american people to understand, there's a lot at stake for us, right, secretary hagel? >> there's a lot at stake for us, the region -- >> and the world at large. if iraq falls and iran dominates the south and this group, isis, owns the sunni territory, kurdistan breaks away, that would create economic chaos in the area which would affect us here at home is that a fair outcome? >> i don't know what the outcome would be if that would occur, senator. all i can tell you is what we're looking at, providing to the -- >> well, the economy of iraq ould collapse. >> well, i think if it's right if they lose their oil. > and if they have assets from there, they're enriched, the country we know as iraq financially collapses, don't you think that would affect the region and energy prices?

from the american energy point of view, iraq matters. >> you've been there many times. >> the central government collapses and the iranians enrich and the world as a whole suffers.

the american people it's in our national security interest not to give these guys safe haven in syria and iraq because the next 9/11 could very well come from that region, is that an -- is that anover statement or is that in the area of possibility? >> as i have said in other settings, there are several groups -- the al qaeda ideology has spread as we have seen. several of the groups are more dangerous than others. >> would you put this at the

top? >> i think at this point in time i would probably keep al qaeda on the arabian peninsula. >> director of national intelligence says he thinks the deterioration in syria now is a direct threat to the homeland. is he right? >> if he said it, and if he is assessing that it's there now, then i would agree with him. >> does that make sense to you? >> it makes sense they will be a threat to the homeland in time. >> perfect. iran is on the ground, secretary hagel? in iraq? >> iran has been in iraq for many years. >> so the reality is that iran is on the ground. do they have influence over shiia militia, the iranians? >> i'm sure they do, yes. >> are you worried about force protection? we have thousands of americans trapped inside of iraq, are you worried about that? >> i am. and we are -- >> are you worried about another benghazi on steroids? >> it's a bigger force, bigger threat, bigger dynamics, yes. it's a huge threat.

>> when it comes to whether or not we communicate with iran, i'm not suggesting we do a deal with iran to divide up iraq and say you get a nuclear weapon if you help me. i know the strategic differences. they want to own iraq. we want to free iraq. we are strategicically misaligned. is it fair to say the reality that exists today talking to iran about security issues on the ground probably makes some sense? >> i agree. you know there have been some sideline conversations. >> if we start flying airplanes, it makes some sense to talk to the iranians about what we are doing so they don't shoot us down and we don't bomb them? >> the iranians are there. they are in the region. >> that's the reality as i see it. they are up to no good. i don't want to cede iraq to iran, but i don't want to blunder into a situation without thinking this thing through. for god's sakes i'll touk to anybody to help our people from being captured or killed. this is a time when the iranians in a small way may help. given their behavior.

i know who they are. they are not repentent people at all. they are thugs and killser. we are where we are. afghanistan, on a scale of one to 10, if we pull all of our troops out by the end of 2016, general dempsey, what's the likelihood of what happened in iraq visiting afghanistan? one being very unlikely, 10 being highly likely? >> i think based on the reports that i received on the development of the n.s.f., i have to make an assumption about this government, i think it would be -- i'll do it in thirds. lower thirds, unlikely. >> what percentage of the iraqi -- i'm going to take two minutes -- what percentage of the afghan security forces are made up of southern pashtuns. >> less than 6% or 7%. the afghan armian army is seen as an occupying power in the kandahar region. that's just a reality. seen ike the -- iraqi was

-- i think the likelihood of this happening in afghanistan is at eight to 10. if you recommend, if i'm wrong and you're right, would you think the most prudent discussion would be don't let it happen even if it's one in three? do you think we should revisit leaving a residual force behind because the afghans will accept it, won't they? >> i think that there is already built in a residual force. the question is, at what size -- >> by 2016 we are down to an embassy force. there is no residual force. >> with an office of security cooperation. >> couple hundred people. would you recommend the president reconsider his decision to go down to a couple hundred people by 2016 in afghanistan, and a lot of iraq, and wouldn't the prudeyebt thing to do would be to say yes? -- prudent thing to do would be to say yes? >> what i commit to is assuring you as we watch this new government form and situation evolve, i will make appropriate recommendations to the

president. >> pakistan is a neighbor of afghanistan, right? >> correct. >> do you worry if pakistan falls apart like iraq that one of the collateral damages could be destabilizing even further a nuclear armed pakistan? >> i do. >> given that possibility, why in the world -- they want us to stay, the afghans, the two new candidates for president would sign a bilateral security agreement, they would accept troops, isn't that correct? >> they have said they'd sign the bilateral -- >> they have told me they would accept troops. if you don't know that, that's very disheartening because i have asked them both. finally, this guy, is he being held under the law of war? are we doing lawful interrogation of this man? >> katal is under the control of the department of justice. >> but is he being questioned for intelligence gathering? >> i'd prefer to answer that in a classified setting. >> thank you-all for your service. >> senator feinstein. >> mr. chairman, good morning,

mr. secretary. nice to see you again. good morning, general dempsey. i would like to just kind of have a little dialogue with you informally. what is your assessment of size of isil? i spoke to the iraqi ambassador yesterday afternoon and his estimate is about 20,000. 10,000 being isil. 10,000 being very sunni extremist and tribal members, plus what he called passport fighters coming into the area. what do you assess the size and at far are they from baghdad this time? >> without getting into classified matters, i'll tell you if you think about isil they are located in about three places -- eastern syria. they have a wing that is operating in the fallujah area,

and wing that's operating in northern iraq. and i think that the ambassador's estimates are probably high. the actual number, the only place i have seen it is in classified information i wouldn't want to say it here. here's what i will tell you, senator. isil is almost undistinguishable right now from the other groups you mentioned. in other words, in this caldron of northern iraq you have former bathists, grtn, you have groups that have been disenfranchised and angry with the government in baghdad for some time. and as isil has come, they have partnered -- i suspect it's a partnership of convenience and there's probably an opportunity to separate them. but that's eighty number is a little hard to pin down. >> ok. and they are disbursed and it's difficult to establish a target. i understand all of that. it seems to me you got two

things here. you have the military strategy which you just said that iraq would you rpower t recommend that? -- airpower. would you recommend that? >> any time we use military force we use it for those things that are in our national interest and once i am assured we can use it responsibly and effectively. so as we have been working to provide options to the president, that's the standard. as i mentioned, these forces are very much intermingled. it's not as easy as looking at an iphone video of a convoy and immediately striking it. i'll give you one vignette to demonstrate that. i had a conversation with a kurdish colleague from years past who was explaining to me that they had taken over an iraqi army -- that isil had taken over an iraqi army base near mosul and the persia had

driven them out. in the course of about 36 hours we had iraqi army units, we had isil and the peshmerga in the same facility. until we can actually clarify this intelligence picture, the options will continue to be built and developed and refined and the intelligence picture made more accurate. and then the president can make a decision. >> you're known as a very thoughtful person, and i appreciate that. it seems to me you've got to have the military response and you have to have the political response. i think that most of us that have followed this are really nvinced that the mlickith -- mlicki government has got to go if you want -- if you want a shiia-sunni war, that's where we are going right now. if you want partition that's where we are going right now. the question comes, if you want reconciliation, what do you do?

it seems to me that maliki has to be convinced that it is in the greater interest of his country to retire and to -- for this newly elected government to put together a new government. what is the administration thinking or your thinking on that subject? as much as you can discuss. because that's the one place where iran can be of help if they want to. >> i'm afraid, senator, that's not a military question. i'm not trying to toss it to my wingman here, but i'm not sure -- i can't answer it. >> wingman, you're up. >> it's a high honor, indeed to be general dempsey's wingman. a couple of things. first, let's start with formation of the new government. as you had noted the courts in iraq this week certified

election in late april. at is now put -- on the path to formation, new government. i happen to believe, and i think the president has said it, that a political solution is the only viable solution. i said before you came in, senator, in response to one of the questions, one of the reasons i believe that iraq is in this situation is that the current government never fulfilled the commitments it made to bring together unity, power sharing government with the sunnis and kurds. i think that's probably generally accepted. what do we do about it now? the state department has the lead on all of this, as you know, and as general dempsey said, our ambassador there in iraq has been in daily touch with the prime minister and the leaders, the political leaders,

as well as secretary kerry's been personally involved in this. i know the vice president has. they are pursuing that political process. at the same time, we are providing, have been providing the president with different options from our perspective, the intelligence community is trying to inform all of this with the president to assess what we've got and where this may be going. i think general dempsey's point about we are still clarifying what we have and what the situation is. options like air strikes as the president said he's not ruled in or out, but there has to be a reason for those. there has to be an objective. where do you go with those? what does it do to move the effort down the road for a political solution. the issue of whether or not maliki should step aside or not, that's an iraqi political decision, and that's something that we don't get into.

but all these channels are being worked right now and have been the last week. >> good. let me ask a military question, then. according to the special i.g. on iraq, we have spent $25 billion to train and equip iraqi security forces from the start of the war in 2003 until september, 2012. in your estimation, general, why did the iraqi security forces perform so badly? and what does this portend for afghanistan? >> they didn't universally perform badly. they performed badly in the north, in and around mosul, where isil had gained a foothold and had convinced some of the sunni elements -- >> that wasn't just a few of them. it was tens of thousands. >> i understand that. if -- isil turned their leaders, in the absence of leaders of a

military formation, the soldiers are not going to stick around and wait to see what happens. isil was able to could he opt -- co-opt some of the leaders of those two divisions. now, i will tell you, when i was building the iraqi security forces from 2005-twetch, it was clear that several -- several things were clear to me. we could train them to fight. we could equip them to fight. it would be harder to give them the logistics architecture, but we did. but the hardest thing of all as i said then and say now is to build leaders and then to have those leaders supported by a central government that is working on behalf of all the people. and that's why those units in the north collapsed. to your question about -- by the way, there are still many of the iraqi security forces, multiconfessional, not just one sector or another, who are standing and fighting, but the entire enterprise is at risk as long as this political situation

is in such flux. let me answer your question about afghanistan. much different place. i think a much better prospect for a unity government based on this recent election. there are, of course -- i do have concerns about the future of afghanistan, and we will continue to do what we can to build into them the kind of resilience that we can build into a security force, but at the end of the day a security force is only as good as the instrument that wields it and that's the central government. >> i really appreciate that. one of the things that i have looked at on intelligence is the taliban there. and the shadow government there. and the amount of land controlled by the taliban where people live. and i think it sets up a very serious situation for the future

. i'm particularly worried about them coming back and what this does for women and the shari'a law. i watched the women huddled in a corner in the newspaper standing in line or sitting in line to vote. i thought, if the taliban comes back, it's just terrible. 11 years and we are right where we started in the very beginning. could you comment on -- i went to north korea and you see our troops still there decades later. you begin to understand -- this is a different situation -- you begin to understand what it takes. don't know -- senator graham mentioned, well, would you be for another secure agreement where you could send in troops,

but i really worry about the sophistication of the afghani army. could you comment on that? will they stand? do they have the leadership? do they have the will? >> i will tell you this, the afghans are better fighters, far more tenacious fighters than their iraqi counterparts. that is both reason for optimism and reason for concern, because there is a history of them fighting each other as well as external threats. to your question of will, they do have will. while they remain optimistic for their future. as you know, afghanistan today, the country, is a far different country than it was in 2002. in terms of women's rights, connectivity, education, access to health care. if those continue to progress, then i would suggest to you that

afghanistan will stay on a path. i have no doubt that there will be parts of afghanistan that from time to time because of their history do separate themselves from the central government, and the question then becomes what will the central government do to address it? they are far different countries, and i would caution us to compare one to the other and ayou sume that afghanistan will follow the path of -- and assume that afghanistan will follow the path of iraq. >> senator collins. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, welcome. it has been nine weeks since nearly 300 girls were kidnapped from their school by the errorist group, boca had a ram -- boca haram in nigeria. i believe the united states should have provided immediate surveillance, reconnaissance and intelligence assets to locate these girls before they were

split up into more difficult to find smaller groups. i further believe that contingency plans should have been made so that our special forces who perform so extraordinarily well as we saw during this past weekend with their capture of the terrorist who led the benghazi attack, should have been on the groundworking with nigerian forces to plan a rescue of these girls. mr. secretary, with each passing day the future of these girls grows more and more precarious. there is no doubt that some them have already been forced into early marriages. others have been taken across the border and sold into slavery. all have been required to

convert to islam, according to the video that we have all seen. yet it feels like these girls have been forgotten, pushed off the front pages by a string of endless crises. i have made my concerns known to the administration in several venues about my disappointment that we did not act sooner and more aggressively to help rescue these girls working with the nigerians. could you tell me -- my question for you is, is this an urgent priority? what is going on now? >> senator, i can assure you this president feels exactly the same as you do, as we all do, as you have framed it up.

and laid out the tragedy of the urgency of this, but let me also address your questions about why wasn't there more action quicker, so on. cannot you know we just drop into a sovereign country without that country's government asking us for assistance. that contry, nigeria, has an elected government, elected president, so we were preparing once we heard and knew what was going on, also working with them diplomatically, to get a request from them for each of the resources that we were able to provide and still are providing. that's one. second, the capability of the nigerian forces to be able to carry out what we can give them in the way of intelligence or

assistance is still their responsibility. they have limited capabilities. now, i know that's not a good answer, but that's the reality. we are as focused today on helping locate these girls, doing everything we can, to get them out of there, but this is a sovereign nation, and we require , obviously like any other situation, the government to ask us to come in. they give us the limits and the parameters on where we can operate, how we can operate. the other part of this, too, as you know, this is about terrainwise, as complicated a part of the world as there is. they have triple, quadruple canopy jungles. they move them around. . adly smart guys, haram -- aram -- boko had a ram

haram. make no mistake, this president and all of us are as committed to this, even though you don't read it in the front pages because of the reason you mentioned, we are still involved and assisting. >> well, time is ticking away, and with each passing day the chances of these girls being reunited with their families grows ever dimmer. the fact is the nigerians did say yes. i realize they didn't say yes immediately. it seem to me we should have had a plan so that when they said yes we could swoop right in. >> we did as much as they would let us do. if you want to get to the details of the operation -- >> i just want to assure you, senator, we didn't wait for the nigerians to ask or respond to our question. the military under the secretary's leadership began repositioning resources when we saw this occurring. but i do -- two things, i do

want to bring us back to this budget hearing. we are where we are around the world today because we can be and we can respond. it may not have been adequate to this task, but we are certainly adequate to a lot of tasks. and that capability is eroding while we sit here. >> let me switch to another issue, but let me first just say that i specifically asked whether there was contingency planning for special forces to go in and was told that there was not. so i'm glad to hear you contradict that, but that is not the answer -- >> let me distinguish between moving assets in the event that we are given permission to use them and contingency planning. also, senator, the operation, though it may have looked rather routine, it took us months of preparation and intelligence -- >> that's exactly my point. from day one i think we should

have been working on this. i know how meticulous and difficult an operation that our special force is involved in is, that's sort of part of my frustration. let me, because time is slipping warkse turn to the issue, general, that you mentioned, and that is the budget constraints and the impact of the sequestration. it is surely significant that one of the first actions that the president took in response to the crisis in iraq was to send an aircraft carrier to the persian gulf. it is our navy that allows us to project power, and i am very concerned by secretary hagel's written testimony in which he notes that the indiscriminate budget cuts of sequestration would result in the loss of a deployable aircraft carrier,

delay the procurement of a submarine, and slash the surface fleet by 10 ships. and i would note that our goal navy is not ship near what the combatant commanders say that we need. i see you're nodding in agreement. secretary of the navy testified before us earlier this year that sequestration may also result in breaking the multiyear contracts for ships, which has the effect of raising the cost of the ships and giving us fewer ships. it's particularly troubling for our national security strategy because all 10 ships in the ddg-51 model year procurement contract through 2017 and the 10

ships of the virginia class submarine program are clearly essential. general, do you agree with secretary mavis' assessment that we will not be able to meet our national security requirements and that we will end up paying more per ship and thus getting fewer ships if we do not deal with sequestration? >> i do. and the same problem exists in the other services as well. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thanks, senator collins. senator murray. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary john dempsey, thank you for being here. i'm extremely concerned by the recent developments in iraq. the islamic state in iraq and syria have reportedly captured large amounts of money and weapons from the large territory in iraq and syria, they are active, and reportedly committing human rights violations, and as we know their

presence is potentially detablizing to our partners in the middle east. importantly they threaten the united states and our interests. i know that the president has said he's considering a wide range of options in response. i'm glad he's not talking about putting direct combat troops on the ground. but what i wanted to ask you today, are iraqi security forces capable of pushing the insurgents back? >> i have rae got a little time under my belt with the iraqi security forces. one of the things we've got to learn and we are working to learn it but we don't know yet is what's left? what is left of the iraqi security forces? they seem to be holding a line that roughly runs from baka, north of baghdad over to fallujah. we also know that there's been some augmentation of the iraqi security forces by militia. and so among the options we are considering is whether we would,

in fact, try to do an assessment of what's actually defending baghdad at this point. that's an important question. >> so it's impossible to ask what assistance they would need until you do that assessment? >> i mean there's some things we know for a fact where they will require -- i.s.r., we have maneuvered a great deal of both manned and unmanned i.s.r. to try to gain clarity on what exactly is occurring. but there's some things that we need to know about actually the fabric of what's left of the iraqi security forces. >> secretary hagel, i wanted to ask you, you talked at length about the services. we are going to have to make significant cuts in personnel. i'm very concerned about transition and employment for those who are leaving the military. that's why we made the transition assistance program mandatory and have made some reforms to help service members transition and find employment. i wanted to ask you how you have worked with your counterparts at

other agencies to prepare now for the increasing numbers of service members who are going to be separating and needing that transition assistance? >> senator, it's a very, very high priority for obvious reasons. as i said before we create the veteran. then we hand the veteran off. the programs that you mentioned, the congress initiated, and funded, and continue to fund, are critically important for us we help shape and prepare these men and women who will leave the services and this goes into every dimension of their future. health care, retirement, job preparation, job opportunities. so it becomes -- has become, will continue to be as important part of our responsibilities as there is from the time they enter service, the commitment we make to them, all the way through. i'm committed personally. the general is. all our chiefs are.

the entire establishment of the d.o.d. >> it's absolutely important we stay focused on that. >> we will. second your question, we are working closely with the interagencies. absolutely. on monday i had another conversation with a new -- acting secretary of veterans affairs. who i have known a long time and we have a good relationship. we are meeting again next week. that's just but one example. all the agencies, because we've got to bring value added to all the resources and how we are doing this. >> we are spending a considerable amount of money training these people. we need to make sure we use their skills when they leave. secretary hagel, i also wanted to ask you about the special victims council. i'm pleased that the department worked quickly to implement a provision that i authored that requires special victim councils in all of our military services. the number of cases that they are getting shows how important that service really is. but i am concerned that we may

need more attorneys to meet the need. i wanted to ask you how many additional and funding the services need to keep up with the needs of military sexual assault? >> let me ask our comptroller if he has any specific numbers. i don't know. i'll take it for the record on this. >> if you could get that information back to me. also a break down of spending on the special victims council programs, including the $25 million i requested in last year's defense appropriations, if you could respond back to me on that. >> we will. we'll get it back to you quickly. >> finally, secretary hagel, as you know the integrated disability evaluation system has been a concern of mine for a very long time. we saw a major problem in my home state with service members' mental health diagnosis being inappropriately changed, and there have been many, many more problems. i am continuing to hear from service members who are stuck in the system for a very long time.

they are not getting support from the department. and they are getting incorrect evaluations. i want to know what lessons you have learned from the implementation and what reforms you are considering? >> first, as you know we had a team out at the regional v.a. centers in your state helping them and assisting them as we integrate this. on the specific question regarding us, d.o.d., i'm not satisfied with where we are. i just had a meeting in my office i think friday about the specific thing. by the way it wasn't just to prepare for the hearing. we need to do more. pick it up. i asked them specifically, they are going to get back to me by the end of this week. i'll give you a very detailed response to all your questions. i said, i need to know, you give me a list what you want me to do. secretary of defense, the break through what you think you're not getting done because of bureaucracy, whatever it is.

i said specifically do we need more help? do we need more people? more money? more technology? >> what did they tell you? >> they'll be back to me with a report by the end of this week and i'll share it. >> i very much would like to see this. we have been talking about this forever and it continues to be a problem. we can't continue to let it slide. >> i'll share it with you. i have the same concern. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator murray, thank you very much. mr. secretary, back to budget issues for a minute. many of the recommendationings by the administration -- recommendations by the administration in the new budget relate to the pay and benefits of those serving in the military and retirees. did you do or did the administration do a survey of men and women in the military and retirees to determine what they consider to be the most valuable benefits currently receiving? and those of lowest value? >> let me ask our comptroller

for the specific in answer to your question. let me start with the general answer. first, the presentation we made as i say in my written statement in more detail, in the budget, was based on considerable analysis with all our chiefs, and the chairman my might want to say something about this, i'm sure. all the information that we could gather, we asked the iefs, the services, the same question you just asked me. you come back to me and tell me what you think we need to do. one of the first things that i did when i got over there about a year and a half ago, as i do all the time, i met with the chiefs, we went through the whole series of what do they need, what do we need to get prepared for? that was a question because all the chiefs understand it better than anyone. as senator graham said, 50% of our budget goes to these kind of issues. that continues to escalate. we know we are on a track we

can't sustain it. it's like entitlement programs. >> i understand. >> we are doing all of that. >> i understand the premise. i was trying to understand the formulation of your response. >> let me ask the chairman for how we got from the services to answer your question. >> let me assure you we did. we spent a year on this with monthly meetings with j.c.s. in the interim we looked at both direct and indirect compensation. pay and benefits on the one side, commissaries, p.x.'s, education on the other are indirect. we put together, believe me -- i had no role in t. we put together a computer program you could take a service man or woman at a particular grade and show the effect on various changes in pain compensation and health care benefits direct and indirect with precision so we could tell, for example, what effect we would have on an e-6 at 12 years and that same individual as they matriculated

through 22 years. when we had all that data we decided what we need to do to account for budget reductions, but bring our costs over time under control, then we came up with this package. so the analysis is extraordinarily sound. >> let me get into a couple specifics. first, a recommendation to you. tell you where you can save money. to the benefit of all the active military and their families, put an end to this subsidizing of for-profit colleges and universities. they are overcharging these families and the military. twice the tuition of schools like the university of maryland, which for decades has offered great courses to the military. these for-profit schools calling themselves names like the american military universities are ripping off the government and ripping off service men and women. if you want to start saving, i suggest we need stricter policies in how they solicit the members of the military to sign

up for what turns out in many cases to be worthless. second question, whether secretary, what is the smoking policy in the pentagon? >> we don't smoke in the pentagon. >> let me ask you a second question. do you sell tobacco products in the pentagon? >> we do in the pentagon. in our -- by the way, let me see if i can jump ahead. you have been there. you know we have different stores down in the basement. retail stores. but let me jump ahead here to i think maybe where you're going with the bigger issue here. i ordered a review of all our tobacco. this is part of our health base nishtifment all of our tobacco sales everywhere throughout the enterprise. the navy already has in place, as you know, they don't sell it at p.x.'s, commissaries, they don't allow smoking on submarines. they are looking at not even smoking on ships. i would ask for a complete review. it will be back to me in the next couple months on

recommendations from our services on this specific policy. >> let me suggest, it's been reported that we spend $1.6 billion a year on medical care of service members from tobacco related disease and loss of work. $1.6 billion. we should also know that the rate of smoking among the military is 20% higher than the average american population. the rate of use of smokeless tobacco, more than 400% higher than the average population. one out of three members of the military who use tobacco today say they started after they enlisted. why? well, we make it easy. we make it easy because for some reason the department deef fence decided to put in a discount for tobacco. so not only when you buy it at the exchange do you get some breaks in terms of local taxes and state taxes that aren't

collected on the tobacco product, there's a required 5% discount. it's a -- maybe the best bargain that the military sells to its men and women in uniform. tobacco. at this point in our history how can this be a fact? i'm glad you're doing this. i hope you hurry it along. >> the chairman may want to respond. >> i want to make sure, senator, the joint chiefs want to have a voice in this decision. we have asked a loft our men and women in uniform, and we lead an uncommon life by choice, but all the things you're talking about are legal and they are accessible, and anything that makes -- anything less convenient and more expensive for or men and women in uniform given everything we are asking them to do i have concerns about. i'm open-minded to the review, but i want to make sure you understand that the chiefs will need to have a voice on this because of the effect on the force. >> i think that's valid. can you start your review with

the following premise? tobacco is the only product legally sold in america today which if used according to manufacturers' directions will kill you. >> i accept that. my father died of cancer and i'm a cancer survivor, not from tobacco. but it is legal. and that's -- that is an issue for the broader congress of the united states, not uniquely for the united states military. >> i understand that. if it's legal, i guess someone could rationalize we should allow you to smoke right here. we decided not to. the pentagon decided not to. we are trying to set an example and i think our men and women in uniform if they have healthier and longer lives would be a good example of a policy that we should follow. senator collins. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i want to associate myself with your comments about giving discount for buying tobacco products at our commissaries or p.x.'s or wherever.

i just think that that's something that needs to go. and would be happy to work with you on it. general dempsey, many experts have said that had we left a residual force in iraq, a nato force of which american troops would have been a part, that isis would not have been able to make the gains that it made, nor would it have attempted to make those gains. do you agree with that? >> as you recall, senator, we actually recommended, our military advice was that we needed to remain partnered with the iraqi security forces longer. and that -- i stand by that recommendation. i was part of it years ago. the size of it was being negotiated, but i was very much of the mind we needed to continue to partner with them. for some period of time.

but remember that our partnership was on the basis of increasing their tactical capability, their logistics capability, their ability to budget, to be a responsible institution of government. the problem today is that the government has not acted responsibly in iraq. i don't know that the presence of u.s. military personnel uniquely would have changed the outcome. >> but you stand by your initial recommendation that there should have been a residual force. obviously the reason you thought that must have been because you felt it was necessary to help continue to train and equip the iraqi forces and to ensure stability. >> i do. and to develop their leaders, to understand what it means to lead in a democratcy. but -- in a democratcy. but also recall i also said in the absence of a status of forces agreement i wouldn't want to personally send sons and

daughters to iraq. and we didn't get that. >> general, the cornerstone of this administration's counterterrorism strategy has been, according to the president's speech at west point, to rely more heavily on other countries, including the proposal of the $5 billion counterterrorism partnership fund to train, build capacity, and facilitate partner countries frontline counterterrorism efforts, including in libya, mali, somalia, and syria. yet as we see in those countries, as well as pakistan and now iraq, the countries that have received u.s. assistance have a very mixed record of performance in protecting u.s. counterterrorism interests. what's so disturbing about what's happening in iraq is not only does it pose a huge threat

to that country and the region, but it poses a huge threat to our country. we provided $15 billion, i don't need to tell you, i'm well aware of your role, in training and aid to the iraqi forces, then when i saw so many of them cut nd run against isis, it's just afalling and very disappointing. so -- appalling and very disappointing. what gives you confidence that this new approach, this new $5 billion counterterrorism partnership fund, will deliver a strategy de -- strategic defeat to extremists who are out to harm us? >> the issue of violent extremist organizations, most of whom are inspired by radical religion, is going to be with us for another, in my judgment, 25 to 30 years. it's a generation plus problem.

and there are the new approach to try to rebalance how much do we do ourselves, because the challenges we see as they migrated across from pakistan, and now extend across the arab world, meefed, north africa, and into western africa, we've got to find a way to address them regionally. when you start to think regionally, you could either come to the conclusion that we should do it all ourselves or find partners and capable allies as we have with the french in mali for example and work to do that. that's what this fund is all about. and the companion piece for the european initiative as well to counter what we see as a changing security environment in europe. i don't think we have any choice, frankly, but to find -- in some cases find more capable partners, and other cases build more capable partners, because

the thought of doing this all ourselves is a difficult one to grasp. >> secretary hagel, you recently said that you are opposed to the creation of a commission to study what the balance should be between the national guard and the active duty troops. i know it's a very difficult task to, in this time of excessive budget constraints, to figure out what the right mix should be. but the fact is that the national guard is far less expensive when you look at the than per soldier or airmen is someone who is in the active duty troops. i'm wondering why a commission wouldn't be a good idea, and i

also want to convey to you that it's not just my governor but every governor i talked to, everyageyant general i talked to who are -- every agiant general i talked to who are very unhappy about the decisions being made to cut the national guard. in maine the national guard is slated to be reduced to the lowest number ever in its history. and that is of great concern because, as you're fully aware, the national guard plays two roles. it can be activated and deployed , but it also plays an essential role domestically in responding to national disasters -- natural disasters, or terrorist attack that may occur on our soil. could you talk a little bit to

help me understand why you don't think a commission would be a good idea to review this controversial issue? >> senator, first as i said in my opening statement, as i said the written statement, national guard and reserves are, have been, and will remain an integral essential part of our national security strategy. that's not an issue. a couple of the specific points and then i'll get the last point to your question about the commission. as i also said we have talked here today about the realities f our abrupt and steep unprecedented, quite frankly, budget cuts. that's the reality that we have. then you know, as you spoken just few minutes ago about sequestration becomes the law of the land in 2016 unless that's changed. that's the reality of the financial landscape and fiscally what we have to deal with. when you look at the national

guard reserve cuts, what we are proposing first is active duty. i again remind you we are talking about a 13% cut in active duty and a 5% cut in reserve and national guard. budget,y to balance our as we try to balance the equality of what we are going to need to carry out the national security interests of this country, it is -- was, i believe still s. i'll let chairman dempsey address this, the strong concurrence of all of our chiefs who i rely on an awful lot and the combatant commanders and the people down on the ground who know it best who actually day to day implement these strategies through tactics, they agree with everybody's got to take some percentage of reduction here. if i had an -- not an unlimited budget, if i had a different kind of budget, i probably wouldn't make those recommendations based on what the chiefs have come back. second, the lower cost issue,

active versus national guard, i am going to ask the chairman to respond to that because it depends. it isn't an easy met trick that the reserve and national guard are cheerp. it depends if they have to get trained -- cheaper. it depends if they have to get trained up to active duty in a war zone. before i do that i'll ask the chairman to answer that. commission, here was the feeling after i had consulted with the chiefs and the people that i rely on for advice and then they came to me with recommendations. we believe we know what we need to do right now. prolongs decisions, not because i'm secretary of defense, but i do think reside within the leadership responsibilities of your military. now, that's why we have civilian control over the military. i've got all that. but i think if we start

micromanaging our military, the people whose lives are dedicated to national security, they come before the congress as they must, they are responsible to me and the president, as our constitution requires. but when we start second-guessing them too far down the line, i think that's not smart and i think it's dangerous. so i don't think we need a commission for those reasons and others. we know what we need to do. the commission would prolong this another -- you know about commissions. i don't think we need one. we know what we need to do. there are some hard choices as i said. this is one of them. if it's ok let me ask the chairman to respond to maybe the difference in the costs. >> thanks, secretary. senator, i'll get this right at some point. i agree by the way on whether we need a commission. i think the army's done a remarkable job. i used to be the chief of staff of the army. if you told me when i was the

chief i would be able to take these budget cuts and manage them and come up with a plan to provide the army that we think the nation needs, i i maybe would have said i don't think we can get there. but they got there. the issue of cost. this body and the other committees that give us our budget by readiness, that's what you buy. you're not buying an active duty soldier. you're not buying a particular platform or national guardsman. you're buying readiness. it depends how quickly you want it ready. that's what distinguishes between the active guard and reserve. what capabilities you migrate and how quickly you need to access them. as i say that i'm complimentary of the army's plan, it's based on what the army needs to have ready to go on a very short notice. i think that you would agree, we just had this conversation about nigeria, you would agree that in

the world in which we live with so many -- so much uncertainty, complexity, and threats, i think we need more of the force ready right now than at any time in our previous history. where you could take a long time to build up readiness and deploy it. if you're going to pay for a national guardsman to be as ready as an active duty soldier, you're going to pay the same thing. it comes down to how quickly you need to access the capability. when you need it tonight, you pay the same whether it's an active duty soldier or a gartsman. -- guardsman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the only comment i would make is the guardsmen goes back, the guard member goes back to the community and to a civilian life in most circumstances. the active duty member remains

on active duty and thus is more expensive. to me it's obvious if they are being a national guard troop is being deployed, it is going to be trained in the same way and it is going to be as costly, but it's what happens at the end of the deployment that creates the cost difference. >> i agree with that, senator, but if they go back home and i need them and i can't get them, then i'm not doing my job. don't forget, there is reason for governors to be interested in this because they have state responsibilities as well. >> correct. >> but what the secretary has to balance is the national security interest of our title 10 responsibilities as the first priority, and i think we have done that with recognizing the other things that guardsmen and reservists do in their communities, i think we have done it responsibly. i'm not sure that a commission would help us identify that.

>> thank you. >> thanks, senator. >> offer briefly a comment. if you take your logic to the extreme, we wouldn't have anybody on active duty. it would be cheaper to have everybody -- >> no. that's an absurd. i was going to commend you for all your service. you just have totally blown it. >> i just want to establish. we need a mix. i'll accept the lack of commendation if you accept the fact we need a mix. >> no one's suggesting that we don't need a mix. that is obvious. i will commend you for your service nonetheless and for the record that we did together on dcaa when i was the chair, ranking member on homeland security. thank you. >> that has been a success story. we have turned that agency around. >> you have indeed. >> i appreciate your support. >> thus we end on a positive note. >> just barely. >> comptroller hale, thank you for many, many years of great service. you have done your country

proud. we are honored to have you come to this table so often and try to take on one of the most daunting tasks in the history of the world, the education of a united states senator. thank you very much for that. secretary hagel, thank you very much. general dempsey, you and the men and women in uniform are the best. i thank you for your service and all that have joined you today. this meeting stands adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> if you missed any of this hearing you can watch it in its entirety. go to our website and speck the

c-span video library. live now to the u.s. house as members are about to return for legislative business. they'll be working on the rule for debating two bills this afternoon. veterans health care and the 2015 defense spending bill. votes are expected about 1:20 thisafter noon -- afternoon. live to the house floor on c-span.

the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered today by our guest chaplain, in i michael lotger, temple california. the chaplain: dear god, you sustain us and inspire us. yours is the unity connecting all things created by you and directing us to serve you in unity of purpose, spirit, and strength. bless us with the resources to do your work. the very name of this nature, the united states, and the very name of this institution, the congress, underlines the power and indeed the holiness of such unity. i therefore humbly request your most ancient blessing for the people of this great nation and for their elected representatives. may god bless you and protect you, may god's light shine upon you and may god be gracious to you, may god's face be lifted

before you and may god grant you peace. we say together, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentleman rom texas, mr. merchant. mr. merchant: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: without objection, the gentlelady from california, ms. brownly, is recognized for one minute. ms. brownley: thank you, mr. speaker. it is my great privilege to welcome a very good friend, rabbi michael lotger, to be the guest chaplain of the house of representatives today.

rabbi lotger is a teacher and a leader in ventura county. he is the rabbi emeritus at temple narami in california. in abbi of congregation california and the community rabbi and teacher for the jewish federation of ventura county. he's also a member of the central conference of american rabbis and the board of rabbis of southern california. in addition to his work as a rabbi, rabbi lotger is an author and a physicist with a focus on researching alternative energy sources such as wind, solar and geothermal. known for his quick-whitted humor, rabbi lotger writes parody songs for each of the jewish holidays throughout the

year. for his spiritual leadership and thoughtful words, i would like to thank rabbi lotger for leading us in prayer today. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the chair will entertain up to 15 further requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? without objection, so ordered. mr. marchant: mr. speaker, the current situation on our southern border is a direct result of this administration's failure to enforce our laws. since october, 47,000 unaccompanied women and children have illegally entering the -- entered the u.s. by year's end, 90,000 minors would have illegally crossed into our country. when apprehended, a majority of these questioned say they came expecting to be able to stay,

to get a free pass. this is wrong and my constituents are angry about it and will not tolerate it. the president should immediately begin returning these illegal immigrants to their own countries. he must demand cooperation from the respective foreign governments and press them to stop spreading the false belief that america rewards illegal immigration with a de facto amnesty. this is a crisis of the president's own creation. he must take real action to strengthen the border and strengthen security before it grows even worse. and send a strong message that illegal immigration will not be rewarded. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? without objection, so ordered. mr. veasey: mr. speaker, i rise today to honor the life and legacy of sam garcia, a world

war ii veteran, business owner and renowned civic leader in the fort worth hispanic community. mr. garcia immigrated to the united states from mexico at the age of 2 with his undocumented parents. after serving in the army in world war ii and earning three bronze stars, mr. garcia moved to fort worth in 1958. he later started his own successful construction company. mr. garcia also served fort worth where he led many community service organizations in an effort to raise scholarship money. mr. garcia also edited and published the community news, a newspaper committed to improving the quality of life in the latino community in fort worth. mr. garcia devoted his life to improving the lives of others and was rightfully recognized in 1990 as the fort worth volunteer of the veer and -- year and in 1991, the fort worth hispanic chamber of commerce member of the year and in 1999 he was the man of the year. mr. garcia's leadership and dedication to the fort worth

community will be forever marked in history. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from montana seek recognition? without objection, so ordered. mr. daines: mr. speaker, today i'm so proud to congratulate sean daniel tailor, emma gabbert and hayden, who are students from washington middle school in glen dive, montana, for being top finishers in the montana history day contest. this week they are among seven montana students who traveled to the national history day contest in washington, d.c., out of 600,000 participants in national history day, less than 3,000 advanced to the national contest. so spike for all montanans when i say that we are incredibly proud of their success. it is truly great to see young students, young montanans like sean daniel, cane, emma and hayden thinking critically about our nation's history and the rights and responsibilities that come with citizenship.

congratulations, again, to all seven montana students competing in the national history day contest. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? without objection, so ordered. ms. sanchez: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to honor -- in honor of troy edgar, the chair of the board of the orange county sanitation district. and i congratulate him upon his upcoming retirement. mr. edgar was instrumental in ensuring the successful upgrade of the sanitation district's facilities. and i applaud him for his leadership in implementing a sustainable financial plan for the district, creating successful partnerships and adopting effective policy in order to ensure the highest quality of water by the most

cost-effective methods. and i hold mr. edgar in the highest regard for his outstanding public service and his efforts on behalf of the sanitation district and its mission to protect public health and our environment. i thank him for his role in orange county. he's a great example of what a great public servant looks like, does and acts. and again for his leadership, his vision, for his commitment to the residents of orange county, i congratulate him. he is a star in our community and i wish him luck in his future endeavors. and i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentlelady has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. smith: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered, the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: mr. speaker, americans do not trust the liberal national media to provide them with accurate, fair and balanced news. a recent poll conducted by the

brookings and public religious institute found that only 23% of americans consider the national broadcast news networks to be their most trusted news outlet. but 26% of independents listed fox news as their most trusted network compared to only 17% who chose the broadcast networks. the least trusted network, according to the poll, is msnbc. only 5% of americans selected the network as their most trusted news source. americans dis-- americans' distrust of the liberal national media will continue to grow until the media stops telling them what to think. there's a good reason why fox news has been the highest rated cable news network for 12 straight years. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute.

>> there's never been any question that tony gwynn was a great hitter. probably the second most talked about aspect of tony was his laugh. mrs. davis: on monday we lost a great leader, both on and off the field. tony passed away, surrounded by family at age 54. and we lost that great laugh. tony was described as a person who, after spending a few minutes with him, you felt better than you did before. part of it was his laugh. he displayed that in playing baseball and as a teacher and n his charitable work with his wife, alicia. there was just such a special quality about him. tony turned down lucrative offers, offers that others might have picked up, but he turned those down to remain a

san diego padre. and in this time of sports trades, well, that's a big deal. it was not surprising that after his playing days, he returned to his alma mater, san diego state university, to teach and to coach aztec baseball, to be a mentor. one of his students plays not too far from this chamber at nationals park, pitcher stephen strasburg played for tony who he described as a father figure . tony gwynn leaves a lasting impact in san diego. his loss is being felt throughout the community. we see that in the collective grief and celebration of his life. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to congratulate

bill kline for receiving the 2014 colonel edwin drake legendary oil man award, presented by the petroleum history institute. the award, named after the famed colonel edwin drake, who drilled the first commercial oil well in the world, beginning the oil industry in pennsylvania. the award owner is a lifetime of achievement. mr. kline is no stranger to the oil industry. following his grandfather, which willered kline, he owns and -- willard kline, he owns and operates a company in pennsylvania. it operates hundreds of small wells in a small oil patch that once produced over 0% of our nation's -- 80% of our nation's oil. these wells slowly churn day and night. they've been producing oil for over 140 years. it is because of the tireless efforts and ingenuity of men like bill kline and his family that america has led the world in energy production and will

continue to be a leader for generations to come. congratulations, bill, on this very well deserved award. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? without objection, so ordered. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. higgins: mr. speaker, the highway trust fund will be broke by the end of july. this is right in the middle of the construction season. we have almost 400 bridges that are structurally deficient. this is unacceptable and just a small representation of the crumbling infrastructure nationwide. congress should be increasing our investment in nation building right here at home, not cutting back. but, mr. speaker, doing this at the expense of the united states postal service by eliminating saturday-day deliveries is not an answer. this is a one-time fix, this does not provide a long-term solution to our nation's transportation funding problem. furthermore, this hurts small businesses and other americans who rely on the ability to receive paper mail on saturday.

eliminates jobs for postal workers and would create a significant loss of mail volume and revenues for the postal service. reports today indicate that this plan may be dropped and i hope that is the case. i urge my colleagues to reject this misguided proposal and explore more reasonable and effective solutions to restore the highway trust fund. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, more than three million americans have been left behind by the failure to renew unemployment insurance. mr. jefferies: these individuals live in urban america and suburban america and in rural america. they live in blue states and they live in red states. they are simply americans in need.

but as a result of the callousness of some in this chamber, they have been put in great economic jeopardy and we have cost the economy more than $5 billion. we should be extending a helping hand to these individuals, but indeed we have slapped them in the face in a manner that is disrespectful of the compassion of the american people. it is time to do the right thing and renew unemployment insurance so that we can rescue those americans left behind on the battlefield of the great recession. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i follow the gentleman from new york, i rise

today because i think it is absolutely unconscionable that after more than six months the house republicans continue to fail to act to extend unemployment benefits. mr. payne: there are more than three million americans who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, who are waiting for congress to do something for them. i have heard from many of them, my constituents, about their struggles because of congress' act to fail--fail toofpblgt lily of linden, new jersey, has been out of work for two years. she and her husband have dipped into their entire savings just to get by. because of her age and her illness, she's found it increasingly harder to find gainful employment. it has come to this sad point. that lily can no longer afford her medicine and her family may soon be homeless.

by failing to act, my -- by failing tookt, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have coldly turned their backs on millions of americans and people like lily. turned their backs on people who have elected them is simply unacceptable and i will not stay silent. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the entleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, i rise today as a mother, as a senior member of the homeland security committee which was created in the backdrop of the horrific tragedy of 9/11. today the president and america confronts a heinous group in iraq, the isis, that are beheading persons and proclaiming one religion over

another. and again an op-ed appears in the "wall street journal" from the former vice president who wants to blame everything on president obama. whose administration has just brought into justice one of those who perpetrated the violence and killed our americans at ben gazzy. this is not an american issue in iraq. we gave them an opportunity. we gave 4,000 in treasure. this is really an international issue that calls upon the united nations and the nations surrounding iraq even maliki to have a coalition government. it's the same in nigeria with boko haram that the beheading persons, kidnapping girls, we need a coalition that faces down these terrible horrific tragic terrorists. these are thugs. it cannot be on the shoulders of americans. we have given our treasure. we can protect our embassy and we should, thank you, mr. president. there needs to be a strong coalition. and those who come back from the ghost of yesteryear and blame this administration should be

silenced and american should stand united together and others need to work together -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek rick nation? mr. cicilline: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman is recognized. mr. cicilline: mr. speaker, this week i will introduce a resolution to designate june 21 as national ask day, to raise awareness among parents to ask a simple lifesaving question -- is there an unlocked gun where my child plays? those nine words could ultimately save our child's life. i recently meant karen from cumberland, rhode island, hod youngest son was severely injured in 2003 when his older brother played with a loaded pelllet gun at a friend's house on christmas eve. she had no idea there was an unlocked gun at the house where her son was playing. her 9-year-old son mistakently thought it was a video came accessory and shot his younger brother in the eye. 1.7 million children live in a home with a loaded unlocked gun.

and every year thousands of kids are killed or injured as a result. unfortunately, karen's story is one example after tragic accident that can occur when a child gets hold of a loaded gun. this isn't a partisan issue or an attempt to take guns away from nick. it's about keeping our kids -- from anybody. it's keeping our kids safe by asking a simple lifesaving question. we owe it to our kids to provide them with safe areas to play and pass the national ask resolution and have parents ask this simple question, is there a gun where my child plays? i thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir. pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on june 18, 2014, at 10:37 a.m.

that the senate concur in the house amendment to senate 1254. with best wishes i am, signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, by direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 628 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 112, house resolution 628, resolved, that a, at any time after adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18 declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill h.r. 4870, making appropriations for the department of defense for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2015, and for other purposes. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.

general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations. after general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule 21 are waived. b, during consideration of the bill for amendment, one, each amendment other than amendments provided for in paragraph 2 shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent and shall not be subject to amendment except as provided in paragraph 2. 2, no pro forma amendment shall be in order except that the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to 10 pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of debate. and three, the chair of the

committee of the whole may accord priority and recognition on the basis of whether the member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the congressional record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule 18. amendments so printed shall be considered as read. c, when the committee rises and reports the bill back to the house with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section 2, upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to take from the speaker's table the bill h.r. 3230, making continuing appropriations during a government shut down to provide and allowances to members of the reserve components of the armed forces who perform inactive duty training during such period with the senate amendment thereto and to consider in the house without

intervention of any point of order or question of consideration a single motion offered by the chair of the committee on veterans' affairs or his designee that the house, one, concur in the senate amendment to the title, and two, concur in the senate amendment to the text with the amendment printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. the senate amendments and the motion shall be considered as read. the motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member -- ranking minority member of the committee on veterans' affairs. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question. if the motion is adopted, then it shall be in order for the chair of the committee on veterans' affairs or his designee to move that the house insist on its amendment to the senate amendment to h.r. 3230 and request a conference with

the senate thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for one hour. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, for the purposes of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. nugent: during consideration of this resolution, time yielded is for purposes of debate only. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, house resolution 628 provides for the consideration of h.r. 4870, the department of defense appropriation act for f.y. 2015. under a modified open rule. the resolution will give members on both sides of the aisle the opportunity to offer as many amendments to the bill as they wish provided they comply with the rules of the house. it ensures that all members can be active participants in

shaping this bill. i think my colleagues on the rules committee from georgia described it best when he called this process a festival of democratcy. the underlying legislation will give the department deef fence the resource it is needs to protect our country at home and abroad. i'm encouraged that both sides of the aisle can unite around this cause. the bill's another example that bipartisanship as it was reported out of the committee unanimously. the d.o.d. appropriations act will also provide support for our war fighters. the 1% who risk all in defense of this nation. it's critical we give our troops the tools they need to carry out the mission abroad, and the resources they need to support their families here at home. this legislation will fully fund a 1.8% pay increase for the military instead of the 1% raise requested by the president. secondly, this rule allows us to begin ironing out the differences between the house and senate attempts to address

the v.a. scandal. while we have yet to uncover the full scope of the scandal, it's apparent the problems are systemic to that institution. there have been secret wait lists, unacceptable patient wait times, inadequate care, backlogs, a culture of retaliating against whistle blowers, and serious lack of leadership, to name only a few of the issues plaguing the v.a. tragically, tragically veterans have died because of these problems. mr. speaker, it's disgraceful. the fact that a veteran died waiting for care from this country that they fought for is just tough to come to grips with that reality. but it is a reality. as the father of three sons serving in the military, i'm appalled, i'm horrified, and i believe the american people are, too, as to the treatment of our veterans. our veterans deserve a whole lot more, a whole heck of a lot more from their government than they

have -- have the government turn their back on them. they deserve to be treated with respect and dignity, and the house will make every effort to ensure that these problems never happen again. one of the ways we can begin this effort is by giving the v.a. the authority to terminate employees for performing poorly, much like the private sector, much like i had as sheriff. it's what most employers have the ability to do. this will give the secretary of the v.a. the ability to quickly remove bureaucrats who falsify, like in this intans, wait times. as we come to find out with all other scandals, this administration is engulfed in, it's difficult to hold people accountable in the executive branch. try as we might. therefore the provisions are sorely needed. we can also require the v.a. to reimburse private health care for veterans who live more than 40 miles from a v.a. facility. those who haven't received timely medical treatment at the v.a. this will allow our veterans to get the care they need when they

need t finally, it's a bit discouraging we even have to codify this into law, what we need are the bonuses and awards to the v.a. for the next two fiscal years, incredibly a phoenix v.a., where veterans actually died, waited for care, and thought it was appropriate to pay out $10 million in bonuses over the last three years. . by prohibiting this practice, we can ensure that the funds we provide to the v.a. are going where they are needed, toward the care of our veterans, and not to fatten bureaucratic pockets. i stand in strong support of this rule and the underlying legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves his time. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the gentleman from florida, my friend, mr. nugent, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the

gentleman is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, today we debate the rule to consider two measures. h.r. 4870, the fiscal year 2015 defense appropriations bill, and the motion to go to conference on legislation addressing the problems at the department of veterans affairs. i regret that this is not an open rule. strict time limits have been placed on debate, which make it impossible to adequately discuss important issues. on issues regarding our national security, we should have ample time for discussion. this is hardly a festival of democracy, as my friend from florida described this process. this is muzzling democracy. but less debate in a more closed process has become the signature of the republican majority, i'm sad to say. i'm pleased that legislation addressing the problems of the v.a. is moving forward in a timely way. however, i want to echo the statement of my friend from maine, the ranking member of the veterans' affairs committee, mr. michaud.

the distinguished ranking member correctly pointed out in testimony presented to the rules committee that while this bill is important, it is shortsighted and should include many of the bipartisan measures that have been worked on at the veterans' affairs committee. like mr. michaud, i would prefer that this process be more open and it's just another example of how this closed process denies many good, bipartisan ideas from being considered and adopted. and although i have serious concerns with the final defense appropriations product, i do want to thank chairman frelinghuysen and ranking member visclosky for working together in a bipartisan way on this bill. mr. speaker, we take up this bill at a very serious moment in time. every day we turn on our tv's and see conflict, war and turmoil around the world. it's often hard to remember that most of the world is not at war. i am very concerned that this bill continues funding the longest war in united states

history, the war in afghanistan. and even though the president has announced that he will draw down most of our combat forces by the end of this year, he's also said that he will keep 10,000 of our service men and women in afghanistan through 2016. i believe strongly that congress should debate and vote on approving the president's proposal to keep our uniform men and women in -- uniformed men and women in harm's way for another 10 years. what are these troops supposed to accomplish that other troops have not yet done? our own generals were quoted in monday's "washington post" saying that security's not the problem in afghanistan, corruption is the problem. 10,000 u.s. troops are not going to magically eliminate corruption in afghanistan. just last month at the end of may, during consideration of the ndaa, armed services ranking member adam smith, congressman walter jones and i attempted to offer a germane amendment that would have required the house to vote early next year on whether to maintain u.s. military forces

in afghanistan as the president has proposed. outrageously, the republican leadership of this house refused to let us offer that amendment. we were denied the chance to debate one of the most important questions facing this congress, the american people, our troops and their families. so as we get ready to deliver in this defense appropriations bill a $79.4 billion blank check to the president to continue the war in afghanistan, i call upon the speaker and the leadership of this house to promise, to promise that before the 113th congress adjourns, that it will bring before this house a joint resolution whether to approve the president's proposal to maintain u.s. armed forces in afghanistan through 2016. let the house debate it. and let the house vote on it. up or down. let's do our jobs. i have no idea what the result of such a vote might be. but i do know that we owe that vote to our troops and their families and to the american people.

mr. speaker, i am tired of endless wars. and i am increasingly anxious, as i listen to talk shows where politicians and pundits rattle their sabers and advocate for more full-scale war in iraq and many other places around the world. it's especially golf balling to listen to the people -- galling to listen to the people who got us into this mess in iraq in the first place. dick cheney actually had the audacity to write, rarely has a u.s. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many. are you kidding me? how pathetic. if it is possible to have less than zero credibility, then dick cheney has it on iraq. i believe in our military, mr. speaker. i believe in our men and women in uniform. i believe we should have a military second to none. i believe we shouldn't hesitate to use that military when our nation is directly threatened and when the cause is serious enough to warrant the sacrifice

of american lives. but there are many problems, indeed most problems in the world, where sending the u.s. military is not the solution. the crisis facing iraq has been years in the making. it is not happening because iraq does not have a well-trained and well-equipped military. the united states took great pains to make sure that it is. no, mr. speaker, iraq is facing this current crisis because a corrupt, exclusive, power-hungry, sectarian government, headed by the prime minister, deliberately chose to exclude ethnic and religious minorities and other factions of iraqi society from government decision making. indeed, the maliki government often went out of its way to deliberately fan the flames of sectarianism and expand -- extend the power of theshyite majority. and now -- the shi'ite majority. and now it is reaping the whirl wind it created, but in ways it likely never managed. if iraq is to be -- managed --

imagined. if iraq is to be saved from this crisis, then iraqi leaders need to learn real fast how to lead. not just their own faction but how to lead a nation. to stand up for all people and to order their troops and their militias to protect all the iraqi people, sunni, christian, jewish, north, south and center. they know how to do it. they just have to choose to do it. and pray it's not too late. and quite frankly, mr. speaker, it's time for the governments and powers in the region to stand up against the vicious militias and violent jihadists wreaking havoc in their own countries and among their neighbors. they are the ones who need to lead the way to a political solution to the challenges facing the entire region. or watch it go up in flames around them. several of our generals and commanders have commented in recent news articles that it's difficult for the u.s. to respond with air power or drones or special operations because the iraqis rebeling against the central government are not just made up of extremist members but they

include local sunnis and other disenfranchised iraqis. so who do you target? how do you target them? should you target groups at all? if one thing has become clear after watching the crisis unfold and listening to all the pundits, the solution to the crisis in iraq will depend on iraqis, not on american bombs or fire power, let alone man power. mr. speaker, as we take up the defense appropriations bill, these matters weigh heavily on the minds of all of us who serve in this house. while we work to ensure that our uniformed men and women have what they need to carry out their duties and missions, let us also be clear that there are many problems confronting the world today that unfortunately our military simply cannot fix. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from michigan, mr. benishek. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. mr. benishek: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. speaker, today i rise in

support of going to a conference committee with the senate on v.a. reform. i am pleased that the senate has followed our lead in swiftly passing legislation that will help the thousands of veterans waiting for care in the dysfunctional v.a. system. while i don't agree with everything in the senate bill, we all agree that our veterans deserve better than the v.a. has been giving them. today congress will renew its commitment on a bipartisan basis to overhauling the v.a. and working to give our veterans the care they have earned. i was a surgeon at the v.a. for 20 years and today i'm grateful for the opportunity to continue that care by working to get a v.a. reform bill to the president's desk. the bottom line is this. we cannot allow the v.a. to continue operating as a failed, bloated bureaucracy. i believe we can give the v.a. the tools to be smarter, leaner and much more responsive to the needs of our veterans. as the father of a veteran, i'm dedicated to making this reality. the time for excuses is over. the time for action is now.

i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for three minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman and i certainly appreciate the gentleman's very expansive assessment on the two underlying bills that we are about to address today. let me first of all say that i live in a community of a very major veterans hospital. in fact, i carried the legislation to name it after michael e debakey. we care about veterans, as do my colleagues across the aisle and both the house and the senate. and i believe that it is important to move the veterans' access to care through choice, accountability, continued through the process, and to make sure that our veterans, after the many audits that we have received on the individual hospitals, and know that there is a long period of time for

those veterans newly accessing veterans health care, who does that include? it include includes recent returnees of afghanistan veterans or iraqi veterans or even those veterans who have maintained good heament and now find themselves in senior years such as vietnam veterans and who are coming to the system for the first time. it is intolerable for them to have to wait and i believe that this is a very important initiative. if we are to send soldiers overseas or in the line of battle, as many are promoting now, in light of the violence in iraq, can we not, without shame, stand and provide them the kind of health care for them and their families? i rise as well to comment on the department of defense appropriations act and i am glad that there's been a tension -- attention to ptsd. i intend to offer an amendment addressing resources for ptsd and resources for the epidemic of breast cancer among military women in the appropriations act. but i do i think it is important that again we have a

prohibition against the transfer of guantanamo detainees to the united states. that means that this facility continues to be open. then of course we have appropriations for the overseas contingency operations, which the president has not yet made a request. but i think in the context of providing ancrease in wages for our -- an increase in wages for our military personnel, i congratulate the ranking member for working so cooperatively. but i raise the point in the back drop of the crisis in iraq. the isis, and all of the cords of calling for troops on the ground and to do air strikes. when in actuality, we live in at that world family. we live in a family with saudi arabia and kuwait and jordan. we live in a family with nato alliances. and we need to be able to work together to demand that an untoward leader in iraq, who was given an opportunity for a consensus government, never made any effort. yes, these individuals are horrific. they're radicalized, they're

vicious, they're vial. but there are sunnis and shiites who have worked together, who are moderate, who want their young people to have jobs, they want an iraq that they can pledge allegiance to their flag, united iraq. where was the leadership, the selfish leadership of maliki to be able to do that? now we must clean up his dirty kitchen? i think not. in this must be a unified effort. mr. mcgovern: i yield the gentlelady one minute. ms. jackson lee: this must be a unified effort and frankly the president is right to be deliberative. we yet do not know, as i speak, there may be some news announce, but what his decision maybe. i believe he's done the right thing by providing security and safety for the thousands of americans that are in baghdad and protecting our embassy. that is the right thing to do. he's done the right thing by finding one of the perpetrators of benghazi and i would ask that we do the right thing by not ignoring again another terrorist threat, boko haram, in northeast nigeria, that is

fueling the flames, taking over municipalities, ready to pounce on places other than the northeast. these are threats that need the collective body of the united nations, in this instance the african union, and all the states surrounding nigeria and of course the nigerian government of which we are friends with. but i would say that america cannot continuously go along. we have gone along, we have given our treasure, our yeng men and women never say no when they're called to duty. i believe it is time to be responsible, respectful and cautious in the way we move forward, on using our troops around the world. i ask my colleagues to consider this as we deliberate on the appropriations bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: may i inquire of the gentleman how many other speakers he has? mr. nugent: i have none. mr. mcgovern: i'll yield myself the remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for the remaining time. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i would like to ask unanimous consent to insert in the record

a statement of administration policy on this bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, it will be part of the record. mr. mcgovern: and i would highlight a couple of points. the administration strongly owe poles the house passage of h.r. 4870 as it now stands and so do i for a number of reasons. i want to highlight one. and that is that there are provisions in this bill that make it difficult, if not impossible, for the president to close down guantanamo. and let me read from the administration's statement. . in reference to some of that prevent them from shutting down something that i think does nothing to enhance our security. i quote, operating the detention facility at guantanamo weakens our national security by draining resources, damaging our relationships with key allies and partners, and emboldening violent extremists. these provisions are unwarranted and threaten to interfere with the executive branch's ability to determine the appropriate disposition of detainees, flexibility to determine when and where to prosecute

guantanamo detainees based on the facts and circumstances of each case in our national security interest. and i -- there are other issues as well, but that is something that members ought to know that this bill does could be tain these extraneous provisions. let me close by saying to my colleagues, it is no secret to people in this house that i believe that the war in afghanistan, the longest war in u.s. history, should be brought to a close. and it's also no secret i have expressed my frustration loudly on this house floor over the fact that we have not even been given the opportunity to discuss that war in an open debate. when the defense authorization bill came up before us, i germane bipartisan amendment was offered that would give members of congress the ability to vote on whether we should continue to maintain troops there or not. that's an important question.

that is an important issue. certainly as we discuss the defense authorization and defense appropriations bills. we were denied that opportunity. in this house of representatives that my friend is saying is a festival of democracy, on the most important issue that is confronting this country right now because -- is the fact we are at war. and we were denied the opportunity to be able to deliberate on that issue. as i said in my opening statement, we have members of congress and pundits that are rattling sabers and trying to get us recommitted to a war in iraq. i think that would be a horrible mistake. but i want to close by making a plea to the leadership of this house. and that is let us discuss these issues openly on the house floor. let us deliberate on those issues. let us live up to our responsibility as members of congress to have a role in some of these discussions.

let's not abdicate that responsibility. too often, in fact not just too often but it has become a habit with this leadership to just kind of brush aside those issues. to allow no debate. to allow no deliberation. i find that appalling. i find that appalling. when you go to walter reed and you talk to those veterans who have been wounded, who suffered enormously as a result of this service, when you talk to their parents and their loved ones, we owe those men and women a hell of a lot better than they have received on this house floor. the least we can do is deliberate on these issues. i make a plea to this leadership to let us talk about these things. this is important. if this isn't important, don't know what is.

so i -- while i oppose the final passage of the bill for a number reasons, i do -- i want to again commend the chairman and the ranking member of the defense appropriations subcommittee for their hard work and their staffs' and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts yields back his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: mr. speaker, the rule before us allows for an open and transparent consideration. department defense appropriations act of 2015. chairman frelinghuysen has done excellent job in the appropriation area, working with his minority leader -- minority member to craft this appropriation bill to fit the needs of our military. they have done an extent job. providing for the common defense is a constitutional responsibility that we share with the president, this congress shares that with the president.

without a strong defense we have no way of ensuring that our liberties we enjoy are the -- the safety of our citizens from threats foreign or domestic keep us safe here at home. the underlying legislation helps fulfill congress' responsibility to provide for our national defense. funding the armed forces and addressing critical readiness gaps. the d.o.d. appropriation act provides $1 million to be used exclusively for improving military readiness. that commitment is vital if we need to give to our war fighters the best possible chance to complete their mission and make it home safe and sound. as a father of three soldiers, i can only tell you that the ability to train and equip our men and women that have volunteered to serve this country is the utmost, utmost responsibility that this country has to them to make sure that they have the ability to come back, give them the best possible fighting chance to come home to their families.

so the father of those three, the father who has had sons serve in both iraq and afghanistan, we have got to make sure this country provides the best possible military second to none in the world. we ought to make sure that our men and women have the ability, a, to have the medical treatment that they so rightly deserve when they come back after serving their country. and i think that we have made and taken steps in the rules committee to do just that. this rule and this appropriations act actually rejects, again, the president's proposed cuts to the try care. once again in the last four years tricare's come under fire. we don't believe that we should balance the budget on the backs of our men and women who fight or this country.

we need to make sure that the priorities that we have said to our troops, hey, listen, we owe you a debt we can never repay, but you don't repay it by cutting their benefits, and you don't repay it by cutting their pay. you don't repay it by ignoring them as it relates to when they come back and have a service connected disability to go in front of the v.a. and be denied the service they rightfully earned. finally, the rule provides for the motions necessary to make us and allows us to get into conference with the senate. the senate passed a bill and house passed a bill as relates to the v.a. in regards to trying to fix the v.a. it's a good first step. so those bills have already been passed. now it's the opportunity for us to provide the conference to our members to go in conference with the senate to come up with a compromise that does just that.

that puts our veterans first, not last. not behind cure contracts but in front of the line -- not behind bureaucrats but in front of the line not the back. we can quickly resolve those issues between the house and senate by going to conference and that's what this bill helps us do. i think we all agree the treatment of our veterans has been subject to -- has been shameful. it's a complete disservice to those who risk their lives for us. the spirit of this issue showed the graphity of it demands input from both chambers. we have heard about gtmo, how keeping it opened makes us less safe. mr. speaker, i would suggest to you releasing five taliban senior leadership positions makes america less safe. which we just did. without input from this house or without input from the senate as required by law.

it was just done. are we safer because we released these five taliban? they are not the trigger pullers. they are not the guys on the ground. these are the guys that actually helped design and implement the taliban and also attacks on us. some of those leaders are purported to be members of that group that helped design and implement that. i agree with my good friend from massachusetts. we agree on a lot of issues, particularly as it relates to our military and open-ended conflicts. we do agree on that. having sons that have served both in iraq and afghanistan, i want to make sure that this body has a say in what happens. i want to make sure this body hears from the president in a cohesive way in regards to what he expects to accomplish and

what our mission is. andppened to travel to iraq got to see my two kids. the ght that i was there u.s. base was struck by iran, which is an iranian rocket warhead. the only place you get that is from iran. you don't find it on the shelf of a store. iran provide add warhead that killed five troops. the night i was in iraq. they were part of the division where my youngest son served. here we are talking about working with iran? who has been the most destabilizing country in the world as it relates to afghanistan and iraq. this is a sectarian issue going on. between the sunnis and shiites.

i don't know what the best way forward is. but i want to hear from the president what his plan is. we sent more troops now to iraq. i want to hear specifically what do we expect to get out of that? what do we expect? i will tell you this that the isil in the press, in the media, they want to hurt america. and they are the ones that are advancing towards baghdad. they have the ability, from what i'm reading in the press, to reach out and touch america. so do we have a vested interest in seeing what happens in iraq? i believe we do. but i want to hear from this president how do you move forward? how do you fix something that my

good friend from massachusetts talked about the corrupt government within iraq. same issues in afghanistan. how do we do that? and i think he hit it on the head, the people of those countries have got to stand up and take control. the problem is we don't want terrorists to take control. the isil is a terrorist organization. there is no doubt about it. and last i want to once again touch on the conference, allowing us to give instructions to our conferees to move forward as relates to the senate. we want to make sure that gets done and it gets done right and in a timely fashion. so it's amazing that the senate when motivated can do the right thing and move a piece of legislation through. so i support this straightforward rule and much needed underlying legislation. i urge my colleagues to do the same. with that i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the

resolution. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the aye vs. it. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: on that i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays have been requested. those in favor of the vote on the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]