concerned about in the coming months is it hasn't been that it has been indicated that no more than 21% of afghanistan will be accessible to civilian oversight going forward. we had eyes and ears on afghanistan when hundreds of billions of dollars was being spent to build things. we are only going to have eyes and ears in 21% of the country now. do you agree with that assessment, that our ability to oversee any kind of ongoing work is going to be survey early curtailed or limited under the current scenario? >> i may be able to make you feel better about that. in 2015 -- i will speak from the we will haveve --

32 projects. all but five of those projects will have proper oversight. the five projects will work outside of that range, and we are working to ensure that we have afghans that can help us provide oversight and provide the stewardship that you are addressing. seen -- noneve not oco funding.en the of those 31 projects you are going to be working on in 2015, is there going to be more money requested for any of that work in this coming oco budget? it will be in 2015. some of that is 2015 money. yes, part of that project will be there. the project in total are somewhere between $600 million and $700 million.

when i talk about projects, they are virtually all either afghan theonal police or projects, outside of the record that was started years ago. >> so no new project starting this year? >> there are knows new starts. -- there are no new starts. on, i have move asked some of the leadership -- i think it is really important that we get an assessment of how well this works. there has just been an assumption from day one, and i have great respect for general ,etraeus' guide counterinsurgency effort, but i am not aware that has -- there or ever been any data analysis that has really said that the military heading involved in large-scale

infrastructure projects works. -- it may have helped along the margins in iraq, but most of that money was wasted. most of those projects are not operating now. the health care centers never opened, the water park is in crumbles, a lot of the great was blown up during the process. the notion of building major infrastructure during a conflict and the security challenges we have -- and we know some of our money went to the bad guys for guiding that one highway we were building -- and the blowing of the lines between the state department, defense apartment, as to whose job this is, i think we really need to do a clear-eyed assessment, now that we have both direct and afghanistan to look at. i am hopeful. if you read the special inspector general for iraq's final report, there is real work to do here on the part of the

military. is there some discussion about that, that there will be a reevaluation of the effectiveness of the strategy? >> i heard general dempsey's comments the other day and i associate myself with those. at the end of a decade of war, it is important we look back at the lessons learned and make sure we document those now while they are fresh. >> ok. some problems with property accountability in afghanistan. we know that we have 26 open investigations for missing property that include weapons and weapons systems for total of almost $590 million. these problems have been found over there and in two places we are trying to retrofit an account for the equipment. have you gotten a handle on that? >> i do. we have spent the last year and before i arrived trying to assure that this is part of lessons learned from the iraq experience as we go through the

redeployment in arak. we learned a lot of lessons. i believe we are applying those lessons in afghanistan now. >> i have specific questions for the record about what has took a since the i.t. look. it is worrisome to me that they did the same thing as in our iraq, and i thought that we had turned the corner and that the . had found. i want to mention detainees. i understand the afghan government released individuals with ties to attacks to coalition forces. armedis a bsa, naval, forces, to remove individuals that are dangerous from that awful. it is troubling that they have released those people. it is something we should be

worried about. i want you to tell me that you're comfortable that if you catch people that are trying to kill our men and women in battle that we can keep them captured and that the afghan government does not have the ability to let them go. >> i share your concern with that, and clearly protecting the force is my responsibility, and i take that very seriously. i was greatly concerned with the release of those 65 individuals. i would say the viability of our presence post-2014 is going to be determined by a number of factors, one of which will be an effective regime to address detainees, not only to ensure that those individuals that are threatening the forces are kept off the battle. but that we have access to intelligence and conduct effective counterterrorism operations. with the new administration, that is something that has to be arranged and be part of the bilateral security agreement, and the other arrangements that

we have with the next government. >> we do not have it now? >> we have an arrangement, but the governor of afghanistan did not recognize that agreement. .> very disappointing senator levin had to leave, and i am now going to go to senator donnelly. and,ank you, madam chair, general, first i want to thank you for everything you have done there. it has been an extraordinary tour of duty. as i mentioned to you before, i have family members who have a history with st. michael's, and everybody is proud of what you have done. inregard to the -- i served the house for a little bit, too, and when we were coming and try to getaps and those in the field as fast as we could, we were not worried about whether or not we were going to be able to get them home or what should they were going to get home on or whether the dirt was

going to be cleaned up from under the tires. we were worried about saving lives, and that is the whole purpose of the mraps. if you talk to anybody in the house or senate at that time, and they had said -- and you had said, look, we can get these, but do you want to worry about how they come home? we all want to get them taken care of, but that an a list about of a andred things, about 101, number one was telling families in indiana and ohio and wisconsin and new york that their sons and daughters would be in the safest vehicles possible and that they could come home safely. i want to tell you that my opinion is get them back if you can come up with the most important job they have had to do they have been doing. ied's to ask you about and the progress we're making in that area. i know there has been testing on

fertilizers as well. we are trying to come up with a formula that is not explosives. i wanted to hear how things are going with regard to fertilizer-based ied's and the challenges you have now and how we're doing in that area. >> thanks for that question. as you know, we work very closely with pakistan, richard tony, and they -- particularly, and they have done a lot of great jwork. focused onnis are the ied challenge, as well as our afghans. we have had a number of sessions with cooperation of the producers of -- >> one of the bright things that we see, the cooperation on this, and we are going to be doing testing in the states as well. >> absolutely, and the efforts paide committee has evidence. the greatest ied challenge is the afghan forces, who have

increasingly borne the brunt of that. our focus, one i feel comfortable with equipment that we have in training for our focus, our focus on ied's now is to make sure that the afghan security forces are capable of dealing with challenge, and we are in the process of dealing with that equipment, integrating that equipment, and the real bright spot and the potential for improvement here in the coming months is that cooperation between the government of pakistan and the government of afghanistan and the tripartite arrangement that we have on this particular issue. >> how are we doing in terms of catching the threat before it happens, being able to protect our vehicles on the roads? we are way up from where we were. >> we have made significant improvement. this is one of those force protection issues that i have never appeared before a committee to tell you i where we are. >> not until they are all gone.

what is the material of choice not that the terrorists are using? aswe see ammonium nitrate being 68% of the ied's contain, some type of homemade explosives. effort onfor your that. that has obviously torn families and units apart. we will not be satisfied until there are no more. we appreciate it and you have done. happens even if our forces remain behind, which obviously bsa, bute get a what do those areas look like post 2014? >> they look like safe havens for al qaeda in that region, and a comics arrangement of theemist organizations, list goes on, of individuals that use that area, we have largely again kept them from

planning and conducting attacks from that area and have largely focused on survival. they expect we will leave at the end of 2014 and they expect after we leave they will have the opportunity to once again expand or safe haven in the region. by expectation is as we grow in partnership with the afghan security forces and grow their ape ability that a combination of our training combined with the ever-increasing capability of the afghans will ensure those individuals focus more on their own survival than they do on attacks against afghan people or against us. >> after september 2014, for provinciald reconstruction teams, do they have the ability to still go out efforts, putrd forward projects and programs and be in a situation where they will feel safer and secure? not be anyll

provincial reconstruction teams in 2015. usaid, the embassy is with them as a whole. the projects will be conducted by afghans except for efforts that fall within that we call operational reach, where our forces are, and a quick reaction quickll -- reaction capability. my citation we will not have state department employees. >> they will not be in an environment where they will be safe at all? >> absolutely, senator. >> i want to thank you again. you have done an extraordinary job under difficult circumstances. you have given the nation a debt of extreme gratitude. >> thank you. hofe.nator in

>> thank you. are things that i'm concerned about having to do with the inspector, the special inspector general for afghanistan reconstruction. at the end of january your staff was accused of preempting and undermining reports after a series of audits. let me ask you three questions here. personnel getar to audit locations such as construction sites in southern afghanistan? how do they get access to the dated they need and the afghan ministries? >> we provide that support. say a statement i saidd was that segar has 21% of afghanistan will not be accessible to u.s. personnel by

2014. do you think that is true, and how important you think that is to you their mission? i do not think it is true. gar is referring to is 21% of the country will be covered by u.s. forces' for print -- footprint. that is true because we are reducing so much, but that is irrelevant because what is most important is what is the coverage of those areas where there are actually projects ongoing. there will only be 32 projects in 2015. in all but five of those will fall within our ability to provide proper oversight with u.s. for ces. >> that is not correct? >> that is right, senator. >> i read a lot of things, and it appears they go in there, they find out things, they go to the newspapers, and you see a

lot of headlines come at high-profile medium out lights. -- outlets. what do you consider the most important role that is supposed gar, and have they been focused on a roll? >> i welcome segar. i requested inspectors to come over to look at projects. take stewardship seriously. i realize my responsibility is to make sure that every dollar spent in afghanistan results in the advance of our interests. we take that seriously. what i am interested is the to tellators' ability me how i can save money, as opposed to my what might have happened in terms of lessons learned. i'm not dismissing lessons learned. for me today, as a commander,

i'm much more interested in decisions by making today and decisions i will make tomorrow to make sure those are goods to seizures and reflect the stewardship. that is where i think investigators can help me the most. >> do you think the headlines are all accurate? >> i think in most cases, in many cases >>, they are sensationalized. i think they are, too. does that make your job easier >> that makes it more difficult. the narrative is very important, and if there is a narrative of pessimism, a narrative of abuse, a narrative that we are not in good stewardship, that affects our message. -- our mission. madeidentify with remarks by our chairman. that not nearly as eloquently as senator graham did.

ok, senator graham is recognized. >> thank you. detainees. the standppreciate you took against the 65 detainees being released by president karzai. we have a resolution in congress condemning that action. would it be helpful for us as congress to send a signal that we object what president karzai did? >> i do, and i would like to thank you for what you have been doing to ensure we set a clear message. >> and to let that economic aid will be cut off if they continue this. could you send the committee a report on the status of the -- 435 something to do. thank you for the hard work out there. report on the status of detainees, give the committee some indication of the problems we face between now and july with detainees, so we can make informed decisions -- can you

help us do that? >> absolutely. >> this is an ideological's struggle. there is no air force to shoot down. there's no navy to sing. we are in an ideological struggle with radical islamists, right? >> i agree. >> most of the muslim world, not just us, most of the world is in battle with these. >> absolutely. >> what you are trying to tell us is the best way to keep this war away from the homeland is have lines of defense throughout the world, and these lines of defense would be places like afghanistan that had a stable stable, improving economy, and security forces willing to fight the radicals. that is part of the america toss defense -- that is part of the american defense strategy. do you agree? >> yes, that is what we are

trying to do. war do not know when the will end. radical extremist movements are radicalized over time by a better economic opportunity, in the areas they operate. the biggest blow to the taliban and al qaeda is girls going to school. >> i agree. >> and people making their own choices. i know that is complicated and frustrating, but if we will invest in the people who are willing to fight the terrorists along our side in their backyard, i think we would be smart. under talibanan control, the 30 years of previous civil war, was a devastated nation, is that fair to say? >> it is. a what happened in 2001, couple years later, when we cleaned up the place, was a devastated society, absolutely no infrastructure. >> that is correct. >> ira member going to kabul and

there were a few lights. today it is like myrtle beach. lots of challenges, but there are two ways of looking at afghanistan. where we started and where we are today. would you agree in many ways it is amazing they have, as far as they have? >> i believe that, and a few years ago we would have described afghanistan in 2014, very few people would believe where we are today. >> i would be among those. there are two ways to look at this. what they have not are and what they are capable of doing. i believe the capability of the afghan people is unlimited when it comes to reforming afghanistan. it will take time. you agree? >> i do. i've seen them accomplish and it sure near,. >> the key ingredient is well and desire. >> this is a clash of wills. have theghan people will to move out of the darkness into light. is that a fair statement? >> absolutely.

it reflects in the popularity 15% whore they get at actually support the telegram ideology. >> how is the al qaeda poll? >> we do not have one. i would suspect it to be lower. >> the bottom line is the ace in the hole for america is most people in afghanistan do not want to go back to the dark days of the telegram. they want to go forward, they want a different world. it will not be like america. it can be represented of government. they can be a good ally, do you not believe that? >> i do. >> i hope you understand we are trying to build defenses abroad and let armies abroad do the fighting with a minimal help from us to keep the enemy at bay from attacking us. the goal of al qaeda is just not to control afghanistan. it is to drive us out of the region, right? >> that is exactly the plan for transition.

>> and leave that part of the world in their hands and the economic chaos that would create is unimaginable. do you agree? >> i do. >> united states has a great interest in making that part of the world stable. >> if you look at the cost of 9/11, you could make that argument >> easily. if you want to deter the iranians from a nuclear capability, if we abandon afghanistan that could be the worst possible signal about our resolve guarding national security matters. >> it would have a destabilizing effect. >> the iranians would be a big winner of an unstable afghanistan? >> i believe so. >> thank you for your extraordinary service. you have done a great job. we are in the side -- we are inside the 10-yard line? >> i believe that. >> thank you.

senator levin will be back shortly, so we will stand down until he gets back. >> i have a couple of additional questions for you, and if the staff is aware of any senators come back, they won't let us know. i do not think there are. to you in my office about a couple of incidents that occurred fairly recently during military operations. and i think it is important when these incidents happen, some of which are truly tragic, that there be a prompt response on

the part of our military. a radio station .ate in a province allegedly our special ops forces scaled the walls of a compound, sees the owner of a radio station him and then beat and threatened him during interrogation. what can you tell us about that? that rate is under investigation. i actually end up over not to talk about it publicly, that i reviewed the draft report of the investigation last night. i got the initial results from the commander in our special operations commander, so i think over the next couple days we will have the facts out. >> that was on the radio station? >> that was on the radio station. >> there was a friendly fire incident in eastern afghanistan where it was reported a nato airstrike resulted in friendly

fire deaths of five afghan army soldiers. can you tell us about that incident? >> that was clearly an incident of what we call the blue on green. it was our aviation capability and there were afghan sword jewelers -- afghan soldiers that were unfortunately killed. i cannot speak publicly about that here and we will have the facts here in a couple days. in all honesty, it it was something that happened that should not have happened. >> we have been working with the afghans on the to try to remedy the loss to the extent that we can? >> very closely working with the leadership to investigate and take care of the families of the fallen. >> general, i had a chance to chat with a number of my

colleagues and running back and forth to vote, and they unanimously reacts the way that i do to your service and your testimony, but most importantly, is your testimony is compelling, your service is truly extraordinary over these decades, and we all feel that way, and we just want to thank you and thank your family. i know that we had a chance to spend a few minutes with your wife last night. in a few days, maybe you can find a few hours with your family, away from your huge challenges in afghanistan. but we are deeply grateful to you and do all the men and women with whom you serve. with that, we will stand adjourned. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [indiscernible] >> just two weeks ago in the midst of a terrible tragedy on the potomac, we saw again the spirit of america and her resume at its finest. the heroism of dedicated rescue workers saving crash victims from icy waters and we saw that her was among one of our young government employees, lenny, who, when he saw a woman lose her grip on a helicopter line,

dived into the water and took her to safety. >> find more highlights from 35 years of house for coverage on our facebook page. c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and public to you today as a service by your television provider. challenge inque defining the war in cyberspace. what wars? clearly from a policy perspective we are trying to

work our way through this issues. the tenets i think that are applicable, whatever we do within a cyber arena, international law will pertain. that if we find ourselves getting to a point where we believe that ciber is taking us down to an armed conflict lawsrio that the rules and of armed conflict will complain, every much as -- every bit as much in this domain. i do not think ciber is inherently effort. i think those sets of procedures, the sets of policies and law as a nation have stood us in good stead. they represent a good point of departure. >> this weekend, senate armed services takes up military nominations, saturday morning at 10:00 eastern. on book tv, a look at hillary clinton's political career since her 2008 primary defeat, saturday night at 8:15 p.m.

martinn on c-span3, luther king jr., saturday evening at 7:00 and 11:00. heading into a weeklong recess, house and senate lawmakers fail to reach an agreement on a foreign aid package for ukraine, while the ouse last week approved a loan guarantee. the senate also took up a measure that was eventually blocked by republican senators. house and senate return the week hasarch 24, and leader reid said ukraine will be at the top of his agenda. the senate wrapped up their work yesterday. eight u.s. senators have gone to the ukraine to tour the site of the protests and meet with the country cost interim -- country's interim government. they are tweeting lots today

a number of senators are. " a memorable experience --" you will find more at twitter.com/cspan. in london, john kerry met with his russian counterpart sergei lough rauf today. lavrov.sergei following their meeting, foreign minister lavrov told reporters that differences remain between moscow and the u.s. and added his country has no plans to invade southeastern ukraine. we will show you his remarks

followed by secretary kerry. >> ladies and gentlemen, we have had intense days of negotiations with john kerry. both parties come ourselves and the american partners, are seriously concerned. we have expressed our position as to what is happening and what are the reasons. and what are the measures that international community should an inclusive -- that would overcome the deep split within society and to implement the constitutional reform that should in our conviction date part of the interest of all the people of the ukraine. we have expressed the concern no necessary that

measures are being taken to provide security and order. no efficient measures are taken to prevent unlawful actions of radicals, that escalate provocations, including armed provocations with file -- with violence and tried to affect what is happening in the country. attracted his attention to the fact that the agreement of the 21st of february is implemented, like -- andp weapons buildings, and our american partners have agreed the order should be brought in this area. they agreed the constitutional reform that needs to overcome

this situation is very important. as to practical matters that should be taken, that could be partners ofeign ukraine, we do not have a common vision of the situation. the differences are there. the style was definitely constructive, and it could help us to understand how much and how good we understand each other. overall picture of u.s.-russian relations, from that point of view, the negotiations were very useful. we discussed crimea. we have repeated our position that was expressed by the president of the russian federation. we will respect the will of the people of crimea that would be expressed at the referendum on the 16th of march.

>> international press or russian press? >> [indiscernible] >> will russia agreed for the conference with the european union, russia, and the united states? >> i have already spoken on the issue. this was offered by western partners based on the premises that would be the purpose of this multilateral conference should be facilitating direct contact between russia and ukraine. we think that this is wrong approach.

the crisis was not caused by russia. european partners put ukraine should not be before a false choice that was done when the signing of the association agreement between eu that wasand about to happen, and president yanukovych decided to delay the signing of the agreement. he warned against encouraging illegal, unlawful demonstrations, especially those that included the participation of armed groups. the international community needs to appeal to immediate beginning of the process of constitutional reform. ukrainian parliament can

initiate this ross espy in -- this-- by infighting process by inviting all the regions of the country and infighting equal participation in the negotiations. own suggestions of offers that are giving to our , and we wouldrs be happy to make them available to the media. i will repeat, the most isortant thing is that this not the international structure ne-russianto ukrai relations. the happened in kiev, legally elected president was overthrown, but russian encourages iraqi

encouragesto work -- the russian government to work with ukrainian minister, any accomplishments alongside the lines of the foreign minister. there are could be raised and solved. ukrainian side suggested to convene the cis council. ukraine is presiding in the cis, and they offered to have this council in kiev. we suggested that we should begin it with the deputy to haveminister and it in minsk. unfortunately, our colleagues decline. the international gq many -- the

international annuity is to encourage a dialogue about constitution reform with the long inactionthat and encouragement of current leadership in ukraine in the direction that they are moving caused thefact invasion of russia into crimea. military forces being made ready to enter into ukraine -- [indiscernible] the minister this morning made clear he was ready to -- [indiscernible] >> what happened has become

subject of commentary from russian foreign ministry. chance tohis familiarize yourself. it is a horrible situation. was armed with startedmilitants, filing intrusion into the demonstration. russian government has known no plans of military intrusion into eastern ukraine. on the assumption that the rights of russian, hungarian, ball bearings, ukrainians -- paul variance, needs to be protected. crimea thatening in there are serious violations of breaches is the result of the self-defense groups, determined

not to repeat what happened at camp town ine the the center of the european city is still there. we do to insure you that not have any plans of non-transparency what we are doing. just a few days ago, the ukrainian parties in the framework of the treaty of -- decided to have annexed during me -- have an extraordinary measure and fly across the territory where the russian actions were happening. they were declined this permission. >> [indiscernible] >> we were discussing this

subject, and what is different is that each case is a separate case, singular case. i am convinced that coast of all a very special case, and crimea is a very special case. >> [indiscernible] >> did secretary kerry threaten russia with sanctions, and what is your view on the prospect -- [indiscernible] secretary kerry did not voice any threats against russia. we arehe sanctions, hearing what is being discussed in washington or in europe, and

let me assure you that our thaters understand sanctions is a counterproductive instrument, and if the decision -- isnt, it will be a made, it will be a bad decision. it will not be helpful in the mutual interests of developing business operations. reciprocale any measures. there is no point in guessing now. we have to wait. >> [indiscernible]

>> as to the referendum, that is about to happen in crimea on sunday, we have expressed our position through president putin. we will respect the will of the people of crimea. the people's of crimea -- the peoples of crimea. as to the attitude toward the results of the referendum, the results are unknown. the ukrainian parliament has already accepted the resolution that is about the independence of the crimean parliament. we have to wait for the result. as to the statements of our western partners, as have already spoken on this subject, we believe that the rights of

self-determination has not been canceled, which is one of the important postulate's of the u.n. status. concluding, there is a history of the people there. ,e were talking about kosovo but there is another state, an island, where at the end of the last century there was a referendum about independence from france. one of the islands was against, theirance insisted on recounting of the votes so that not the overall number of people butvoted in the islands, each and every island separately. remainedd of mallorca within france, first as a colonial territory, and later on it was included into the french

republic as just another department. annexation or self-determination? the united nations or the african union did not accept the decision of france, but the european union did. as to the reaction of our western partners, let me say it again, it will be a bad decision. the russian president is in stant connection with president obama, with other with theleaders, chinese chairman, the turkish prime minister, and i am in constant daily talks and meetings with our western

partners. we are not hiding our position. we are not even eating the questions that are being asked. dating -- we even are not evading the questions that are being asked. [indiscernible] >> i cannot answer this question. declined and rejected a cooperation and diplomatic framework, and if our partners to not want that, we can never force them to do that. hope -- i remain in personal meetings and conversations with the hope that

our there that this is the case looked into in an isolated way. precedents of international law, and everybody understands that crimea for russia is something really important. what it means for russia. it means immeasurably more for russia then falklands for united kingdom. thank you. >> good afternoon, everybody. president obama, as you know, asked me to come to london in an effort to try to de-escalate the situation in ukraine. today foreign minister lavrov

and i engaged in a very in-depth constructive dialogue on how to address legitimate concerns in the context of a unified, sovereign ukraine. the united states strongly supports the interim government of ukraine, and we continue to favor a direct dialogue between ukraine and russia as the very best way to try to resolve the crisis. i came in here in good faith with constructive ideas which we did put forward. on behalf of president obama, in order to try to restore and respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of ukraine while addressing at the same time russia's legitimate concerns.

foreign minister lavrov and i talked for a good six hours, and the conversation was very direct, very candid, frank, and i say constructive because we really dug into all of russia's perceptions, their narrative, our narrative, our perceptions, and the differences between us. i presented a number of ideas on behalf of the president, which we believe absolutely could provide a path forward for all the parties. however, after much discussion, the foreign minister made it clear that president putin is not prepared to make any decision regarding ukraine until after the referendum on sunday. the united states' position on that referendum, i must say, is clear, and it is clear today. we believe the referendum is contrary to the constitution of ukraine, is contrary to international law, is in violation of that law, and we

believe it is illegitimate. and as the president put it, illegal under the ukrainian constitution. neither we nor the international community will recognize the results of this referendum. we also remain deeply concerned about the large deployments of russian forces in crimea and along the eastern border with russia as well as the continuing provocations and some of the hooliganism of young people that have been attracted to cross the border and come into the east as well as some of those who live there. i was clear with foreign minister lavrov that the president has made it clear there will be consequences if russia does not find a way to change course, and we do not say that as a threat. we say that as a direct consequence of the choices that russia may or may not choose to make here.

if russia does establish facts on the ground that increased tensions or that threaten ukrainian people, then obviously, that will beg an even greater response, and there will be costs. president obama and i could not be more convinced that there is a better way for russia to pursue legitimate interests in ukraine. we believe it is not insignificant that we acknowledge there are legitimate interests. historical, cultural, current strategic. these are real interests. and i think all of us who are joined together in the eu and extended contact group understand those interests and are prepared to respect them. but that requires also that russia would respect the

multilateral structure that has guided our actions since world war ii and the need for all of us to try to resolve this challenge and to meet those interests through the international multilateral legal norms which should guide all of our behavior. foreign minister lavrov and i talked about that and we talked about the other options that are available. options of dialogue, options of various contacts, meetings that could take place, options of international legal remedy, options of joint multilateral efforts that would protect minorities, u.n. options, international human rights organizations options, many options for the ways in which any challenges associate

d with the rights of people could be addressed. we are prepared to address those rights, whether they be the rights of ukrainian living in the west, ukrainian hitting in the east, somebody of russian language and russian dissent that might feel threatened, all minorities, all people should be protected. foreign minister lavrov and i agreed we are going to stay in onch in the next days ukraine as well as on the other issues of concern, which we are working on -- syria, iran, and other challenges of mutual concern. before i close, i want to reiterate what resident obama said in the oval office on wednesday, when he visited with the ukrainian prime minister. the united states stands with the people of ukraine in their

desire to make their own choices about their future and to be able to live their lives in a andied, peaceful, stable, democratic ukraine. the president said clearly that is our only interest. that is what drives us. not a larger strategy, nothing with respect to russia directly. we are interested in the people of ukraine, having the opportunity to have their country's sovereignty and territorial integrity respected as we would ask that to happen for any country. so i will be briefing prime as allr shortly as well of our colleagues and counterparts in the eu and members of the contact group as soon as i leave here. i will engage in those briefings, and i look forward to taking a couple of questions. mr. secretary, as you noted,

russian troops are carrying out extensive military exercises in ukraine, and at the same time the russian foreign ministry said today that the kremlin reserves the right to protect what it calls compatriots' lives in ukraine. did you obtain a clear assurance from mr. lavrov that russia will not use these forces to ukraine? in eastern as they have in crimea? what did they say was the purpose of this exercise, and has russia abided by its obligations to provide osce nations with timely information about the size of the exercise, the types of forces involved, the purpose of the exercise? have they done that for this current exercise, and have they done for the one immediately

prior? >> i do not know whether or not they have made that notification. i have been wrapped up in these talks and in other talks. i'm not aware of whether or not that notification was made. i can tell you indeed we talked about these exercises and we talked about the level of truths deployed,oops are where they are deployed, with the purposes, and i raised very anxiety thatriest is created within ukraine -- the increased anxiety that is created within ukraine as a consequence of this. we talked about one of the proposals we made, discussed the possibility of drawing all forces back to my reducing these tensions, returning to barracks, having a freeze on those kinds theeployments, while diplomacy is working. i think in fairness that foreign

minister lavrov is going to report that proposal back to president putin as he will all of the proposals that we put on the table this afternoon. , havegoing to fly back that discussion with him. so the president will be well aware, resident agent, of all the options we have offered. that was one of the principal areas of discussion, is this created byension these additional departments, in crimea, as well as along the border of the east, and the need to reduce that kind of tension. that theyour hope will take the business is very steps. with respect to assurances, it is my understanding this afternoon that foreign minister lavrov gave assurances, publicly, with respect to their usent, but i think all of

would like to see actions, not words, that support the notion that people are moving in the opposite direction and in fact people are moving in the opposite direction and diminishing their presence. right now, in this particular climate, given what has been happening, we really needed to hear a more declarative policy in order to make clear where russia is proceeding with respect to these troops and these exercises. >> thank you. mr. secretary, you said last week that crimea is ukraine. we were told crimea is more important to russia than the falklands to britain. and you get any indication from -- even if so,

why would not greater economy aid it would allow, why would it not set a dangerous precedent? >> the issue of additional autonomy by crimea is one that is constantly on the table. it has been on the table prior to russia making these moves. decision fory a the ukrainian government to make. to washington, the prime minister made it clear that they are prepared to provide additional autonomy. to thee it as no threat integrity and sovereignty of the ukraine. i think they see it as strengthening it. we don't know definitively what president putin is going to decide. , anywas made clear

decisions regarding the next steps until the vote has been said that once the referendum vote is taken, he will make a decision with respect to what will happen. i would say to him today, as i lavrov,prime minister that is a decision of enormous consequence with respect to the global community. in a decision to move forward by russia, we ratify that vote initially would be a backdoor and accession -- annexation of crimea and against international law. and find the face of every legitimate effort to say there is a different waited proceed to

protect the interest of crimea and and protect russia's interests and respect the integrity of the ukraine and the sovereignty of the ukraine. we hope president clinton will recognize that none of what we are saying is meant as a threat. it is not meant in a personal way. it is meant as a matter of respect for the international multilateral structure that we have lived by since world war ii. and for the standards of behavior about annexation, secession, and how countries come about it. to parliament voted legitimize a vote in scotland about where scotland would want to proceed. the ukrainian legislature would

have to vote to legitimize a secession effort by any state or province or entity. the autonomous region of the ukraine. is why this runs against the constitution of the ukraine. we hope that president putin will hear that we are not trying to challenge russia's rights or interests. its interest in protecting its people, its strategic position. none of those things are being threatened. they can all be respected even as the integrity of the ukraine is respected. we hope that president putin will see that there is a better way to address those concerns .hat he has

>> thank you. mr. secretary, prime minister lavrov said there is no common vision between the west, russia, and the ukraine. and that russia would respect the results of sunday's referendum. meant as a threat, but do you believe that diplomacy is failing and they will go ahead with what you just termed as a possible backdoor annexation of crimea? safe to sayw that monday we will see sanctions from the european union and the united states? and what gives you confidence that those actions will in any way change his mind that we see

falling. i suspect the market in russia and moscow can be significantly affected by these choices. i think it will have an impact. is that president putin's statement that he will respect the vote is how he chooses to respect the vote. if the people of crimea vote overwhelmingly as one suspects they will to affiliate or be associated with russia, he can respect the vote by making sure the autonomy is increased. without necessarily making a decision to annex.

i'm not going to interpret what it may or may not mean. i think it is more important for the president to understand that we are prepared to respect his interests, rights, and they can be fully respected. and that he can have a claim that serves his purpose protecting the people that he is interested in protecting by augmenting their rights and by asserting his prerogatives at the end of this effort. there are other options and that is what we are continually trying to say. has made his decision, those options are still on the table and we hope you will make a different set of choices. what was the other part of your question? with respect to the president and the european community, as

the referendum takes place, there will be some sanctions. there will be some response. if there is greater diplomatic opportunity that can be pursued and that is, in fact, on the table, i am confident that whatever the responses will be calibrated accordingly. if, on the other hand, a decision is made that is negative or flies in the face of the rationale that the eu and others have put on the table, that will obviously demand some further response which i am confident both the eu and the united states will produce. .t is not our preference it is not where we want to go. it is not what we are choosing as a first choice. but if the wrong choices are , there will be no choice

but to respond appropriately because of the gravity of this breach of international standard ,nd breach of international law frankly, to the global standard by which nations have been weled upon to try to behave. believe these are consequences that can be felt in many other parts of the world. there are many places where people might take the wrong lesson from that. i think many people are concerned about that. thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> and eight a former secretary kerry is in the ukraine ahead of the referendum amid crimea on sunday. the group led by senator john

mccain who tweeted out a link to an op-ed that will be in saturday's new york times saying in part that we need to work with our allies to shore up the ukraine, reassure shaken friends , show mr. putin a strong united front and prevent the crisis from getting worse. a reminder that if you missed any of the remarks from sergey youov, we will show them to tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. officials testify in front of the house armed services committee on the president's 2015 budget request. and on c-span three, a look at u.s. relations with taiwan. earlier today, agricultural secretary tom bill sacked testified about his -- they farmers anderican whether congressman feels like they no longer have an advocate.

>> every time i meet with farmers, talk to them one-on-one, it is as if there is a huge change. they don't think the department is on their side. when you look at things like the department of labor, when they come out with a proposed rule so that farm kids can't help them on the farm, the first response from you and the department is in response to the department of labor rather than the farm and farm families. that you are against them, that you're not with them.

and you are inundated with regulations from the epa, whether it be under the clean water act, articulate and the clean air act, we don't hear anything in opposition to support the farmers themselves. the renewable fuel standard coming out, and i would like to counsel ordvice or what the departments position is. and a lot of places across the midwest and throughout the country as far as agriculture. leaving here, it is very disappointing to see the change in attitude at the department towards what should be their

constituents and the farmers themselves. this is something obviously nearing dear to my heart with the background, coming from a time of alexander living in the suburbs and on the farm. there is a change. a huge change. i don't know if you want to respond. i don't know if you have any response, but it is very discouraging to me. congressman, i am surprised by your comments. i think they merit a response. this department suggested it was

not the appropriate approach and that we suggested it is an opportunity for us to better educate folks on public safety and farm safety. we work with the labor department to create an alternative approach. --was it your first response >> yes it was. response was to suggest there is a better way to do this. and we are working with penn --te and a number of other andcan talk to bob stalin roger johnson and others in the room with me when that alternative was proposed.

livestock exports are under that administration. levels, and wed work to make sure they fully understand and appreciate what will and will not happen based on what they are looking at. we encourage the epa to talk with farmers and we arranged meetings to take place. we have suggested they go out and talk to farmers. they fully understand and appreciate the current situation to gas. the assumption that there would be increased utilizations, that would not necessarily be the

case. the exports of ethanol at continued capacity to have higher blends. we have spoken directly to governor branstad about a joint effort to encourage more tanks. i find it interesting that congress made it more difficult for us to do that. we'll figure out a way to continue to help expand that opportunity. we must be talking to a different group. >> we're probably talking to the same people. >> with all due respect, i don't think we are. know what i know and it is very disheartening to me to see the change in relationship. feeling outabsolute in the country that takes the

orders from above and we are not advocating for farmers. >> that is just not true. >> perception can be reality. but that is not the reality of the situation. >> part of a hearing held earlier today before the agriculture subcommittee. you commodity entire hearing beginning at 8:40 p.m. eastern or any time at c-span.org. alec smith of the college republican national committee, and natasha mckenzie will discuss the millennial generation. finding the generation to be significantly more liberal than once before. looks at thendis war between the syrian government and rebel groups that cost the lives of more than 140,000 people since the conflict began three years ago.

and a recent field experiment , morealla conducted likely to contribute to contributors than constituents. washington journal as live at 7:00 a.m. eastern. obamar today, president and the irish president met at the white house to discuss u.s. ireland relations and cooperation on the situation in the ukraine. the irish prime minister traditionally visits around st. patrick's day. here is a look. >> are we all set? have him backl to in the oval office. his is one of my favorite times of the year because i am able to join with our friends from ireland to celebrate the incredible bond that existed.

say, there are very few countries around the that share these commitments to democracy. we also share these family ties. thinking the incredible hospitality. i started the meeting today them on theng economic progress that has been made in ireland. ireland was hit hard by the financial crisis. what we have now seen his

ireland merge from its .ssistance program they build for the future and .ave a highly skilled workforce one example of a mutually takeicial trade that can place. that is why we appreciate taoiseach kenny as we move along the trans-atlantic trade beingent that is negotiated between the united states and the eu. we had the opportunity to discuss global affairs.

the situation in the ukraine. ireland has been a strong voice in the european council. message of support. it should not violate the sovereignty ofhe the neighbor. that there to hope is a diplomatic solution. we stand united in the message about ukrainian sovereignty and that there will be consequences if the sovereignty continues to be violated. we have an opportunity to discuss the fact that ireland does tremendous work around the world on a whole range of issues. we very much appreciate that.

closer to home, we share an interest in seeing northern ireland continue to take the next steps necessary to finally bring an end to what so often has been tragic history. i was disappointed, the u.s. government was disappointed that they did not arrive at a final conclusion. we are urging them to negotiate. we will have to encourage them to move out of the past. a kind of future that northern ireland so richly deserves. i suspect some good irish music and we will have a wonderful st. patrick's day reception this afternoon. the taoiseach, i understand, has

brought his children. it will be able to celebrate alongside us. thank you for your friendship and support. privilege to be here in the oval office with the president. these decent discussions we have had between our two countries. a detailedhave i discussions. discussion about ireland and its economy. discuss,s we did immigration reform, which is an issue for many other countries. we hope to pursue those discussions later on. a number of other representatives. i have given the president a of theof the attitude

happenings of the european council meeting in particular with the situation in the ukraine. and we see difficult circumstances arising. the presentation by the ukrainian president, the discussions we have had with prime minister cameron earlier again, it is my privilege to be here on behalf of the irish people. i wish the president and first lady lady success in their responsibilities. thank you. thefter their meeting at

white house, both leaders went to the u.s. capital to attend the friends of ireland lunch. here is more now. ♪ ♪ ♪

♪

[applause] challenges in defining the war in cyberspace? what military action is. to worke still trying our way to those issues. the tenants that are applicable are the fact that whatever we do in international law will pertain. that if we find ourselves getting to a point where we believe it cyber is taking us down an armed conflict scenario, the rules and the law of our conflict will pertain every bit as much in this domain as it does in any other. is different cyber

in that regard. ithink as a nation, represents a good departure. services takes up intelligence and military nominations. on book tv, amy barnes and jonathan allen look at hillary clinton's political career since the 2000 a primary defeat saturday night at 815 on c-span two. and on c-span threes american history tv, from march of 1964, the poet and novelist interviews martin luther king jr.. saturday at 11. earlier today, air force officials testified in front of the house armed services committee on the president's 2015 budget request. hearing is close to three hours.

>> enqueue for joining us here today as we consider the fiscal year 2015 budget request for the department of the air force. i appreciate our witness testimony and the support for our airmen. and he has brightened up the room a little bit for inviting his wife betty and his daughter liz to be with us. enqueue for joining us. i want to especially welcome secretary james the 23rd secretary of the air force. the first posture hearing before the committee. we are delighted she is a former staff member. she pointed out to us where one of her offices was in her tenure on the staff. happy to have you back.

while this committee has warned about the consequences of cuts to our defense budget, i don't think policymakers in washington or the american people really understand how much has been cut and what it means. for the air force, it means the budget request and highlights, the air force can still not meet its readiness needs until 2023. let me read that again. 2023. 10 years almost from now. that is how big the readiness deficit is. the cuts we made over the last couple of years are so deep, the budget forecast into the future -- what is our problem? sequestration. how soon we forget ar.

that has flattened out. to refill the hole with limited resources, 10 years just to get ,s back to where we need to be the air force is faced with making difficult structure trade-offs. they are retiring to pretty good aircraft. just because we don't have the resources to maintain them. these aircraft have unique capabilities that we have already had in the hearing process to this point. they need that aircraft. it is interesting. people before you, general, have and that you are a pilot kind of indicated that you suggested getting rid of the a-10.

it is amazing how things work. i think the ones that we should are the be asking about ground forces that had their lives saved because of the a-10 and the pilots that have flown them. i understand the dilemma we are facing. you said it best. it do we want a ready force today or a modern force tomorrow? know the air force is trying to make the best of a bad situation as we all are. i fear that the way we are heading will have neither. our air forceects to be superior and be ready. we don't want to go into any fair fights. ourher to deploy or insurer european allies to monitor missile launches around the world, to provide close air support to our troops in afghanistan, which of those missions would we like to

eliminate? our technological superiority is eroding in the airspace and cyberspace. our forces are already strained meeting the day-to-day requirements. much less crisis or conflict. i said this on wednesday to the navy. is this the air force we want for our nation back of and what we continue to debate funding and for structure, we cannot forget the values and standards to which we hold the military and take leadership matters. of ourt majority servicemembers embody those values daily. unfortunately, we read too many stories that reveal behavioral and cultural problems that have permeated the nuclear enterprise. manning our nation's nuclear deterrent is an immense responsibility and i know there are many airmen that bear this to you with the utmost skill and professionalism.

if you put at risk the mission and paint the record of the rest of the air force, it cannot be allowed to happen. i hope these remarks remind us not to lose sight of our shared values and vital importance of reversing the dangerous trajectory. i look forward to your testimony here today. ms. sanchez. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it is a pleasure to have you before us today. usafen use your speech at to my leadership classes back home. grateful to have you here today. i will be submitting raking member smith's opening statement for the record. >> without before we so ordered. have the witnesses give their testimony, i just want to let

you know that i am looking for two areas today of discussion. the first, i continue to be extremely concerned with respect to the leadership and personnel within the icbm nuclear case of misconduct or morale. cheating on tests, air commanders not conducting himself in a manner that lives up to the air force. i believe they will agree with me that this is totally unacceptable. i like to hear what you're doing with respect to them. and i have been closely monitoring the lack of competition in the air force's base launch program and i just learned in the last day that the air force has made the decision to continue this trend by reducing the competitive opportunities by 50%. a veryve that is

unfortunate outcome because i believe that competition drives down prices and brings up talent. those are two areas i would like you to address as you move forward. i look forward to the testimony. >> it truly is an honor for me to be here this morning. and thank you, mr. chairman, for your kind opening. this is like coming home for me. i had more experience sitting in the chair in the back of this room that on this side of the table. i think it is great to be back apropos asrticularly a graduate of the military personnel and compensation subcommittee. we do have prepared remarks that i asked be submitted for the record and we will summarize. i also want to take a moment.

>> without objection, your written statements will be totally entered in the record. to say that there are a lot of people mourning right now in the pentagon due to your announcement that you will be retiring from the congress. is too late tot reverse that decision. very grateful for all the work you have done over the years for the men and women in uniform. they will surely miss you a great deal. the biggest honor and privilege for me, i am 11 weeks old in this job, to be part of this terrific air force. 690,000 more or less active-duty national guard, reserve, and civilian airmen and women as well as their families. i am part of that team and it is a huge honor and privilege. busy not onlyry

studying up on all of these budgetary matters and getting on top of that as best as possible, but i have also tried to hit the ground running and i have been out and about to see our air force in action. 18 bases in 13 states is where i have been so far and they have helpful. here are three things i have noticed. the officers and enlisted leaders are taking on tough issues in a tough budgetary environment with a can-do spirit and they are getting things done despite the difficulties. particularly with the active-duty air force.

and across the board amazing airmen that are enthusiastic about what they are doing in service to our nation. everywhere we go, i do town hall meetings. they are also looking to us, to you, and our nations leaders for decisions and greater stability. and leadership in these very challenging times. these are very challenging times in terms of our security environment and the declining budget that you talked about, mr. chairman. we do have a strategy driven budget. we are severely limited by the fiscal choices that are contained in the budget control act.

for 2015, as you know, we had the dollar targets. the opportunity growth and security initiative, this is a $26 billion initiative for us and the air force. i hope we get a chance to talk during q&a. this is a budget in which we are rebalancing. and the future, it is not an either or. we need to have both. not pretty sure that we are going to make everybody happy. i am pretty sure there'll be a

fair amount of unhappiness. and when we get to q&a, the preamble to answers to the question will be while faced with difficult choices and the budgetary situation, i don't mean to sound like a broken record on that but it really is the truth. there are no elements of low hanging fruit in this budget. there is strategy imperatives for today. this is the first budget coming off of 13 years of war where we are beginning to transition. we need to defend the homeland against strategic threats. prepareded to remain should deterrence fail. and the air force is critically important for all of those elements. there is also a strategy imperatives. new technologies, new centers of

power. particularly the pacific. a world in which we can no longer accept american dominance of the skies and space will be preeminent. get ready and have abilities to operate in a contested environment. your air force is critical in the future. as we turn to the budget realities, we are very grateful for the stability. and the many decisions contained in the ndaa. 2015with those bumps, the topline and beyond is a whole less.st

, think you will agree with me you have to make decisions based on the best military judgment and what we think are prudent risks and where we can assume those risks. that is the story this year as well, albeit a more complex and difficult year than most. as i said, no low hanging fruit as best as i can tell. decisions are to reduce capacity in order to gain capability. that means we chose necessary reductions in manpower and structure to sustain readiness and guarantee technological superiority. slowed the growth in military compensation in order to free up money to plow back into today's readiness as well as

recapitalization. we chose to delay or terminate programs to protect higher priority programs. and we saw cost savings in a number of ways, reducing headquarters. putting us on a glide path. we saw a reductions in a number of ways to balance this out as best we could. i would like to give you some key decisions within the context of the three priorities i have those are taking care of people and balancing today's readiness with tomorrow's readiness and ensuring that we have the very best air force that we possibly can have. work on, i work on the prism of those three priorities. taking care of people means a lot to me.

taking care of it means recruiting the right people. developing them once we have them. as we make our decisions, protecting the most important family programs. it means dignity and respect for all, making sure everyone is on top of and living our core values as we talked about the importance of integrity. it means fair compensation going forward. me zero in on areas in particular that have controversy associated with them. believe we arewe going, we will be a smaller air force in the future. we will be coming down on all of our components. we will get smaller and we will rely on our guard and reserve. we also need to shape our air force.

we have certain imbalances. certain categories and specialty areas where we have too many people and other categories where we have too few people. in addition to bringing numbers down somewhat, we need to rebalance and get in sync. we have a series of programs we are offering to retrain people and other categories. some are voluntary incentives for people to leave us going forward. ande can't get the numbers balance, there are in voluntary programs as well. i wanted to bring it to your attention as well. we felt that given the fact that military compensation has risen quite a bit in the last decade, that will be somewhat a

reasonable approach. this leads me to my second priority. balancing the readiness of today and tomorrow. the full range of capabilities, we took a big hit with sequestration last year. we need to fully fund the hours and see if we can appreciate these resources. there is today and tomorrow. we remain committed to our .rogram

at the top ones are the joint strike fighter. the new tanker program and the long-range strike bomber. we also remain committed to the nuclear triad. and we need to replace the training teeth 38 aircraft. there is a billion dollars in there for energy technology and critical advances in our space capabilities. these are things that we chose to invest in and in some cases, doubling down in our investment. in order to do the readiness of today, that is what we came down to. was are we going to reduce?

these are some of the highlights. ofst of all, the retirement the a-10. i am sure we will talk about that will make it to the q&a. we are absolutely committed to the air support mission. i have also try to talk to commanders on the ground. general welch knows more than i do but we will cover it and .over it we will keep the global hawk block 30. having both fleets would be terrific. but we are above the validated requirements for high altitude reconnaissance.

this was a choice that we felt we could assume some risk. these are the reapers and the predators. we said we would go to 65 of these. at 50.we are over time, we will retire the predators. we will preserve combat capability and make each taxpayer dollar count in the future. which leaves me -- leads me to the third priority. how are we going to ensure that going forward? there is a whole host of areas here. audite to work toward ability.

and another round of base closure authority beginning in 2017. there is a lot of initiative we have to make every dollar count for the taxpayer. we will be cutting our headquarters. they gave us a goal of getting it done over five years. it is not necessarily 20% of the people. we will get it done more quickly. hopefully we will do a little bit better than 20%. we will do things a little bit differently and do better than that 20%. we wantede area that to bring to your attention. i will begin to wrap up sequestration. to 2016 and beyond, if there is one key take away,

we feel it would sadly be too much of a compromise. we choose to defer upgrades that we need to make otherwise. we would have to do for those. we will retire the global hawk block 40. this is a long look down radar to track moving targets. it if wee can't afford go back to sequestration. we will slow the purchase of the

f 35 and have 45 of these caps with reapers and predators. we can't do the next generation engine i told you about and we would have to reevaluate the combat rescue helicopter. sequestration level is not a good deal for us or for the country. we would ask you to please try to support those higher areas. we want to make sure we are capable, innovative, and ready. we want to make every dollar that we spend count and able to respond overseas as well as here at home when disaster strikes us. we will be more reliant, not less, on the national guard and reserve. thank you for what you do for

all of us. to general welsh. >> it is always an honor to be here with you. thank you also for introducing my wife and daughter. i have not had the pleasure to introduce betty to you, but my wife is magic. she is just magic. i am glad you're getting the chance to meet her. it is really wonderful to be sitting here with my new boss. i am looking forward to her schooling me on the right way to interact with this body. i want to add my special thanks for your support of our national and our airmen. you are a remarkable public

servant and we thank you for we build this budget -- for your example. we built this budget but it does not mean it will remain unaffected. each of them reduces capability that are combatant commanders believe they need. there are no more easy cuts is just where we are. we will return to sequestered funding levels. the air force must cut people now to create a force that is balanced enough to operate in 16 and beyond. he started budget planning by making two significant assumptions. that the air force must be capable of fighting and winning against a well armed and well equipped enemy.

is it ready today versus tomorrow? we must be both. overwhelming majority of budget reductions would have to come from structure and modernization. understanding that, we try to create the best balance possible between readiness, capability, and capacity. i add my thank you to the bosses. it is a complicated equation and lots of things we let slide to fund activity over the last 14 years. reducing spending in other areas, trimming around the edges isn't going to get it done.

eliminating entire fleet would make us unable to provide for a theater of operations. shortfall our combatant commanders identify year after year. they would never support even more cuts than we have had to put. i spoke with chief of staff of .he army to ask what he thought he said we should be more responsive and able to move more quickly. we looked at our refueling feet. this option must be back on the table.

we will not be able to meet our mission requirements. we looked at cutting the a-10 and the f-16 and the f-15. i am an a-10 pilot by trade. close air support is not an aircraft -- we do well with a number of airplanes today. acrosssave $3.7 billion the board by investing the fleet and another $500 million. achieve the same savings would require a much higher number.

procuring a number of f 35. we use the standard dod planning scenarios. the lowest risk option from an operational perspective. to have a credible and viable air force in the mid-2020's, we must get smaller now. and we mustrnize

maintain the proper balance across the core missions. >> thank you very much. just a little bit on the lay of -- we understand we are going to have votes about 10:15 a.m.. we will get as many questions and as we can. i will watch the time very closely, but we will come back after the votes. if you caneneral, stay, we would appreciate it because we have many members that will have questions. immediately after votes, those who can't return, please come back as quickly as possible. we will go right back to the votes. general welsh, in my statement i