americans and capture more americans to cut more deals. this is a travesty. the president of the united states has maybe got himself into a position here that i don't know maybe he thinks of himself as a peacemaker. i think this will in the end have just the opposite impact. i have six echoes. i would like to give our business a chance to retort. respectfully, i disagree. >> fine, yes. >> of the chairman's pleasure, i'm happy to continue. >> the chair recognizes gentleman from georgia for five minutes.

>> air force reserve and i may chaplain who served in iraq. the issues that came up for me, and some of this may be a follow-up on my colleague you just mentioned, but you brought are note the fact they going back to the same afghanistan that they left. they would not have the impact they could have had. , whatntelligence information, what would have you believe that they could not get set up in a country that has not changed much in 400, 500 years? afghanistan both as intelligence officer and as a civilian adviser where they work with senior officials every day, there have been a great number

of changes if just in the last decade alone. of the networks these individuals had when they were a force fighting against the northern alliance though longer exist. many of the taliban leadership are dead and i believe the app can people have changed. you have seen in the recent open defiance of threats to kill people who would go through. 40% of the voters, i believe were women who were told not to do this. ofwe saw a great deal turnout in the iraqi elections and we are looking at the breakdown of a civil war. pointing to election is a great getting there?ou we're just going to have to respectfully have a difference of opinion. i do not believe it will take them very long to build from scratch or bring in others. there's a reason they wanted

these five. i don't believe they just said that to pick out five. maybe i would like some general discussion about this but it is something that keeps coming up here. .e are drawing down this war i cannot remember if it was you were someone else but a sickly talking about the fact that we are dealing with terrorist organizations in this global war on terrorism. .ot a chemist and or a country granted when we ended world war there were country states that we are not in that situation anymore. when does the fact that we are fighting -- i do not believe the taliban or al qaeda, any of them have changed their opinion of the west. have theve they still desire to recap the? >> our actions have split views.

i don't think there is a single unified view anymore. >> interesting. that. go look at i think there is still a vast determination as we go forward. i'm not sure where we draw the line now with dealing with, negotiating with, however we want to do this. given the fact that we traded -- there are some who will give an argument that it's the end of the war and we had a have a political outcome at some point, but is this a price you would have ever envisioned paying for someone who walked off or did not walk off? is this what we are looking at? not that we give up with the price that we give up? >> we are still at war whether what people want to admit it or not. just because we stop fighting does not mean they won't want to stop killing us.

when i signed in no fit was an understanding that i knew there would be a certain price up to a point that the united states would pay to get me back. if it was me over there, you could have left me. you to not have wanted trade five high-level taliban operatives for myself. if five was the price this time, what is the rice next time ?he president stepping down a cabinet member stepping down? we are dealing with the same ideological bent of going through many of the countries and iraq is simply a forerunner about afghanistan. i appreciate you being here. this is a concern for many because they do not understand why this happened.

given the fact that most will leave this war is not over and we will see these guys again one way or the other. i yield back. >> recognizing for an additional question. >> in 1944 when we did a prisoner exchange, it was with the not these and that were continued for another year. >> would the gentleman yield? would the gentleman also recognize that the not the government represented germany as a nationstate? representeder anyone as a nation eight. >> they did control and govern with the acquiescence of the united states the vast majority of that data stan until 9/11 but more importantly, if you want to create group that are an anathema to the united states, i would at the not sees right at the top.

dr. jacobson. toy investigation is going disclose the real facts between sergeant bergdahl disappearance and capture but we have heard substantial evidence that he acted in an appropriate and inexplicable manner. can you describe the kinds of stresses that someone like sergeant bergdahl would have faced in afghanistan and whether that would cause someone, not everyone, but some to act in and ask bookable manner? i realize that the vast majority etc.r soldiers, marines, are subjected to those pressures and do not act inexplicably. >> permission to speak?

>> you are asking dr. jacobson what situation he was an and i was there and at the same location and i could give you a first-hand account of what exactly he was going through because i went through the exact same conditions. will ask you then to respond first and then dr. jacobson to respond second. i was asking more and the general severe as to what you face, but obviously you know the specifics. >> we were at an observation post. we had the meals ready-to-eat heated up with water. 30.as very hot and you go without showers for certain days. you do not get any comforts of home but it did not affect anyone else there. we all continue the mission and upheld our oath. everyone deals with mental anothern some form or when they are deployed and everyone else still came back from that same platoon.

no one else deserted on their own. there's nothing in my opinion that was so bad that forced them to walk off on his own accord caused by anything going on over there. he walked off of his own accord. >> vast majority of those in his unit were not affected to the point where they engaged in a group re-it -- in inappropriate behavior. obviously anyone in afghanistan is subject to being shelled were subject to an ied at any time. can you describe the pressures that people are under? and whether that could explain the inexplicable? >> i will not make the claim to be able to explain the inexplicable but the stresses of combat are tremendous. from my own experience, which was not nearly as far or word and deployment does either of my colleagues to the right, you of beinge fear, fear

kidnapped, shelled, mortared, what have you. there is tremendously deprivation whether it is on long combat patrols are being woken to enemy action. you have raised perhaps one of the most important points. just as there is combat stress does not excuse actions such as walking away from one's post. why you have to have the full investigation to determine what happened, why it and in the hopes that we can prevent that from happening again and all those individuals who need to be held accountable in the military justice system. >> i want said al qaeda when i meant to say the taliban to correct the record. i yield back. >> the chair has an additional question for all four of you. is way i understand the law

before people are released from that the secretary of why it isst explain in the national security interest of the united states to release that specific prisoner. assuming that is the law and from your point of view, what was the national security interest? do you believe there was a national security interest of the united states in releasing those five individuals? do you believe there was a national security interest? >> i do. >> mr. walt? lessbelieve america is safe and the world is more dangerous with the release of those individuals. >> sergeant? >> i believe the world is less safe in the world is in more

danger. >> mr. andrews, last word. >> i believe america is less safe. i believe these five guys are going to come after this. was a mistake to release them and it did not serve our national interest in any way. >> thank you for being here. the committee is adjourned. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> on the next "washington journal," military and diplomatic options for responding to violence in iraq with republican congressman scott perry. times" senior correspondent on this week's federal reserve meeting.

journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. like the idea behind 250 in 250 is instead of trying to tell era by era, we would miss vitally important things. instead of trying to do that and failing, we decided would've we just gave snapshots of st. louis history that would give people a glimpse of all of the diverse things that would happen here and they could use their imagination to fill in the rest? 50 people, places, moments, images, objects and tried to choose the most diverse selection they possibly could. we're standing in the 50 objects section of the exhibit right now and this is what most people would call the real history.

this is where the object is right in front of you. brewing is such a huge part of st. louis history. it's an amazing story with lots of different breweries am the most famous became anheuser-busch. in the era of anheuser-busch talking about millions of barrels produced each year, we think they are producing so much beer, this is from an era when things were a little simpler and it's fun to show people the subject engage their risk wants. in the days before they had canned or bottled cap, they put corks on the top of the bottles and someone had to sit on this and can do it by hand. it has foot pedals on the bottom where the operator would push down with his feet to get the court cannot force to go into the bottle and it has three holes for three different sized bottles. >> the history and literary life of st. louis, the gateway to the book tv" andan 2 "

c-span 3 "american history tv." over 35 years, c-span brings public affairs events from washington directly to you putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house event, briefings and conferences and offering complete gavel to gavel coverage of the house all as a public service of private industry. the cableeated by industry 35 years ago and brought to you as a local service by your cable and satellite provider. , follow usfacebook on twitter. >> defense secretary chuck hagel and joint chiefs chair martin dempsey answer questions about fighting in iraq and that in a stan, troop readiness, health care for servicemembers and veterans. senator dick durbin chairs the

appropriations subcommittee. this is two hours. >> am pleased to welcome the leadership of the department, secretary hagel and general dempsey to present their views on the strategic and budgetary challenges facing our armed forces. for your thank you

expertise and your continuing contributions make a big difference. let me congratulate the capture of a the key figure in the september 2012 attack on u.s. the televisa -- u.s. authorities in benghazi that cost us four american lives. work with counterparts to ensure that this man will be brought to this. we are also following several other recent events that have american security and interests around the world. the shocking events in iraq this past week demonstrate the threats posed by continuing chaos in syria which has given rise to dangerous new extremist groups. -- the teary ration in yemen shows that established terrorist organizations remain a serious threat. the aggressive moves by russia and ukraine recalled the

importance of security commitments to our eyes, partners, and friends. finally, the drawdown in afghanistan raising serious questions about our serious austrian commitments to that country. secretary hagel, general dempsey, i hope you can address these in your remarks. shrinking budgets meant that many important programs such as large headquarters staffs, generous contractor support, generous travel policies have been changed and cut back. it's not clear the department is making all of the tough choices required in this budget environment. the school 13 budget plan includes $115 billion in spending -- fiscal 2013 budget billionludes $115

meaning more changes are ahead if we do not eliminate sequestration. also opposing $26 billion in additional programming it could not fit within its constraints. they were viewed as high priorities for readiness, modernization, and key needs. others chiefs proposed also viewed as high priorities. it's been three and a half months since it was submitted in congress has yet to see the overseas contingency operation budget request. we need tot to say do something about sequestration, provide a responsible plan balancing investment in national defense, education, health care renovation, and other national priorities. i'm concerned the department of defense cannot out on tens of billions of extra dollars arriving outside the budget ross us. i would like to know how the department intends to further tighten its budget process in

light of the continuing unknowns with sequestration. despite these challenges, we can still afford to make critical investments with available resources. many have embraced competition to get more bang from the taxpayer buck. even more can be done to accelerate these programs. invest in in science and technology are critical not only to national defense and innovation across america. in gpsestments satellite, internet, and medical research have literally touched the lives of every american, whether or not they've ever worn a uniform. , the airg on at darpa force research lab, the office of naval research could improve national security, revolutionized for years to come. even in these tough times, we have to work to afford investments in medical research for breakthrough technologies and to increase investments in

key areas. i look forward to working with you, secretary hagel, to make that happen. ranking member shelby is on the floor. at this one, i will receive to our witnesses and ask secretary hagel if you would like to open us up to make a comment area your written statement will made an official part of the record. >> thank you, members of the committee. good morning. thank you for the opportunity to talk about our fy 2015 budget. as you have noted, the other issues that are before us in the world today and this country, we are prepared to respond to questions regarding those specific issues. on behalf of the defense department, i want to thank the subcommittee in particular for your continued support of our inops and what is required

order to keep our troops modern, ready, capable. that is much the focus of this budget and much of what we will be talking about this morning and why we presented the budget we have and why we need the budget we will present. in the advice they give to the president. also want to know that bob hale, as you have recognized of the, our comptroller deity of his last five years and

will be his last budget hearing -- i know he's greatly distressed by that. he's a great admirer of the congress and never gets enough time with all of you. want to particularly acknowledge bob hale because he has really been particularly to dod and this country over the last two years when we have had government steep cuts,brupt sequestration as you mentioned. andad been the architect chief operating officer to see us through. we will miss your leadership and what you have contributed. and yourve to escape all know very well his successor , mike mccord, who served many years as a senior staff member on the armed services committee. him recentlyfirmed and we appreciate that. he will replace off.

-- he will replace bob. recent crises in iraq, ukraine, remind us all how quickly things can change in the world and not for the better. let me underscore why we must ensure the readiness and capability of our military. that's what we will address today. my links here submitted statement describes our budget in detail and the rationale behind the decisions we have come or work with presented in our budget. -- come forward with. the budget that is being finalized now. i know it is late. there are some reasons for that. this overseas budget presentation will reflect the president's decision on a couple of new initiatives he has

that he's taken and certainly the continuation of our enduring presence in afghanistan as well. announcedently the counterterrorism fund which will be going through the overseas commission fund. we will define these more clearly. outlines the correct facing our community. everyone on this committee knows that decisions made today have immense impact on what kind of military we are going to have down the road. you mentioned science and

technology. that is one of the foundational dynamics of keeping our technological edge, modernization ahead of what's out there. it also reflects the tough physical realities -- fiscal realities facing us today. you mentioned one, of course, sequestration. the issues dod has had to deal with the last 12 months but really in the last 24, do we have a budget? what kind of the budget? that kind of uncertainty when you're trying to put together and operate in the interest of our national security and interest this big has been difficult. leadership of people like bob hale and marty dempsey, we've been able to do it. the budget last year was cut $37 billion because of sequestration. i might remind this committee, as you well know, that is in --ition to the $487 million

$487 billion 10-year cut that dod was already implementing. the bipartisan budget act gave dod some temporary relief for 20 14 and 20 15. it still imposes more than $75 billion in cuts over the fiscal year this year and 25th team. unless congress changes the law, before 2016,ow sequestration will be back as the law and that will take another $50 billion each year fy 2021 damaging the military's readiness, undercutting our defense strategy and our capabilities. the president's five-year plan provides a realistic alternative to sequestration project in a $150 billion -- $115 billion

more than the law allows. this is the minimum amount that we believe is needed to successfully execute defense strategy. since my submitted statement describes in detail the rationale behind those key decisions, i want to focus on two critical areas. first, the decision to reduce the size of the military force structure and retire all the invest inin order to training and modernization. under the strict limits being imposed on dod, we cannot keep our current force structure adequately ready and modernized. readiness is our main concern. i know it's a concern of this committee. readiness is our main concern -- as it must be for anyone who cares about our national security and the men and women who defend it. we cannot place our men and women in situations if they are not ready. worst failuree

leadership could make. we made a strategic decision to reduce the size of our force to ensure our troops are trained, ready, capable. these were decided on detailed analysis and agreed to by all the service chiefs. of stabilitys operations, we must shift on to future requirements shaped by enduring emerging threats much like we are seeing today. to defeat able terrorist threats and cyberattacks and the terror increasingly improving capabilities. army, wective-duty propose drawing down by 13% to 450,0000,000 to soldiers which we believe is adequate for future demand.

general ludhiana believes this is adequate. army national guard and reserve units will remain and have to remain a vibrant art of our national defense. we propose drawing the reserve national guard down by 5%. we'll continue investing in high-end ground capabilities to keep our soldiers the most advanced, ready, and capable in the world. the navy will have 11 carrier strike groups keeping the carrier force at the level approved by congress. we protect investments in submarines, the float staging bases, guided missile destroyers , and other lethal survivable platforms ensuring our edge and enabling forces to operate effectively regardless of other nations capabilities. trade-offs,ke some mr. chairman. we had to make some realistic trade-offs to help the shift in inventory modern. the navy will set aside 11

cruisers for modernization and retrofit. then they will return to service with greater capability and lifespan. this will support a strong defense industrial base, itself a national strategic asset. the marine corps will continue with planned drawdown to 182,000 and will devote 900 more to increase embassy security. the air force will invest in capabilities most relevant to maintaining aerial dominance in an fronting new threats including the f 35 joint strike fighter, the new long-range bomber, the ekc 45 refueling tanker. the 50e to replace --year-old u2 and phase out the with moreold a 10 survivable aircraft. let me address compensation

reform. taking care of our people, as everyone on this committee knows, means providing them with fair compensation as well as the training and tools they need to succeed in a battle to return home safely. to meet those obligations under constrained budgets, we need modest reforms and structural adjustments. we need these to slow the growth in pay and certain in-kind benefits. let me clarify what these adjustments are in are not. first, we will keep recommending pay increases above the rate of growth of those increases would be slowed. second, off-base housing subsidies will continue. today's 100% benefit will be gradually reduced, but only to 95% phasing in over several years. theuld remind that in 1990's, the housing allowance was about 80%.

third, we are not closing commissaries. we recommended gradually phasing out some subsidies but only for domestic commissaries and large metropolitan areas. we will continue full commissaries overseas and in remote locations. four, we want to merge the three tri-care systems by phasing in retirees ands for family members to encourage the most affordable means of care. active-duty personnel health care will remain free. we will not compromise on access and quality of health care. 100% of the savings from compensation reform will go toward ensuring that our troops have the training they need to accomplish their missions -- readiness. if congress blocks these without adjusting current budget caps or if sequestration remains the law

, it will jeopardize the readiness and capability of our armed forces and shortchange america's ability to effectively and decisively respond when global events demand. my submitted statement details how sequestration would compromise our national security. budget supports our defense strategy and defend this country and keeps our commitment -- all of our commitments -- to our people. the chairman, chiefs, and i strongly support it. i look for it to your questions. >> thanks. general dempsey. durban,s, chairman members of the committee. i appreciate the chance to speak about our budget the 25th team. i went to add my appreciation to undersecretary hale for his years of service to the department and nation. let me begin by commenting on iraq. the men and women who serve their did exactly what we asked

them to do. qaeda-inspired extremists triggers and me the same thing of anyone who served there, bitter disagreement -- bitter disappointment that they failed to unite for the good of their people. i share alarm and we are developing a full range of options to help stabilize the region. let me also speak to afghanistan. we remain fully engaged on the mission at hand. they continued to build the institution of the afghan national security forces who secured the recent elections to allow the first democratic transition of power in afghanistan's history. the decision on troop numbers positions us to support off in a stance transition. it aligns military object is with resources and allows us and our allies the plan for 25th teen and 26 team of continuing to focus on the important work at hand this year. -- allows us and our allies to

plan for 2015 and 2016. last week, the joint chiefs and i met with the united kingdom's and bind chiefs in london for the first such meeting since 1948. we agreed that now is not the time for business as usual. we cannot think too narrowly about future security challenges nor can we be too certain that we would get it right. each of my international engagements reaffirms that u.s. military primacy is still regarded as the world's best hope for stability and prosperity. there's a real sense that our primacy might get risk in part because of the choices being made in this city on the defense budget. we needd last year, time, certainty, and flexibility to balance the institution and to allow us to meet the nation's needs for the future. without these things, our commitments to our allies and partners, to the defense industrial base, and to the men

and women who serve in uniform and their families will be placed in jeopardy. it will undercut the reassurances that i just spent a good deal of my time delivering around the world. at the same time, this congress has demanded correctly that we be more strategic, efficient, innovative and the way that we do business. this budget in real terms does all of these things and it's a pragmatic way forward that balances as best as it can our national security and our fiscal responsibilities. yet our efforts to reshape and reform the military continue to be rejected. we have infrastructure we don't need and with your support we should be able to divest. we have legacy weapons systems we cannot be able to sustain and with your support, we should be retire. personnel costs should be able changes to make the all volunteer force more

sustainable over time. failing to act on these issues is a choice that will force us into an unbalanced level of cuts to readiness and modernization. when major portions of the budget are rendered untouchable, readiness pay the bill. this ultimately makes our force less effective than this nation needed to me. -level cutsation return, the options of me will be able to provide the nation shrinks and the risks will become, in my judgment, unmanageable. this is a reckless and unnecessary path. i know these issues weigh heavily on the mind of our men and women in uniform and their families. i hear about it constantly. i know they weigh heavy on you. your support and i stand ready to answer your questions.

they merge at some point but we have to choose. 13 years ago when we were both serving in the united states senate, we faced a historic vote on whether the united states would go to war in iraq. it was long, involved, and bitter debate. the senate finally decided to give authority to president bush to go forward with that invasion of iraq. here we stand today, 13 years later. 4484 brave americans in iraq, tens of thousands returning with the scars of war, applying for disabilities with the v.a. at a record level pushing that agency to the brink in terms of providing the services. having spent several trillion dollars added to our deficit, in

a situation where we invested aliens of dollars so that the iraqis would be able to defend themselves, i will concede political ineptitude when it comes to the leadership of iraq. some decisions made by mr. malik divided his country. one of the hard targets is iran, which has been a threat to stability in the middle east and the world. now we find conjecture and speculation that we need to work with iran to stabilize iraq. -- first, howe did we find ourselves in this position? is this the right course to follow? what have we learned the situation in iraq that we can apply to afghanistan in terms of their ability to defend themselves once we are gone?

>> mr. chairman, i wish i was wise enough to sort all of that out for you and give you a clear, concise answer, but let me respond this way. first, on the comparison with afghanistan, it is my judgment that the two their little in comparison for many reasons. iraq, afghanistan is not internally, historically, ethnically, religiously. second, there are strong support in afghanistan today for america's continued, as well as nato isaf partners, presence both president saying they would sign a bilateral security group -- agreement. that aside, i think there are many differences between iraq and afghanistan. back to a few more fundamental questions. let's take one piece, iran.

when the forget that united states went into 2001 --tan in late actually, early on, we had worked with the iranians on that western border of afghanistan. ofre is some history here sharing common interests. we have significant differences, obviously. that is what vienna is about, what's going on there as well as other interests. iran is a state wants her of terrorism and all of the other issues. but when it comes to the common interest of a nation, whether it's the united states or any nation, that is what forges some kind of reality to what we are dealing with. certainly, iraq is a good example. areof the neighbors in iraq

being and will be affected by what's going on here. these are regional issues. those other terrorist groups affiliated with al qaeda are all a threat to all nations certainly including us. i don't think these issues come in geopolitical graduate school papers. they are complicated. they are intertwined with history, tribal differences, religious differences, ethnic differences. in iraq, i think the afterunities we presented a rather significant and committed number of years there where president bush signed with i laying outnt malik h

when the troops would be out of iraq in december 2008. we presented the iraqis with tremendous opportunities to govern themselves, defend themselves in we continue to support iraq. we have accelerated the program dictateq but we cannot outcomes. i know it is kind of a wave top answer. if all those competitions fit together and we are faced with the reality of dealing with we right nowe ground threatening your interests, all of the nations of this area, the nations are threatened and certainly iran is threatened. , i don't knowpsey there is any end to the ambition of vladimir putin. i do believe that there is one tripwire.

he has shown he's willing to invade the republic of georgia and take over territory, which i have seen the barbed wire that therates once was one republic of georgia. he has shown that he's willing -- i wouldith people not call them uniforms, but parkas with no insignia on them invading crimea, ukraine. it seems to me the only tripwire to stop this man's naked russian to restore the empire is nato. the obvious question for us in the west, if and when the day comes when putin decides to test us, are we ready? our nato allies ready to stand together and stop any aggression exhibits towards any members of our alliance? >> chairman, briefly, the tactic that russia is using is one i would describe as coercion and

misinformation. i doubt that there will be a full-blown invasion, but we have to be alert to the other tools that he may use to actually undermine stability, notably in the baltics and some of our eastern european allies. proximate coercion. array your borders and threaten the use of force. subversion, as you have noted by surrogates and proxies, and misinformation to get ethnic populations stirred up. i think russia lit a fire in somewhat burned out of their control. i think ukraine is in for a very difficult path as a result. they have taken the security for granted and can no longer do so. >> are they ready? are we ready? >> questions about readiness would be best answered in a classified session.

we are not as ready as we need to be. >> secretary hegel, general dempsey, thank you for taking the time to be here especially with all that's going on in the world. -- secretary hagel. undersecretary hale has been a tremendous help to all of us here. i also wanted to applaud the justice department, the fbi, department of defense. , you're to bel capture. for the i'm glad you are bringing him back you to be tried in our courts. we americans will show we are not afraid.

we don't have to send these people off to guantánamo. we can try them in our courts. i remember my family just spent months there working with the military. i look at a place like that where we are spending millions of dollars per year to lock people up. we could put them in maximum-security here in the u.s. and get convictions. i'm glad we can show the rest of the world we are not afraid just as we were not when the oklahoma city armor, a great terrorist attack, we used our courts. i have great confidence in them. i also look at the things that we have. i was glad to see you reference, general dempsey, the reserves, as did secretary hagel.

senator graham and i introduced a commission to provide advice to the congress. including senators durbin and cochran, the language has been in the house offense authorization in the armed services committee. i hope that becomes a lot you will work very closely to make sure that followed. >> we will follow the law. >> it would have been news if you had said otherwise. you observedey, with sexual assault of the military, everyone taking the eye off the ball. alsoepartment has instituted even more of their own. have they been effective? where are we today in this?

>> our eye is on the ball and the initiatives we've taken are beginning to positively affect the negative trend lines that i reported to you next year. -- last year. we have work to do both in our own initiatives and initiatives that the secretary of the ants has directed us to undertake. i think i would simply say to you that we are up mystic that we have to turn this around. forget about up a mizzen. it does erode the foundation of trust on which our military relies. we will turn it around and we have our eye on the ball. >> i remember as a prosecutor how difficult this can be to prosecute depending upon how much of the agency is involved. in that case, civilian law enforcement agencies willing to actually look at these issues. as you know from your own ,xperience in the military

there is a wide variance among military commanders and how they look at this. i would urge you to keep pushing for some consistency. to in our have military academies. this is something where we are going to encourage the best people coming into the military and we have to show that this is a zero tolerance area. >> if i could react, senator? i assure you that it is a zero tolerance area. 11 live consistency now. we raise the level at which a decision can be made to investigate or not and we have nine different ways a young man or woman can report an incident.

we have a level of consistency that i think would satisfy your concerns. >> thank you very much. we have had these media accounts , as you know, and i direct this to both of you and secretary hagel. years of training provided by and we saw in iraq so many in the iraqi military whenthrow down their arms the militants advance on them. i'm not trying to compare apples to oranges, but do we face a similar situation enough can a stand? >> are you asking me? you and then the secretary. thanks two divisions and one national police organization did, in fact, throw down their

arms and in some cases collude with, in some cases simply desert, in northern iraq. at some of our intelligence reports. they did that because they had simply lost faith in the central withnment in iraq dealing the entire population in a fair, equitable way providing help for all of them. you ask if that could happen in afghanistan. the newly elected government will have a lot more to say about that and anyone here. i would tell you of the two candidates, it is our assessment there is a likelihood that they will try to form and maintain a union government frappe in a stand, but i cannot completely convince either myself or you that the risk is zero that it could not happen in a and a stand. senator, i would agree with

what the chairman said in his analysis. partially go back to the answer i gave to chairman durbin aboute asked his question iraq and afghanistan. there is no guarantee in life, which we know. it is up to the people of afghanistan to make these decisions, their military, their new leadership, that will be coming in as a result of their new government. we have helped them build as isaf nato9 of our partners very significant military is to to shins, thening, responsible with announcement of the president's plan where we will be there another two years as we phase out transition, our roles. i think that significant.

made inthe progress afghanistan has been very significant. different dynamics, different ethnic religious dynamics. it does not mean they don't have differences in their country. a very tortured history, as we all know. stay steady and keep doing what we are doing. then i think the prospects of they, ining out where fact, can defend themselves, govern themselves. element bring about an of representative government, freedom, and rights for all of their people. that's as good as it can get. tape. that, we cannot do we can only go so far in helping any country. >> i will submit for the record a question on the convention on council relations. we are trying to get that

through. i know the department of defense position, but i will submit that for the record and i would like a response. >> thank you, senator leahy. senator coats. -- secretary dan coats. >> based on my previous service in the senate and some service that thefully aware pentagon has a contingency plan on the shelf for just about every possible scenario from nuclear war to an invasion by canada. and everything in between. my question is, given what we have seen happen here in iraq, maybe we did not anticipate how stunningly quick a territory could be yielded in major cities could be taken over without resistance. nevertheless, after he failed to a status and force

agreement with iraq, there had to be some anticipation that some of this territory would be up for grabs and there would be scenarios with a lack of confidence and leadership or capability of the iraqi military on its own would lead to something. was there a plan on the shelf? ?f so, what is it i noted and i wrote down the quote here. we're in the process of developing options. that's different than having options already brought -- fought through and strategized. we do not have a plan on the shelf for the invasion of canada. i want to make sure our canadian allies who may be watching -- [laughter] what options do we have?

we generally for nations where we're not in active conflict, we generally describe our options in terms of what resources we can put around the situation and then develop options and present them to our elected leaders. right now we have a great deal of i.s.r. assets committed to iraq. we have a great many maritime assets and aviation assets committed to iraq. and we've placed a few contingency, mostly for force protection of the united states embassy and facilities forces in and around baghdad. now, that said, we have prepared options. we've been discussing them within the interagency. the president of the united states will meet today with members of congress in a classified session and i don't intend to foreshadow his conversation, but i would be happy at some point if you'd like to provide a classified

briefing on that subject. >> isn't it a little bit late? i mean, the territory has already been lost. the cities have already been taken. the weapons -- u.s. weapons have already been seized. the banks have been robbed. oil maybe or may not be in control of the extremist groups which is a great source of monetary resource. isn't it too late now sitting down and talking to members of congress and say basically let's look at the options? >> it's only late you suggest we could have stopped it in some way. i think it's worth remembering. the real threat in iraq that is common to all of us is isis. which as you know started off as al qaeda in iraq, went to syria and is now back in iraq. so this all started and stops with iraq. and there is very little that could have been done to overcome the degree to which the government of iraq had failed its people. that's what caused this problem. >> senator, may i answer that?

one piece of your question was i think about surprise, we did not anticipate this. senator graham, senator blount, the director of our defense agency, dr. flynn's testimony before the senate armed services committee in february and in that testimony he said that it is likely that -- specifically, isil may well take territory in iraq or attempt to take territory in iraq. now, that doesn't negate, why weren't you prepared, why didn't you know about it. the other part of that is -- and i think it goes back to what general dempsey was talking about. i think we were surprised that

the iraqi divisions is -- specifically the ones that general dempsey talked about, just threw down their weapons. we had obviously as general dempsey said are always working options and scenarios. and we knew isil for the reasons general dempsey talked about has been a threat in syria and elsewhere. so, again, i go back to we can only do so much. we didn't have a presence in iraq, as you know, for the very reason you mentioned, because the iraqis would not give us the immunity and what we needed to get. i think all those are parts to your question. >> would you agree, mr. secretary, that the current situation in iraq is in our national, economic and security interests? >> oh, i do agree if for no other reason than oil.

you mentioned energy and oil and it's a regional issue. i believe that. so the ripple effect of what's going on there, everywhere -- >> given that, do you think we therefore should have some response other than no response, at least to this point? >> well, i don't think it's a matter of no response. >> no response is making a difference. >> i'm not sure of that. but i would give you the same response that general dempsey did. the president is meeting with congressional leadership this afternoon. >> do you think it's too late? i mean, we've already lost the territory. they already gained control of the second largest city in iraq. we lost blood and treasure and people lost limbs and died to save. we've already lost it. so it's like crimea. do we say, ok, fine, that's done? >> we didn't lose anything. the iraqi government. >> well, in terms of our national interest we lost it. >> you can say that for a lot of

things. it's not that the united states lost anything. we turned a pretty significant situation over, as you noted, for the very reasons you noted to the iraqi people when we phased out of our military involvement in iraq. and so we have done everything we could to help them. it's up to the iraqis. they wanted to manage and govern their own country, so i don't think we should assign the blame to the united states for this. i think we go back to who is responsible for this, isil, they invaded, but also this current government in iraq has never fulfilled the commitments it made to bring a unity government together with the sunnis, the kurds and the shiia. we have worked hard with them within the confines of our ability to help them do that. but we can't dictate to them.

>> well, my time is up. i'll yield back. i simply want to say there have been many situations in the history of this country that have been in our national interest, both economically and strategically. and we -- the country that was taking place didn't step up. i think a lot of countries look to american leadership, and i'm not advocating any specific military action, but they're looking to leadership in terms -- like to know somebody's got their back. i think it would have been easier for the soldiers to shed their uniforms and run because they didn't have nobody at their back. to basically state that just because the country didn't deliver what we wanted them to deliver, it's something that in our national security interests that we take a pass or wait too long until it's too late i don't think is the kind of answer we

want to give. mr. chairman, over my time. >> when we're not there we're not there. i mean, i don't know what you would expect the united states to do. >> well, i hope we could get somewhere. >> well, we are. that's what we've been doing the last week and the president will talk to leaders of congress. we've been briefing, by the way, in classified briefings the last few days, members of congress. >> i think it would be good if president could talk to the congress and to the american people and let us know where we are. thank you. >> senator reed. >> thank you, mr. chairman. with respect briefly to iraq. state department operation basically because they run the embassy, but in the context of centcom, particularly, have we been communicating to maliki and to his military questions about their capacity and their willingness and their effective leadership?

and have we made it clear in conjunction, general flynn's testimony there were real threats they faced and they had to make adjustments, is that something that was done? >> senator, absolutely. let me give you something personal. when the syria issue began to manifest itself, i went to baghdad personally and met with the most senior members of their leadership and government. they were all, of course, worried about syria. what's going to come in from syria to affect us? i said, that's the wrong question. the question is, how will you take this opportunity -- that is to say a perceived threat to your country from outside -- and use it as an opportunity to actually bring your government, your people together on the basis of that common threat? that was a year ago.

and in that year the behavior was for the most part exactly counter to what you would probably try to do if you were trying to bring your people together. changing military leadership, cronyism. just all forms of sectarianism that have led us to where we are today. >> but have you, through others, communicated consistently the operational consequences of these political decisions that they are in danger of -- they're endangering their own security? >> frequently. >> frequently. and the response by both the civilian and military authorities has been indifference? >> i would describe their response is a volume of conspiracy theories. >> turning to the present moment. maliki, we've all had -- many of us, at least, have had occasion

to meet with him numerous times. at least in one moment in the history he surprised a lot of us by taking very aggressive action in basra in 2008. where he was able to go after elements that everyone thought were untouchable. in fact, he was ahead of our own commanders in terms of taking the offensive. at this moment, is it your sort of impression that he understands that this is an existential moment for him and his country and he's willing effectively to start doing things that would at least stop the momentum and reverse the tide and -- >> senator, i don't know. our ambassador is in country along with brett mcburke, trying to understand exactly how maliki is thinking about this situation. that question would be better passed to the state department.

>> final question. just the leverage that we have, given the fact that we were trying to communicate serious concerns about their military capabilities, not so much of the training of the individual soldiers and the equipment they had. that seemed to be quite adequate. it was just at the level of leadership and political direction of the military forces. do we -- do we -- do we think we've done enough in that regard or tried enough or hit the right buttons? >> well, i mean, clearly we will look back on this and do what we always do, be introspective and use that result the way we build partners. i should mention, by the way, as though the two units in the north collapsed and police units, there's still multiconfessional units of the iraqi armed forces standing and defending in and around baghdad. multiconfessionals. this has not broken down

entirely on sectarian lines but it could. >> i want to very quickly change subjects and that is to the persistent, ubiquitous and emerging threat of cyber. are you comfortable, mr. secretary, that you are doing enough of the planning and gaming and assuming all of the new technology has come online in response to the question about crimea, one of the things that the russians did was cleverly employ cyberoperations as an adjunct to the battle plan. i understand that will be probably the opening salvo of any engagement going forward. and to the issue of war planning, are you actively engaging the war colleges, educational institutions in this

sort of d.o.d. level, secretary of defense level sort of what's coming, what's the worst case, are we ready or where are the gaps? >> senator, on your first question, it is one of the areas of our budget that we have requested an increase, cyber. i think it's $5.1 billion to get our capability up quickly, move it to around i think 6,000 employees. we put a high, high priority on this in the last two years for obvious reasons. am i confident we're doing enough, i'm confident that we're doing everything we need to be doing but we're constantly reassessing, senator. i don't think anyone can be too confident because there are surprises all the time, but we recognize what's out there. we recognize the technology that is moving so rapidly. the threats that are clear to this country, to the world, we are working interagency with all

the appropriate assets and tools we have to bring together the coordinated value added to your question about war college and other outside units, interests, enterprises to get their best advice, absolutely. because we don't think we are alone, the repository for all of this. this is as high a priority overall as we have. >> thank you. just one comment. i want to thank secretary hale for your appearance. this is your last one. i think the leverage -- the only leverage we would have would simply to sort of pull support back which might have even made the situation worse. so this is, again, i think

something that we realize some many years ago there's no good answer there. but it's -- it's a very -- i tell you, gentlemen, it's a very disturbing situation at the moment. thank you. >> senator graham. >> thank you. mr. hale, make sure in your last appearance you get to speak. [laughter] as you depart, would you advise the congress and the administration to deal with the growing personnel cost because without some personnel reforms it would be hard to maintain the budget? >> i appreciate an easy question, senator. and the answer is absolutely yes. as the chairman and secretary said, we need to deal with -- >> about 50% of our costs. >> yes. >> and the future retirement reforms, looking at tricare and trying to be rational in terms of cost sharing, correct? >> yes. all of those are elements, as you know, on the retirement side. we have been working with and waiting for the commission.

but we think we have especially in tricare a good proposal that will most of the savings, frankly, don't come out of the pockets of the troops. >> and my colleagues, i hope we will listen to what mr. hale says and try to stabilize the budget. now, to iraq, is it possible, general dempsey, to stop isis without u.s. airpower? >> isil -- isis, whatever we call them -- >> the people that al qaeda kicked out. >> or broke contact because they're more radical. >> yeah, these people. >> i suspect -- first, we have a request from the iraqi government for airpower. >> you do? >> we do. >> do you think it's in our national security interest to honor that request? >> it is in our national security interest to counter isil wherever we find them. >> fair statement. because -- and i want the

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 would 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 southern part of iraq possesses a tremendous amount of oil. >> the iranians dominate the southern part of iraq. the central government collapses and the iranians enrich and the world as a whole suffers. have vowed to attack the united states, is that fair to say? >> there is reporting that although they are a regional threat, they have aspirations to attack western interests. >> if they have a safe haven, that is a bad scenario for us, is that true? >> that is a higher risk scenario. >> to our homeland being attacked. >> over time. time. this time but over >> i would say that the head of this group was a former

detainee, is that correct? jobpeople did a very good on the ground, general stone and others but he has reported that when they let him out of camp, he traveled to baghdad and turned to colonel collins and said, i will see you in new york. does that -- i'm just telling 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 an overstatement 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 strategically 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 talk 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 repentant people at all. they are thugs and killers. 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 pashtus. >> less than 6% or 7%. the afghan army is seen as an occupying power in the kandahar region. that's just a reality. just like the -- iraqi was seen -- 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 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? >> khattala 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 various sunni extremist and tribal members, plus what he called passport fighters coming into the area. what do you assess the size and how far are they from baghdad at 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 cauldron of northern iraq you have former baathists, 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 why the 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 asked 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 convinced that the maliki government has got to go if you want reconciliation. 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. that 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 co-opt some of the leaders of those two divisions. now, i will tell you, when i was building the iraqi security forces from 2005-2007, 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. i 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 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 terrorist group boko 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 ground working 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

this, the urgency of this, but let me also address your questions about why wasn't there more action quicker, so on. first, as you know we cannot just drop into a sovereign country without that country's government asking us for assistance. that country, 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 terrain wise, as complicated a part of the world as there is. they have triple, quadruple canopied jungles. they move them around. deadly smart guys, boko haram. unless the chairman would like to add anything, that would be my general assessment. 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 seems 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 abu khattala 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 away, 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 of now of 303 ship navy is not 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 multi-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, gen. 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 destabilizing 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 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 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 as 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 -- the 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 s.v.c.'s 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 member'' 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 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 chiefs, 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 it but 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, mr. 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 initiative. 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 defense 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 i want to make sure that you under that the chiefs will need to have a voice on this because force.effect on the >> i think that's valid. can you start your review with premise?wing

tobacco is the only product legally sold in america today used according to manufacturers directions will you. >> i accept that. my father died of cancer, and survivor, not from tobacco, but it is legal and that is an issue for the broader states. of the united not uniquely for the united states. someone's legal i guess could rationalize that we should smoke right here. we decided not to. inhink our men and women uniform if they have healthier and longer lives would be a good should of a policy we follow. senator collins? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and i want to associate myself comments about giving a discount for buying tobacco at our commissaries or px's or