult based on the pop ligs and the size of the enemy. >> so if you take mosul without 14,000 american military members, does that make it even more significantly different? >> senator, it really is a correlation of forces issue. and right now we've identified over 12 brigades, iraqi security forces. additional peshmerga forces and we are in the process of generating effective sunni forces. the idea is that we'll isolate

mosul until the conditions are set for those forces to be successful in securing mosul. >> finally, between 2016 and 2021, the next five-year window, we have talked about what's happened since 2011 until now. generally speaking, our national security threats, do they maintain at this level, go up or go down? what can america expect in the next five years in terms of threats and what kind of budget should we have? >> i think i would assess based on the trajectory we see today. i don't see our security challenges, decreasing over the next five years, senator, for sure. >> agree to that, mr. secretary? >> i do. >> thank you. >> on behalf of chairman mccain, senator nelson. >> mr. secretary, would you give us your advice for that period

of time, 2018 to 2022 of being able to put our payloads into space, and i'm mainly talking about d.o.d. and intel payloads in addition to nasa payloads and commercial payloads. would you give us your advice on the question of whether or not we should continue to be able to have access to the rd-180 engine, which is the engine in the first stage of the atlas 5 rocket? until we develop the new one. >> i can, senator. it is reflected in our budget. and i know that there are different points of view on how to approach this problem. i think everybody agrees, we have to have assured access to space. so we have to have a way to launch our national security payloads into space. our country's security depends on that.

one way to do that, which is reflected in our budget, is to continue to use the atlas booster, including a limited but continuing number of rd-180 engines. notwithstanding the fact that we don't like the fact they're made in russia and we buy them from russia. that's the approach we recommend because it is less expensive. the alternative, which i understand, but we don't recommend in this budget because it costs more, would be essentially to use the delta as a replacement, which is more expensive than is required. if we're forced to do that, it ends up giving us a bill of $1 billion, maybe more. which is not a bill we would like to pay. so it's that simple. we'll get to space. we have to because our security depends upon it. we are recommending to you a

less expensive way but which does, however, cause us to have to hold our nose insofar as the procurement of the rd-180. engine is concerned. and i recognize there is a difference of opinion there but that's my advice. >> can, in your opinion and what you have been advised, can they ramp up the production of enough of the delta force to get all of your payloads into space, even though it's going to cost more? >> my understanding is that, yes, that alternative is available, technically available. obviously, it's much more expensive, which is the reason for the -- not recommending it. >> and it's more expensive also because the rd-180 has to be used on the atlas 5 for a number of the nasa payloads, including the americans on the new boeing

"starliner" which is the spacecraft that will take us to and from the international space station, along with what we expect the falcon 9 and its spacecraft, dragon. but also, all of the commercial payloads. so if you shut down part of that production, until we get the new replacement engine, and new replacement rocket because you just can't take a new engine and plug it into the atlas 5. it's going to cost everybody more, including the commercial sector. >> i can't speak for nasa or for them but you're right. the delta route is more expensive than the atlas route. it is available, and we've made our recommendation. where we would like to go in the

future and where we're headed in the future is a competitive provision of launch service. that's really important, for both cost and quality reasons. and to have two or more competitors from whom we buy launch services. i don't buy their -- the pieces of the rocket or develop them. they do that, and they provide us launch services. that's an efficient and competitive way. that's the route we're going to. but i realize that there is a difference of opinion about how we get to that destination. we've made our recommendation in our budget submission. >> and, fortunately, that competition has started because the -- the falcon 9 space-x has been a very viable competitor. and, in fact, that competition has brought the cost of the

atlas 5 down. and so, there's a good example of competition that, in fact, is working. let me just conclude by any comment on our aging nuclear triad and the need for the long-range strike capability? >> yes. just to reinforce that the nuclear deterrent of this country, it's not in the headlines every day, thank goodness, but it's not in the headlines because it's there. it's the bedrock of -- it's a bedrock capability of our security. we need it for the indefinite future. we intend to have it for the indefinite future. and we're going to need to spend the money required to have that. of particular concern, i would single out the ohio glass replacement submarine. just take one example. but a big example.

because the trident submarines are going to age out. they're effective but old submarines. they'll be replaced by the ohio class replacement. that's a key survival part of our nuclear deterrent. we have to have it. you mentioned the bombers. that's one of the reasons why we're seeking to start -- have started the long-range strike bomber or b-21 bomber program. and so, making sure that we have a safe, secure and reliable nuclear deterrent for the future is a bedrock responsibility of the department. we'll need the funding to do that. we have plans to do that. >> on behalf of the chairman, senator sullivan, please. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, gentlemen, for your service and testimony here today. i particularly appreciate both of you outlining the five strategic threats. i think that's very clear. i think the american people need to hear that. i think senator graham's

comments about -- or his question about how you think those are going to continue is also very important testimony. you know, those threats in how to counter them include the aggression of russia, which is as you know, mr. secretary, general dunford is in europe and the arctic. the ability to rebalance our asia pacific force posture in light of our challenges there with china. in light of those serious threats, you may have seen that general millie decided to reverse the army's earlier decision made last year to disband the 425 which as you know, mr. secretary, is the only airborne bct in the entire asia pacific. the strategic reserve that's very -- that would be very

involved in any kind of conflict in korea. the only arctic bct that's trained to fight in mountains and extreme cold weather. and i've raised this issue a number of times in the committee over the last year, recently several combatant commanders mentioned that they were supportive specifically of what general millie was trying to do given how critical the forces are. so, mr. secretary, do you support the army's recommendation to more effectively posture its forces to best meet the national security threats that you outlined in your testimony, particularly as it relates to the 425 and what the general millie mentioned, i think, a couple of weeks ago? >> well, senator, thank you very much for your interest in this. i had the opportunity which i appreciate the other day to discuss this with you. >> yes, sir. >> thank you for your leadership with respect to the overall rebalance. and also, for your state's hosting of forces that are so

critical to so many scenarios of possible risks to the united states as you already said. with respect to 425, i looked into that after our conversation. i spoke to general millie, if he makes that recommendation to me, i want you to know i'm going to approve that. >> thank you. >> i think that that is an important part of our force posture in the pacific. i appreciate your calling my attention to it. >> thank you. i appreciate that as well. let me get back to the rebalance issue you mentioned. you know, a lot of us met with you last year in shangra-la. we have talked at the defense ministers meeting, an important demonstration of u.s. executive bipartisan support for that important strategy. and i think a number of us are planning on going again. so i think doing that again would be important to show a

strong across the board american resolve. >> thank you. >> with regard to the implementation of the strategy that you laid out in your speech last year, which i thought was a very strong speech, we've been asking a number of us have written the president, been encouraging to make sure that we do -- we implement this policy on a routine basis. i'm talking about the south china sea and our fon ops there. not only on a routine basis but also with allies. but i'd like you to comment and both you and general dunford on the opportunities on what's going on out there presents to the united states from a strategic perspective. and more specifically, as you know, mr. secretary, you see it every time you go out into the region, many, many countries because of what china is doing in the south china sea, many countries are very much being more interested in working with

us and drawing closer to the united states. are there strategic opportunities that we should be looking at in terms of possible new basing, new training opportunities with the marines in the asia pacific, clarifying strategic relationships? i think there's a number of questions of what our strategic obligations are with regard to, say, a country like the philippines. looking at the next challenges. i know that there's some concern on this committee about the scarborough shoal. but what are the opportunities that we have? they seem to me -- i think there's an enormous strategic opportunities. could you and general dunford talk to those? particularly, you know, the idea of new basing and training arrangements. i think there's a lot we could be doing. i'd like to hear both of you

views on that. >> you're right and i'll start and then ask the chairman to chime in. there are opportunities, they are presenting themselves because countries in the region recognize that their region has had peace and stability for 70 years and that is what has given them the opportunity to rise. all the asian miracles, beginning with japan, south korea, taiwan, today india and yes china all of that has occurred in an atmosphere of peace and stability which they know we have played a pivotal part in. and so, there is a greater demand for partnership with us. whether you talk about basing. we are discussing with philippines right now, you may know that their court passed an important milestone recently which allows -- will allow us to do much more with the philippines. we're doing more and general dunford had a key role with australia, particularly our marine rotations.

in australia. vietnam. who would have thought decades ago vietnam? we're doing more with vietnam. we thank you because we have the maritime security initiative funding which originated in discussions with you, senator, and other members of the committee. we're grateful for that. we're using that funding. the japanese as you probably know adjusted and amended their practices. they're looking to do more with us, joint patrolling, exercising and so forth. india. i'll be in india in a short while. continuing to strengthen our relationship with that incredibly important country of a billion people and an essential geography and a very capable military that wants to partner with us, as well. so we do all of this in order to keep going, the system that's brought prosperity to asia.

we're not seeking a conflict with china. it is not against anybody. it's part of keeping that system of security in intact and we intend to do it. that's what the rebalance is about but the good news an as you say we're popular there. people want to work with us. let me turn it over the chairman. >> senator, i would emphasize what you have alluded to. i have made two trips to the region since i'm in the current assignment and i would tell you that the desire for people to develop stronger relationships with the united states is probably never greater. frankly, with our partners, particularly those with whom we have a treaty obligation, a relationship is probably haven't been ever deeper but when you talk about opportunities the one thing we haven't necessarily had in the past, a multilateral relationships and interopinionerability associated with conducting everything from humanitarian assistance to other operations required in the region or that multilate ralism in itself serving as a te der rent to those to be destabilizing in the region so there's an opportunity and from

those relationships, then comes the one issue we haven't talked about in great detail is opportunities for training because in the pacific you know joint training is required to maintain readiness and always looking for opportunities to identify training opportunities to maintain readiness as we conduct the xer sitzs and engagements with the partners and i think the willingness of the partners to afford us the opportunity to train in their countries, continue to maintain proficiency, those kinds of things, i think will only increase in the future and in places we're contact, secretary staff in contact with a number of countries to enhance the training opportunities and our actual basing opportunities in the region so i would agree with you. i think a view of the common challenges in the pacific has brought us together in a very positive way and it's created all the opportunities you alouded to. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. on behalf of chairman mccain,

senator leebly. >> thank you all for being here. secretary carter, december 3rd, a few months ago, you announced that the military branches would be opening all military occupational specialties or mos on the basis of various provisions and on the basis of committee hearings and formal briefings, you were certainly aware of congress' interest on being closely consulted on the matter. in your announcement, in subsequent briefings with congress, you failed to discuss the legal and practical implications this decision could have on selective service in america. my concern is that it seems the department may have made a policy decision and left up to congress and the courts to deal with the difficult legal ramifications. so i would like to know what assessments, mr. secretary, has the department of defense made

to examine how opening all mos to female service members will affect the selective service act and what assessments have you made to how requiring american women to register for the draft or, alternatively, ending selective service all together, would affect military readiness, recruitment, retention and morale? >> thank you, senator. thank you for that question. let me begin at the beginning. why did we do this in the first place? the reason to open up all mos to females is to make sure that we're able to access what is, after all, 50% of the population. >> right. and understandably. i'm not worried about the merits of that but the implications for the selective service. >> i do understand. that is the action we took. as far as informing the congress, we have the implementation plans for that,

including everything that is required by law in order for us to do what we need to do. separately is the selective service system, which is not administered by us. and is governed by statute. you will have a voice in any implications for that. my own belief about that is two-fold. first, it stands to reason that you will reconsider the selective service system in its treatment of females in view of the department of defense's policies and practices with respect to women as well as men. but the second thing i would like to say about -- about selective service system and the draft generally is this. we want to pick our people. we don't want people forced to serve us. and we don't want all the people

that are -- young people that are in our country. we pick very carefully. in fact, only about -- a little bit more than two-thirds of young americans even meet our basic qualifications. many of them are, i'm sad to say, obese or have other health issues. a third of them haven't graduated from high school. we want high school graduates and 10% have criminal records that make it impossible for us to want them. so, we don't want a draft. we don't want people chosen for us. we want to pick people. that's what the all-volunteer force is about. that's why the all-volunteer force is so excellent. that's why we're constantly trying to make sure we keep up with labor markets and generational trends and so forth, so we continue to pick and have access to the very best people.

look at the magnificent people we have now in uniform. i need to make sure that tomorrow and ten years from now, and 20 years from now, we're also able to attract the very best. but now and then, we want to pick. we don't want to have people picked for us. we want to pick ourselves. >> right. thank you. and i appreciate that. and i appreciate the sentiment that i think i understand you're expressing, which is the change to the universe of persons subject to the selective service registration requirement needs to be made by congress with input from the american people rather than administratively or by the courts. >> it's set in law. >> in the long-ranging interview published with the atlantic, president obama has expressed his disdain for security free writers when it comes to allies in europe and parts of the middle east. however, your fy17 budget calls

for a quadrupling of the european reassurance initiative and robust funding for activities in the middle east. how do you and how does the administration -- how does president obama reconcile concerns that president obama has expressed about some of our allies who are not taking steps to increase their defense spending or who are potentially abusing their relationship with us, their alliance with us for their own benefit without making corresponding increases to their investment and defense spending? >> i'll just say as secretary of defense, i think america needs to lead. i'm happy to have us lead. we have, by far and away, more capability than anybody else. but we need others to join us and get in the game. you mentioned europe. we have been urging, very insistently, europeans to spend more on their own defense.

some are doing what they're supposed to do. for example, i commend the united kingdom, which has recently increased its percentage of gdp and has agreed to stay at what all the nato countries agreed, which is a minimum of 2%. they're not all there yet. then as you go around the world, with respect to others, allies in the gulf and so forth, we are looking for people to join us. there, the counter isil coalition, the effort to deter iranian aggression, that's something we need our security partners to do with us. we're prepared to lead. we're willing to lead. but i think it's fair to turn to our partners and say we need you to join us. now my role in that is very specifically -- and the chairman's as well, to describe for -- let's take the counter isil coalition. what it is we need.

so, here is what we need. we need some more isr help from you. we need some special forces from you. we need -- and this is important -- reconstruction funding for places like ramadi. so, if you don't have any forces or you don't want to put your forces there, you could open your wallet. that's needed. and so we try to give them choices for how they can make a contribution and lead them in that direction. but we need people to follow. and so i -- it's an important part of my job. and i know the chairman does this, to talk to our counterparts and say we need everybody in the game if we're going to have a peaceful world. we share this world together. we share this future together. you've got to get in the game. let me ask the chair. >> i just emphasize what the secretary said. a key part of our responsibilities on a day-to-day basis. i recently went to the region and met with 30 of the chiefs to encourage their participation. one of the things we do is work

on where they could make a contribution and encourage them to actually do that. that's an ongoing process. are we satisfied with where we are? never. >> thank you, and thank you, secretary carter. >> thank you. gentlemen, thank you for your testimony. and thank you for your service. on behalf of chairman kaine, let me declare the hearing adjourned. >> thank you.

[ no audio ] [ no audio ]

with the current debate over whether the senate will consider judge garland's nomination to the supreme court, we're taking a look at some of the people who have served on the high court and the cases they have heard. first, jeffrey rosen on the influence of former chief justice john marshall. then the 100th anniversary of president woodrow wilwilson's nomination of louis brandeis. all is next oameric histy tv.