of our national debt and reinvigorate our struggling economy. failed toe standoffs produce a grand bargain. with the deficit having fallen since the peak in 2009 and washington mired in gridlock, some suggested it is time to move on from the budget debate. deficits are going to rise. whether they like it or not the face a numberwill that demand actions action. those of you in the audience who work here on capital hill will these into opportunities to enact more spending policies. those of you who choose to leadership mantle of on importantish eyes are here to assist you.

previously mark also served as of the tant director 2011 and 20113 months at analyst known as reduction the super committee. next we have steve bell who director of ior economic policy. on the that steve worked staff of senator pete and budget 1981 to 1986 and last but not least we have bob, he executive tkroebgter of the concord coalition. he served a member of the debt force, also no one as the commission who pro a solution for addressing the fiscal challenges. with that i'll pose the first panel and each of the panel will have ten minutes to answer and open it up for questions. what do you is,

see as the major opportunities for progress in the upcoming can lawmakers w best take advantage of them. we'll start with mark. here and ou for being thanks to the concord coalition nd ben for organizing this event. i have entioned substantial experience failing a grand bargain. the concept was relatively traightforward and it was a concept that was pretty broadly to.eed would have to agree o cut the excesses out of defense and non-defense and democrats would have to's agree the entitle programs while do so by programs. republicans will have to reform by cutting the 1

trillion plus dollars and using money to reduce rates, simply identify the code and growth. both sides would give economy space to grow. simple.ulation was entightment reform, tax reform economy time to grow. unfortunately that's not where we ended up. we ended up with, we started with the easiest part. boehner and tried to do it, they had kps but they didn't solve our debt problem. ended up with some revenue, not from tax reform but rates at the top 1%. revenue and it got different ways. and then we let the sequester hit. nstead going for the

thetlements we went back to defense and non defense. situation s in a where we didn't get the grand argain but got it in the short and medium term. now, we took a big chunk out of the grand bargain making it harder. i don't want to declare it dead here right now but it sus'nt two years n the next we're going to get back to the table and come up with the big package. look at what's being discussed in congress now nd what will be discussed in the next -- in the coming weeks and months, we may be moving in the opposite direction. of the w before the end year we'll likely deal with the tax breaks that expires every and every year we renew them. that will deal with

increase the testify dit in the wrong direction. have weeks after that we fix.eal with the doc if we want to avoid that it will add to the deficit. problems that could actually take us backwards to erase some of the progress that we made. but there are opportunities, tos to help us move forward and be a launching pad mini bargins on tax reform and health reform for starters. news on that front both on the health reform side and the tax reform side. reform side, an agreement ly from tri-committee that we need take the sustainable growth rate which cuts payments and replace it rewards thing that

physicians based on value of care. piece of legislation would supported that take and replace it. that is good news and that moves us value based healthcare and on the tax side there is good news. tried to find what the common and had in the it wasn't much. to get rid of a lot of the tax breaks and use it to competitive. at 35% we have the highest in the world.rate but because we have so many other tax breaks we're not revenue and much we're not internationally competitive. agreements e's some we can move forward on. if you look at the framework that the president put together piece of legislation that the chairman put together overlap. a lot of

you can see where there's a compromise there. he problem is, that's the easy part. it's agreeing on the goodies. give the physicians a better formula and make our competitive.e but all those things have the risk of increasing the deficit pay for them. they should be paid for in a way that moves the ball forward on and tax reform. for those of you that picked up we came in, it's released and we put in a plan that's called the prep plan. plan would assume that we go with the permanent s.g.r. that of the has been discussed and expire extenders for two years to pay for it. rewarding quality

of care and not quantity which arena lace in the drugs and new payment models and undling payments and getting rid of disparities and focus on of quantity.ad the other third comes from beneficiaries. crazy system where people face different types of eductibles and all buy additional wrap around coverage cost. drives up it's a much simpler formula this the same ybody deductible and everybody out of limit. medicare beneficiaries would ave more because they would be better incentive and more catastrophic inst risk. and sharing would decline out of pocket costs would be lower for most because of the reforms, but it also saves and more details

in the plan. extenders.e tax we can't keep dealing with them two years at a time. unfortunately time is too reform. enact full tax what we propose is a fast track moving. to get it we know the pieces we know that what we need to do is lower the reduce the deficit and promote growth. the corporate and individual side but we got to get moving and we can't be wants to go obody first. this and s will help we came up with a package for as we year extenders work for individual or tax reform. would not cut any tax breaks but focus on increasing current e within the tax code ask do it two different increase report to

collect the taxes that people already owe and second it would most egregious loopholes. it would basically keep the structure of the tax code as it is. make sthaur people are owing. take a major look at all the tax expenditure asks reform ow to reduce or them so we can get to a reform tax code. a plan like this would make it an excellent step and wouldn't solve our debt situation but it would show us where we need to start to our healthcare system more focused and move us o a more competitive tax code and opportunity i don't think we should miss. i only have a minute left but here are a few other there, the oneout that comes immediately after is the highway trust fund which in way.

there's a gas tax and how much spending on highways. disparity sing the with gimmicks. thefor those of you who get joke we're running out. we can't keep it forever. to come up with a permanent solution. there are tons of ideas out happy to discuss. nd lastly, the social security disability trust fund runs out of money. at that point without action be a 20% across the board cut. i think there is some wisdom that would take money from the program. there's so much incredible room to begin to improve this social security disability program and make sure social security good. it is an opportunity to do step one, tax

reform step one and focus on issues. the important so thank you everyone. >> my name is steve bell. the center of policy.an range from tom daschle to to trent lott. let me talk about in 1981 to i was staff director. you have or you had the opportunity if you picked it up look at this chart.

his is not a joke, this is reality. you might remember when the late senator from pennsylvania got on the floor of the united states outlined what the illary clinton health plan would look like and err one said this is crazy. you can't do that. what most of us didn't realize doing this.dy this is the way the budget and process works now. nd it is not with any particular wisdom that i say of the members and their staff do not know how the appropriations process works. of the % of the members house have been elected over the last four cycles.

almost that many in the senate -- none of this is intuitive. or 3 of us that worked left i left in '86 and bill. my friend i blame him for most of this. he disowns it. the first thing complexity of the process. that ked about a plan various people have had. we'll have a plan and call it 1 and 2 were torpedoed. but the plan has to be something that deals with the complexity get things done in the senate house. we also come out with a series recommendations to change the

budget process itself. budget first started budget reform and impoundment act, it was a community in the house. picked justip house like they do on your rules committee, they pick the people to be in there. also chairman of budget. one year as the jealousies that you would happened, led to the committee becoming really a committee that you get stuck -- unless you y were a cpa you really did not on this committee.

so we believe the composition of committee should change. becoming go back to committees.ppointed me use under this, let very few d, mess, people have a dog in the fight. of the committees in the senate, for example, are not in the budget process, together somedget time in february and we try to get it some time out in april there's about 25 people in he united states senate, members and half staff that know what they're doing. it to the floor and say, what good boys you are. like to do this and they

say what is this? a legitimate pre quest. one way around that is put enior members of the ortsdz rising committees and at least one of the member of the senate appropriation committees on the new budget where they can go back and talk to their membership as the budget is and say, this is what they want to do in the committee, of our what do you guys think? early buy-in. lot you get that buy-in a of stuff in this chart goes away. composition we think is extremely important. i think the next important thing to admit that in 1985 i and

the rest of the staff were to writing some when senator graham came up with the ask that his name be stricken. senator redmond is dead and only erson who really is defending testimony graham was ied as in i didn't know it could way.his let's talk about these so-called sequester.led here's what it doesn't do. programs. prioritize it's just as important to future f-35. no person in the pentagon would tell that you. says that money we give do

u.s.a. id is just as effective on a ey we give 0 bilateral basis. all cut equally across the board. nice way of not and a stupid way of managing and it is led us to i can say ion where that even though she said this private meeting last eek, former ambassador who is one of the authors of the said, "under port the 2016 sequester caps the of america will not be able to meet its needs."ic defense many of us in the audience were statement.y that

was asked she said she absolutely meant it. the other panel. was also on the a republican. absolutely agreed. hearing from very smart cutting back 're on all sorts of things we ought cutting back on to what end. we're going to add an additional to the national debt after all these cuts. are the smallest programs and the slowest growing programs. so when your members went out i'm going to ll, cut the death and it balance the budget. some sense of ke this, what they didn't realize decisions of these

have already been made. about 90% ofuester these decisions have already the made before they take oath of office. i want to conclude about talking debt ceiling. the reason is -- i was very to work for a man da d howard baker and pete vinci. there is no doubt in my mind power ving congress the to set the debt limit and use it a hostage for other kinds of its is long past usefulness. i believe very strongly we not have a debt ceiling united states house and senate. to get se the process

around that, stkpeut's not only me. there is a conservative australia, bright guys, they decided they were involve their egislature forsetting a debt ceiling and they did and that same government said we're not oing to do this again and they removed that particular provision allowing the set alian parliament to debt ceilings. the debt ceiling to me is just monetary policy. really want 535 people of and us backgrounds monetary ns setting policy for this country that has currency of the world. you might want it at first blush it. u ought not to want

so we believe in getting rid of ceiling and getting rid caps, improving the composition of the pwublg et ommittees and reducing the complexity of a process that many of you will find very you along this ear rplt >> we'll talk about some of the reiterate i want to that, yeah, i think that as mark beginning, we have made some progress with the the it coming down from astronomical heights that it was in the last several years and does provide a sense of relief and people think that, naturally maybe we can lock at other things. but there is still a need for term fiscal outlook to

on an essed and still unstainsable path. will start going up again fairly soon. have a ally don't mission accomplished situation. to maybe do what we can. there probably isn't a grand bargain on the horizon any time soon. one.ld love to see sign me rward to it. it's you want it. but probably not going to happen in the next two years. my time in iowa and nicole murphy not running to raiseing but trying the profile of the fiscal issues campaigns sidential because i do think the first budget of the next president important in very

that regard. doesn't mean that we should give up on anything that is happening here in the next years. because there are issues to can do some e things positively in a bipartisan way that could help for a larger s deal and that could build some parties ween the working together and perhaps uild some public trust that washington can work and can actually get some things done of .e /*. the highway trust fund is a good coulde that the two sides get together on. it has a deadline so there's an forcing event at the same consensus we a should have a viable

infrastructure in this country and the current revenue stream enough to pay for the expected expenditures. straightforward problem in that regard and getld be something we could a longer range agreement on, one don't have this constant threat of projects shut down and people being off. obviously the same is true with the sustainable growth rate on that's another deadline that's coming up and there will be an aoupb tao that and y to address hopefully both parties are agreement on to an that. have two other things. to pick updebt limit

on what steve was talking about, and the social security system.ity i think those are two that get a longer it more into the we have some shorter term things and have to pick up funding for next year. i fully endorse mark's idea to have them paid for. from scratch tart and let them all go. and only extend those that are paid for. opportunity a good to really scrap the tax code by and ng these things expire see which could be enacted in offsets.t of day with but to get into the two other longer term ave connotatio

on social security disability, think about this. tend to think social security is a problem way off in the trust and it's fund will go bankrupt in the 20 hirties some time why do we worry about it now? but for one thing the program is running a cash deficit. to remember that the trust fund is a claim on eneral revenues but social security is paying out more than t's taking it right now and that situation will continue to get worse. disability portion, s.d. i., urity o. a. that's programmed -- not projected to but run dry in -- by the fall of 2016. interesting timing. fall ofld happen in the 2016 if there wasn't any action? ell there, would be an across

the board disability cut of 19 to 20%. that's not going to happen. wants it to happen. o this is -- some piece of egislation effecting social security will pass the congress before then. s the question is, is it going to be another punt, just kick he can down the road and shift funding around or could it be an broaderity to look some reforms that would not just be focused on d. i.but sol could extend the 50-sevensy of the entire system. d. i.is a leading indicator reason it's in running the short fall that it s is the demographics like an early indicator going off the whole system. so, it would make sense to look at a broader fix. can do it outside the budget

context. ne thing about social security reform is that it should be part of a grand bargain but something separate. we can do that. it is dicey when you get into social security but talk about dicey, i mean, disability benefits, right before the election. i don't think so. that is an opportunity. the other one i will mention is the debt limit. i feel like steve about the debt limit. i have been advocating balanced 22get and debt reduction for years. not as long as you, steve, but long enough. so i take a backseat to nobody on the idea of controlling debt. there should be a mechanism in place to control debt.

i don't think the current debt limit is the best way to do it. for a couple of reasons, for one, the number it self is arbitrary. it is not linked to any whichular economic goal, it should be the debt to gdp ratio. figure is, the actual not that important. going as a it is percentage of gdp. i would like to see a debt limit, if we could link it to gdp. the penalties for breaching the debt limit should be tied to the policies that produce the debt. so if you are exceeding some targeted level of debt, the penalty should not be to default

on the government obligation and endanger the credit worthiness of the united states. why don't we do something that affects those policies? if it has to happen like sequestration or taxes, tax expenditures, if you can do that in some way, that would make the debt limit -- i want some sort of mechanism that would be effective. -- the problem is it is a trigger that cannot be pulled. ultimately we have found nobody is really willing, thank god, to default on the debt. it is not clear it is an effective deterrent going forward. it has been used in the past to get things done. but i really think, agree with steve that time may have passed for that. is going to be

effective going forward because people are sick of the act of defaulting on the debt, threatening to default on the debt and it plays into part of the frustration the public has as i hear in new hampshire from people who wish things could work in washington. so i hope we can find a more and use thebt limit opportunity, whether the debt fund,or the highway trust if we can use the next couple of up, tos a way to set make progress, and maybe set up things so that next time around, mark and steve and i will not be failures in our attempt to bring across a bigger deal. -- i wantto went in to mention one more thing. october 1 next year, mary ryan

was a partial relief of the sequestration. starting in fiscal year 2016, that sequestration comes back. there is an opportunity to replace some of those across the board short term cuts with some sensible reform. >> all right. thank you for your insight on that. touess we will open it up questions from the audience if anyone has them. they wanted toc use. did anyone have any questions? footnote you will have a more detailed description of the fast track process? do you have a preview? -- there working on are many ways to write fast track. we're not going to say this is the one.

we are trying to get a sense of what kind of has the most a viability. we should have something out the next month or so. a comment and a question, i guess. gio did a report earlier in september, warning about the long-term situation. administration released its deficit numbers, the treasury secretary and omd solve the deficit problem. the debtd is still an issue. if you have comments on that. i have a follow-up question. what do you say to those call krugman's of the world to say the problem is solved. a friend of mine, when he was

nominated to be secretary of the treasury, my old boss introduced him to the finance committee. he is very smart. he is reciting the company line. i say that with great respect for him. i think he is repeating the company line. person can look at the probable path of our debt with 10,000 to 11,000 people a day retiring and going on medicare. and that number increasing and say we are on a sustainable path. >> it is a situation where the numbers are mostly right. the context is missing.

one group says we have cut the deficit in half. that is true. we cut it after raising it 800% in the recession. we need some context. yes, we have stabilized the share of gdp the next few years, but at a record high level we saw during world war ii. administratione is just wrong on this. something that is bothersome is folks were saying don't worry about the short-term deficit. not have been worried about the trillion dollar deficit in a recession. now the problem is the long-term deficit and those same folks are bragging about the short-term deficit. it is on asus state -- an un sustainable trajectory. >> the economy has been

recovering, which is a policy that whatever you think of why it is doing it or whether the administration has good policy, the economy has been recovering. so it is a fairly normal recovery. i say fairlywhen normal, i mean the deficit is coming back down. it is really that trajectory going forward and that is the that makes itnd difficult to talk about because popular programs like social security and medicare, which will get more expensive because there are more beneficiaries, even if growth stabilize, it will be a very expensive growth in these programs because the number of beneficiaries because then you have to think if spending has gone on autopilot, do we need to look at a way of raising revenue?

what are the historic trends looking like? leads to ally, that discussion neither republicans or democrats want to have. so really a lot of this is really demographically different future. look at the those are the things we need to get at long-term. the question i want to ask, you have sequestration that goes into effect october 1. then we have these mandatory caps on spending the next eight years. , low incomep housing, mark you did a great job on that. aside, justration when the caps on domestic

spending, we face the fact sequestration in terms of budget allocation. way we're going to get congress and is if the administration are willing to be honest and deal with the side of the budget where they can really address the growing entitlementat is and bringing new ever knew -- bringing in new revenue from tax reform. they will continue to be squeezed and national defense will be threatened. this isa -- unsustainable. how do we get out of this? agree absolutely it is unsustainable. here's the problem. i think bob put it well. 1.3 trillion dollars.

now we are at $450 billion. isn't that great? ok. 17.7. now we are at 19. we are going to be at 100%, depending whose numbers you want to use, 100% of debt to gdp in the lifetimes of every person except for a couple of us in this room. since theappened birth of almost everyone in this room, are the health programs. 1964 medicare. medicaid. other things like that. to make they changes countries like sweden -- we think of them as socialist, has done, norway has done and other countries have done, we are not willing to do. they actually took money from

coronaiaries making 100 and they say next month you are getting 95. we can't say you're getting $100, you're supposed to get $106. think about the lunacy of that. what we are also doing is this -- i will close with this. there is a famous guy at john hopkins university. he does immensely important cancer research. when the sequester first hit, he to comment on that. here is what he said. three years from now, somebody's mother named sadie is going to die of cancer. it is a cancer we are working on right now. and that we probably could

were put into remission, if we did not have the sequester. he is not a republican. he is not a democrat. when someone tells you we are not going to be able to defend national defense interests, and another person tells you people are going to die that don't need to die, because of the way we are handling the federal budget, you need to pay attention. i'm a grand bargainer. we all agree it is unlikely. the fact we agree it is unlikely is depressing to me. chris fisher, when congress this last on sgr year, there was concern that the value-based reforms were inefficient and that you are

andg a permanent repeal only paying for it for 10 years. the one-yearhed to fix, there was a complaint that now we are going to have to pay for the 11th year. how is this is an opportunity for long-term fixes if you're talking about permanent repeal of something you only have to pay for for 10 years? bill is annk the excellent starting point. there are areas where we can better promote value. there are areas, i'm not going to pick on anyone, there are types of physicians we could pay less. so i would personally go further. it is a good starting point. the problem is we do not have a plan to pay for it. now the growth rate has helped slow health care cost.

it has not worked to keep physician cost down. it has actually increased utilization. it has forced politicians almost every year to replace one year of cuts. sometimes they are bad, sometimes they are good. rather than paying for one year of cuts with 10 years of reforms, paying for 10 years by itself is way better. now is we haveg $25 billion increases and we do theget it back until middle. that is number one. paying for 10 years over 10 years is better than one year over 10 years. i would hope what we look at our permanent payments. there is a lot of work we can do.

both with provider incentive and beneficiary incentive to make everybody better at controlling health care costs. end up with ato reduction within the decade and can helplong run it with health care spending in a way that is better than the current formula. i think we have time for one or two more questions. like a lot of people in this room you think you can solve the problems. there will be room on the edges. now that smart people can't come to together and fix it. mark, you talks about using some tothese short-term solutions

build goodwill and to get people started on coming up with political solutions. can you give an example of what you envision that would look like? what is the first step? it is an excellent question. are reshuffling right now, particularly in the senate. so i could not tell you for sure the first step. if i had to pick one, i would say an agreement to move forward on taxes. right now the president says he wants tax reform. none of them agreed to do it. i think them agreeing, that is how it happened in 1986. it is small. it is just a branch. it does not solve our problems, but it is an important first step. to give onegoing piece of device to the

president, and he does not want to hear it, but i'm going to say it anyway, it would be this -- when you produce your budget for next year, make it a budget that balances within three years. balances within three years. people to the left and the right of me who would say the old man has gone out of his mind. ok. >> i would not say that, steve. [laughter] >> mind reading. >> as a practical political deficits down to when, gdp moves know other than the wall street journal and the financial times, i have not seen that on the front page of any newspaper. they look at something called the balanced legit. president, i would

bite the bullet's that need to be bitten. i would make recommendations to .ncrease revenues at some point you have to realize you don't have enough money to pay for the promises. i would cut programs and make recommendations to change programs over time that would lead to a balanced budget. the only way we were able to do this in 1986 was because ronald reagan said to his people, i don't care about the rest of this stuff. i want a tax bill passed. i have seen the letter he wrote to bob dole saying this is what we need in tax reform. the only way we got a balanced in 1997, 1998, was because bill clinton listened to a guy named bob rubin. he had a lot of market sense.

he said, mr. president, nobody cares about interest rates or markets. is going to eat us alive if we do not do it. to his credit, over many months of painful negotiation, of which i have some scar tissue still, we came to an agreement that yielded a balanced budget. remember two things about bill clinton. one i will not mention. [laughter] the other one is a balanced budget. jack lewis or something like that and i wanted to get a grand bargain, i would not wait for 535 people to get together. i would say this is the way i'm going out. it is going to cost this much money, 19.9% of gdp. we're going to do it with the highway trust fund, medicare,

medicaid, and he would get the same reaction bill clinton got from mrs. clinton and patrick moynihan, which is what in the hell are you doing when he signed the welfare reform bill. if you don't have somebody, if you do not have the guy or gal that is going to put their political standing on the line, you can't expect people -- what does it say in the bible? will charge to the uncertain trumpet? a certaino have t trumpet, somebody to say we have a balanced budget. what do you got? >> i know what i would like. i would like a budget resolution. old-fashioned budget

resolution that the house and senate pass and negotiate and then, you know, pass a joint resolution. concurrent resolution. >> we don't have joint resolutions. >> that would set the discretionary level spending -- through the go traditional appropriations process and actually pass the appropriations bills. you could set targets for tax or maybe some health care reform, something like that. make somen assumptions about highway spending. you really could deal with a lot leastse problems, or at set the groundwork for dealing it. maybe even something about the debt limit into the budget resolution. that would really be nice, if i get -- and of course the

president is not involved in that. maybe if steve gets his wish, congress would work with that in the budget resolution. boy, it is not that everything it could beved, widely ignored. this happens. but i think that would be a real good thing to try to get a lot of the stuff in place. >> all right. it looks like we are just about out of time. i want to thank everyone for coming and let's thank our panelists for talking to us about these important issues. [applause] handouts outside is my contact information, so if you have any additional questions, you can shoot me an e-mail and we hope you found the discussion informative and for those of you who think you are bosses would be interested in tackling these

challenges, don't hesitate to give us a call. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> the u.s. house approved a bill allowing the immediate construction of the keystone xl pipeline. adjoined 221 republicans in voting to improve. all no votes came from democrats. the senate will vote on the measure next week. the white house has not said if president obama would sign or veto the legislation if it

passes both chambers of congress. more coverage when members returned monday at noon eastern, 2:00 eastern for legislative work right here on c-span. tomorrow on "washington lorenzen willas talk about the carbon emissions deal reached with china and later the cato institute's tim lynch will be with us. that is all tomorrow on "washington journal" here on c-span. continues hisa trip to asia and australia. today he was in burma meeting with both government officials and opposition leaders. the trip includes this weekend with his attendance at the g 20 summit in australia. this weekend on c-span, saturday at 8:00 p.m., members of the tuskegee airmen share

stories from their service. >> the main thing about my think, isi like to that the gentleman who went over before me came back and taught me. my instructor in basic flying leonardtenant, captain jackson out of fort worth, texas. he came back and taught me how and how to do6 combat fighting, night flying. cross country. and those men came back and they taught me well. they taught us well. fame is thatm to in primary, my first check run, you guys who are interested, after 20 hours, they give you

a test. yous for you to prove that learn what your instructor is supposed to have taught you. my first was with c. alfred anderson, who happened to have taken mrs. roosevelt up. i did not know any of this until i came out of the service. a big deal when i found out that was the man that took me up and gave me my first check. 8:00, sunday evening at author and president of arabs for israel. and new releases, best-selling author karen armstrong on religion and conflict. and john mccain on "unsung military heroes." and all-day coverage of the world war i centennial symposium starting at 9:30 a.m. eastern.

find our complete schedule at c-span.org. let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. e-mail us at comments at c-span.org or send us a twe et. join the conversation. it like us on twitter. >> here are a few of the comments we have received from our viewers. d 3.watch c-span2 an i am so pleased with the programming, especially the history aspects. i just saw "real america," a c lip where jfk gave a speech in berlin. i enjoy the history programs where the cameras go in and one

class beingual conducted by the professors. went tod when they colorado springs and we heard them talk about the garden of .he gods and pikes peak so once again, please keep up the good work. c-span, were the only good that came out of the congressional recess because bookmeant you put on discussions, the history. i was not prepared to remember the names of the programs, the actual programs. but keep up the great work. thank you. i'm calling to comment on the

american center for progress presentation tonight from health and human services. i'm really upset about that. because i would like c-span to also have a panel of mr. gruber and some of the others who have a very different impression of this. did the same polishing act they did with originally presenting this. they assume we are so dumb that we cannot get the details, that we are stupid, you know, as mr. gruber said. we can sense when there is a salacious, deceptive, and something sleazy going on, and that is why it was like it was. >> continue to let us know about the programs you are watching.

call us or e-mail us. or send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> yesterday, the chair of the joint chiefs of staff general "only aempsey said will beumber of troops" sent to iraq to help forces as they battle isis. they testified in front of the armed services committee along with chuck hagel. next on c-span, the first two hours of the hearing. will be sent to iraq to help forces as they battle isis. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> the committee will come to order. good morning, ladies and gentlemen. before we begin, i'd like to say

up-front that i will not tolerate disturbances of these proceedings, including verbal disruptions, photography or holding signs. we have a hard stop at 1:00 p.m. today because of a house organizational meeting. therefore, after consultation with mr. smith, i ask that each member shall not have more than four minutes rather than the usual five to question the panel of witnesses so that we can get to as many members as possible. thank you. the usual five to question the panel of witnesses so we can get to as many he bes as the committee meets to receive testimony on the administration's military campaign and strategy for syria and iraq. i'd like to welcome secretary hagel and general dempsey. here to address these issues.

when we last saw you in september the congress just passed the authority to train and equip modern syrian rebels a after a lengthy debate. the air campaign in iraq had been underway a few weeks and strikes in syria had not yet begun. i stated then i did not believe the president's minimalist strategy was sufficient to achieve his objectives of degrading and destroying isil. this hearing is critical to our understanding of progress made by the president's strategy and hear from our military leaders on what else may be needed. the budget amendment that we received monday afternoon pays for the air campaign and adds more advisors. it does foot peer to reflect any changes in strategy. however, we know that targeting and air strikes are getting harder as isil changes tactics. limiting advisors to headquarters building will not

help newly trained iraqi and syrian opposition. their forces to hold terrain. much less defeat isil in the field. yet the president doubled down on policy of month boots on the ground despite any advice you have given him. so my fundamental question is how can can you successfully execute the mission you've been given to degrade and ultimately destroy isil when your best options are taken off the table. mr. secretary, both your predecessors, gates and leanetta have stated any hope of success in the strategy. even coach k, a west point graduate and successful basketball coach at duke, told an army conference last month declaring we won't use ground forces is like telling your opponent you're not going to play your best players. we may have well be considering

a new umaf in the future. i'm offering a warning. should it prepose it, i will not support sending our military into harm's way with arms tied behind their backs. lastly, the risks increases more with terrorist detainees returning to battlefield. isil's leader is chief among them. there are reports of former gitmo detainees returning to the fight. we've seen an increase in notifications regarding the detainee transfers from gitmo. mr. secretary and general dempsey, you shoulder an immense responsibility each time you sign off on or concur on these releases. i understand you're under pressure to release even more.

the roughly 150 detainees that are left are the worst of the worst. to continue these releases just as we have had to open a new front in the war on terror is unwise. mr. secretary and general dempsey, again, thank you for being here today. this is likely the last hearing a that we will have together. all the issues that bring us together are never easy. i've always appreciated your friendship and candid conversations. and your service and dedication to this nation. for those of us that will not be here in the 114th congress, let me express our gratitude to you for leadership, service and above all your devotion to our troops. >> thank you mr. chairman.

gentlemen, thanks for being before us. mr. smith could not be here. i'll be reading his statement if it so pleases. these are not my words. as you know mr. chairman, i'm probably very different than a lot of the thought that's going on in this committee in many ways. these will be mr. smith's words. he'd like to thank the witnesses for appearing here today. just three months ago the president notified congress he had authorized the commander of central command to undertake air strikes in iraq against isil. just two short months ago september 23rd, the administration provided a war powers notification of strikes in syria against isil. since that time, the u.s. has taken hundreds of strikes in iraq and syria killing hundreds of isil fighters, eliminating freedom to move in convoys, substantially impacting their ability to sell oil to fund their operations and driving their leadership underground

which complicated their ability to command their forces. dod has deploy ee eed 1500 troo advise the iraqi army, counter terrorism services, peshmerga. the president has announced 1500 more will go. we have airlifted ammunition to those fighting isil. the administration enlisted around 60 countries to fight against isil. a number have undertaken strikes in iraq or syria and some volunteered to send special forces to iraq to help. of course congress approved temporary authority for the dod to train and equip elements of the syrian opposition to fight isil. in other words, mr. smith says, we have come a long way in a fairly short amount of time. thank you to the two of you for

leadership in arriving at most of what i just mentioned. even though we have made substantial progress, more remains to be done to combat threat of isil. isil able to control territory in iraq and sir i can't have will without question plan and plot attacks on the west. we all agree as we've seen what they've been doing to people that they have taken to the people of beheadings, executions et cetera. i'm paraphrasing here to make this short mr. chairman. going forward, we have many decisions to make about combatting the threat of isil. the president for example has requested that congress authorize the use of military force against the group rather than relying on the 2001 amuf to combat al qaeda. i agree congress should pass the

imuf. i'm skeptical we can assemble a majority. again, these are the words of mr. smith. i'll end. i would like unanimous consent to put the entire statement into -- let me end with this last paragraph. going forward, prosecuting the campaign against isil either iraq or syria will be extremely complex and challenging. we must not dilute ourselves about this. both iraq and syria are complex, messy situations where perfect outcomes are extremely unlikely. whatever course of action we undertake will take years and dedicated effort. we'll have disagreements with our allies and partners about desired outcomes. it will be challenging. while we seem to have overlapping interest with iran

and iraq, our outcomes do not clearly align. we certainly do not have the same overlapping interest in syria all of which to say these situations are going to be messy and require constant attention and management. fortunately managed correctly we'll have a real path toward the goal of degrading isil denying safe haven, eliminating leadership and curt tailing their ability to strike at our allies and at us. i hope our panelists will help to explain to us and the american people the strategy. thank you mr. chairman. i ask unanimous consent to put it forward into the record. >> with that objection so ordered. mr. smith had surgery ten days ago. he's fully engaged. yesterday we had the big meeting

working on the bill. he was head of technology. it's possible he was in the room with us and fully totally engaged. one other thing i'd like to mention at the outset, several of our members will not be with us next year. some retired. some lost their election. let me thank each of you for your service to this nation, to your service on this committee. it's much appreciated. this committee has always tried to work in a bipartisan manner. any way -- i think enough is said. thank you for your service. mr. secretary? >> chairman mckean, congresswoman sanchez, members of the committee, thank you. i -- >> u.s. military prevention is

counter productive -- >> the chair notes there's disturbance in the proceedings. the committee will be in order. i'd like to formally request those in the audience causing this disruption cease their actions immediately. thank you very much. thank you to the capital police for restoring order. mr. secretary? >> chairman, obviously your last hearing is not going unnoticed or unrecognized. we shall rode. as i was saying, i very much appreciate, and i know general dempsey does the opportunity to come back after a couple of

months and update this committee on what we're doing and how we're doing it, why we're doing it. i know this has not been as you all know the only communication we have had with this committee. we have had many, many briefings with your staff. many of you have spoken to directly as well as general dempsey and many of our military leaders. to have this opportunity to give explanation of what we're doing and why and how, i very much appreciate. mr. chairman, your leadership and your service to this committee, to this country over many years has been recognized many times appropriately over the last few months. it will continue to be recognized. it should be recognized. i want to thank you personally

for your support, your friendship. i have value had the over the last two years. i've had the privilege of holding this job. i will miss you personally. i know this committee will. there are so many very able, dedicated people right next to you that will carry on. so i didn't want this opportunity to go without me expressing my thanks and best wishes to you and your family and to the next chapter in your life. your many new adventures that lie ahead. by chairman of joint chiefs of staff, general martin dempsey, who i too like you have appreciated his wise council and his partnership as we have dealt with some of the most complex and difficult issues that i

think this country has faced in a long type. i know general dempsey appreciates all of your service as well. general dempsey has played a critical role over the last six months especially in shaping and developing our strategy along with our commander who you know lloyd austin. austin and his commanders and to our men and women, i want to thank them. >> mr. chairman, president obama, chairman dempsey, austin and our leaders have been clear that our campaign against isil will be long and will be difficult. we are three months into a multiyear effort. as we enter a new phase of this effort, working to train and equip more counter isil forces in iraq and syria. we will succeed only with the strong support of congress and

the strong support of this committee. since i testified before this committee two months ago, our campaign against isil has made progress. isil's advance in parts of iraq has stalled. in some cases it's been reversed by iraqi, kurdish and tribal forces supported by u.s. and coalition air strikes. isil continues to represent a serious threat to american interest, our allies in the middle east. we'll still influence over a broad swath of territory in western and northern iraq and eastern syria. but as president obama has said, isil will not be defeated through military force alone. our comprehensive strategy -- sustaining a broad base regional and global coalition and strengthening local forces on the ground. it also including undercutting

isil flow of resources, counter messages, constricting the flow of foreign fighters, providing humanitarian assistance and our intensive regional. much more needs to be done to reach reform. iraqi prime minister is leaning forward by engaging in all of iraqi's diverse communities. he's appointed sunni defense minister after that post was left vacant more than four years. and he's moving to create an iraqi national guard that would empower local forces especially sunni areas of the province aligning them with central government. you may have noticed yesterday it was announced he replaced 36 of his most senior commanders

s integrating the forces with more sunni leaders. this is essential to strengthening not only the iraqi security forces but strengthen a central government. america is not supporting this effort alone. we build a global coalition to support local forces in both. a coalition over 60 nations that are contributing assistance ranging from air support to training to humanitarian assistance. since i testified here, 16 nations have joined the milit y

military. this is tremendous demonstration. coalition partners have carried out 130 air strikes against isil in iraq and syria. last week, canada launched its first air strikes in iraq bringing the total to 12 nations participate manage strike operations in iraq and syria. as additional partners provide tanker command and control and intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft. coalition nations have pledged hundreds of personnel to support our mission to train, advice assist and help build the capacity of iraqi forces. our global coalition is also helping shape the burden of the campaign with nearly all of our coalition partners funding. with the president's special envoy for our counter isil coalition, john allen. general allen is in the lead as we coordinating the coordination

strategy across a all lines of effort with our partners. as a coalition and as a nation, we must prepare for a long and difficult struggle. there will be setbacks, but we are seeing steady and sustainable progress. mr. chairman, that's an important part of answering the questions we have. the questions about our own strategy we ask ourselves. the questions you have about our strategy. can we sustain it? can it be sustained after at some point we leave? that is a critical component of our strategy. asking that question and answering that question. we're seeing steady and sustainable progress along dod's two main lines of effort. first, we're seeing progress in degrading and destroying isil's war fighting capacity and

denying safe haven to fighters. through support of iraqi forces, coalition air strikes have hit isil's command and and control, its leadership, revenue sources, supply lines and logistics and impaired ability to mass forces. in recent weeks, strikes helped peshmerga forces push out of northern iraq and and helped iraqi security forces begin retaking areas around the major oil refinery. last weekend, air strikes hit a gathering of isil battlefield commanders near mosul. fighters are forced to alter tactics. we knew they would. they'll adjust maneuvering in smaller groups sometimes making it more difficult to identify targets. hiding large equipment and changing communications methods. sustaining this pressure on isil

will provide time and space for iraq to reconstitute its forces and continue going on the offense. this pressure is having an effect on potential isil recruits and collaborators striking a blow to morale and recruitment. we know that. our intelligence is clear on that. as iraqi forces build strength, the tempo and intensity of our air campaign will accelerate in tand tandem. we need to continue to build aparter in capacity so local forces can take the fight to isil and ultimately defeat it. today many of the approximately 1400 u.s. troops in iraq are engaged in advice and assist programs with iraqi forces. as you know, last week the defense department announced we'll expand the support to iraqi forces by deploying up to a 1500 additional military personnel including two new advice and assist centers

locations beyond baghdad and irbil as well as four new training centers in northern, western, central iraq. i recommended this deployment to the president based on request to government of iraq, u.s. central command's assessment of iraqi units, general dempsey's recommendation and strength of the iraqi and coalition campaign. these additional troops and facilities will help strengthen and reconstitute iraqi forces expanding the geography of our mission but not the mission itself. u.s. military personnel will not be engaged in a ground combat mission. our plan to help strengthen iraqi security forces has three major components. our advise and assist mission to provide the iraqi forces at

headquarters level. we are already helping plan future operations. we'll expand this mission with two new assist and advice centers we have announced. second, we will support the rep generation of iraqi forces so they are better equipped to launch offensive operations over the coming year. sitcom's new training sites in northern and central and western iraq will train 12 iraqi brigades and more than a dozen coalition nations have expressed intent to send trainers and advisors to build a capacity of iraqi forces. third, we will concentrate on broader security sector reform to help transform iraqi forces into a more coherent and capable unified force. this includes prime minister with the national guard units i

mentioned earlier. coalition partners are playing a role in efforts by providing advisors and trainers to regenerate iraqi brigades. together we are also providing more arms and equipment to iraqi security forces. this year the united states alone has shipped more than $685 million in critical equipment and supplies to iraq ranging from grenades and small arms. hundreds of which will be arriving this month. u.s. and coalition partners together have delivered over $2$22.7 million pounds of supplies including ammunition to peshmerga forces. mr. chairman, in syria our actions against isil are focused on shaping dynamic in iraq which remains the priority of our counter isil strategy.

we are sober about the challenges we face as isil exploits the complicated long running syrian conflict. because we do not have a partner government to work with in syria or a regular military partner to work with as we do in iraq, in the near term, our military aims in syria are limited to isolating and destroying isil's safe havens. coalition air strikes in syria are accomplishing this by con continuing to target significant isil assets which has impaired isil's ability to move fighters and equipment into iraq. disrupted their command and control, damaged their training bases and significantly limited their financial revenue by hitting captured oil fields and disrupting their crude oil

distribution and corruption sites. the longer term effort is to train and equip credible moderate syrian opposition forcforce s especially areas most threatened by isil. this will require eight to 12 months to make a difference on the ground. we know the opposition continues to face intense pressure in a multifront battle space. we are considering options for how u.s. and coalition forces can further support these forces once they are trained and equipped. these forces are being trained in units not as individuals. our strategy demands time, patience, perseverance to deliver results. we cannot accomplish our objectives in syria all at once. the position of the united states remains that assad has lost the legitimacy to govern. there is no purely military solution to the conflict in

syria. along side our efforts to isolate and sanction the assad regime, our strategy is to strengthen the moderate opposition to the point where they can first defend and control their local areas. next, go on the offense and take back areas that have been lost to isil. ultimately as their capability and leverage develop to create conditions for a political settlement in syria. thanks to the broad bipartisan support in congress mr. chairman including majorities in both parties. preparations for our syria train and equip mission are now complete. we've established a combined joint task force to equip the coalition program for syria. saudi arabia, turkey and other partner nations have agreed to host training sites. development of those sites, recruiting and vetting will begin when congress is

authorized the actual funding. we are still moving forward doing what we must do to prepare for that vetting process and that training. we're still at the front end of our campaign against isil as president obama told leaders of both houses of congress last week during a session in which i attended with general austin. congressional support, your support is vital for the campaign to succeed. you all know the administration is requesting $5.6 billion in in in additional overseas contingency operations funding for fiscal year 2015 to help execute our comprehensive strategy in iraq and syria. $5 billion for the department of defense. $3.4 billion would support ongoing u.s. military actions against isil under operation inherent resolve.

$1.6 billion would go toward a new iraqi train and equip fund devoted to helping reconstitute iraq's security forces. this fund will be critical for enabling iraqi security forces including kurdish and tribal forces to go on the offense in 2015. and it will require the iraqi government in coalition members to make significant contributions as well. over 60% or $1 billion of the $1.6 billion fund would be available initially. the remaining 600 million would not be released until the government of iraq ask and coalition partners have provided at least $600 million of their own contributions. because the iraqi government must invest in its own security and its own future. as the president said last week, the administration will be engaging the congress to support the effort against isil by

enacting a new and specific authorization for the use of military force. one that reflects the scope and the challenges of our campaign against isil. dod will work closely with congress on each component of this effort as this mission continues to progress, we will continue to evaluate and re-evaluate each element of our strategy. having just marked veteran's day earlier this week, let me again thank this committee for what you do everyday to support all our men and women in uniform and their families serving this country across the world. mr. chairman, thank you. >> thank you. i want to thank you for all you've done for the defense of our nation. your devotion to men and women of the joint force and

importantly to their families that continue to resinate throughout our ranks. i too appreciate the opportunity to appear before this committee this morning to discuss our strategy against isil. secretary hagel has detailed the elements and progress of our comprehensive approach against isil. broadly our strategy is to reinforce a credible partner in the iraqi government and assist regional stakeholders to address the 20 million disenfranchised sunnis that live between damascus and baghdad. they have to reject isil from within. we have the first strategy enabled by the coalition, but as i've said before, it's not iraq only strategy. it will evolve with the coalition and multiple lines of effort overtime. we need to squeeze isil from multiple directions, deny safe haven and disrupt operations in

syria. we need to build up a syrian opposition to confront them. we need to take a long view. the multiple lines of effort all have to move at pace of each other. these lines of effort include counter financing, counter foreign tighter flow, counter messaging, humanitarian aid, economic progress, air campaign, restore an offensive capability to the iraqi security forces, and a ground campaign managed by the iraqi security forces with the isf from baghdad and peshmerga from the north with contribution from the tribes in particular in the provinces. an ongoing dialogue with my coalition counter parts, there's a consensus across the coalition about our common vision and the objectives across those lines of effort. and there's a strong commitment to work together closely in this complex and long term

undertaking. progress will be uneven at times but with strategic patience, the trend lines favor the coalition over the long term. we'll a are alert that the assumptions that underpin our campaign will be challenged. most notably, we don't know to what agreement the government of iraq will convince the kurds and sunnis it intends to have the nation of unity. one that gives confidence they have a future ethotheethaother ideology. we'll continue to revisit and review our assumptions as the campaign evolves and will adapt. which brings me to resources. our commitments across the globe as you well know are up. resources are down. to add to that sequesterization is months away. everyday we don't have budget certainty, flexibility and time

means that we will continue to erode our readiness. over time, i will have fewer military options to offer. the joint chiefs and i appreciate your support to help us work through not only our national security challenges but also the resources and flexibility necessary to meet them. thank you. >> thank you general dempsey. in september you testified to our colleagues in the senate i quote, if we reach the point i believe our advisors should accompany troops on attacks against targets i'll recommend that to the president, end quote. however, during a recent interview on front line deputy national security advisor ben rods announced the president will not reconsider his boots on the ground limitation regardless of any recommendation you might provide. further more the president seems to equate boots on the ground to

150,000 person u.s. invasion force. i haven't heard anyone talk about sending in divisions. so please help us understand the circumstances where you would envision the need to introduce u.s. military troops into combat situations and the size and types of forces or capababiliti these would be. >> thank you. first of all i want to make sure i mention, i've never been limited in my ability to make a recommendation of any size or sort t to the president of the united states. as we look ahead to the campaign as it evolves, there are certain operations that could be more complex than the ones in which the iraqi security forces are currently involved. they're doing a better job, and i think soon we would be able to describe it as a good job moving north out of baghdad the pesh

moving south out of the krg. there's some places along the path that i think will be fairly complex terrain for them including for example mosul and eventually as they need to restore the border between iraq and syria. i'm not predicting at this point that i would recommend that those forces in mosul and along the border would need to be accompanied by u.s. forces, but we're certainly considering it. >> the size and types? >> back to your point. you know, it's probably worth mentioning there's two ways we could go about this strategy to defeat isil. we could take ownership of it entirely and gradually overtime transition it back to iraqi security forces peshmerga, tribes, sunni opposition. or, from the beginning we could

enable them and then hold them accountable for the outcomes. after all, it's their country that is most threatened by this threat. obviously we've taken the latter course. in taking that latter course, we've established a modest footprint, one focused on development of security forces assisting them with planning, integration of fires, and advising and assisting them from higher headquarters. any expansion of that i think would be equally modest. i just don't forsee a circumstance it would be in our interest to take this fight on ourselves with a large military contention. could there be an exception? i mentioned assumptions in my prepared statement. one of our assumptions is that the government of iraq will be conclusive. one assumption is that the iraqi security forces will be willing to take by the provinces. if those assumptions are rendered invalid, i'll have to adjust my recommendations?

>> thank you. >> the u.s. and allies are facing an increased terrorist threat from isil and former detainees in part make up the leadership of isil and also are fighting along side isil. secretary haguehagel, how can t administration continue to press ahead with transfers from guantanamo at this time? isn't this in conflict with your policy of stemming the flow of foreign fighters? >> mr. chairman, as you know, the congress delegated the responsibility and the authority to make that ultimate decision based on risks to the united states and our allies of whether we would release any in which detainees of guantanamo. i have -- as i have noted in

testimony before this committee taken that responsibility very seriously. every time i certify and send up documentation to this committee, i am saying to this committee with my name and reputation that i believe the assurances substantially mitigate the risks to this country and to our allies of certain detainee releases. now, in september, this committee may be aware of this number, the intelligence community released a percentage of their -- based on their intelligence on those who have returned to violent extremism since their release from guantanamo in this

administration. i'm dealing with what i have right now. over the course of this administration's detainee release, i think there are over 80, total over 600 during the bush obama administrations, the intelligence community assessed that more than 90% of those detainees had not intended to or had, in fact -- we had no evidence of returning to the battlefield. overall, you know what the president's position and policy is on closing guantanamo. partner of defense supports that. i support that. but not at any cost. not at any cost. so every certification they make, bottom line, with all the other requirements by law that i have to apply with, and i do comply with every part of the law, in my best judgment, the

best judgment of our intelligence community, of our joint chiefs, of the interagency of our secretary of state, homeland security, has to be unanimous before i will seriously entertain it, and if i can get the assurances required by the host governments and the mechanisms, and i go into detail, that it substantially mitigates the risk they will assign it. and i have. >> thank you. ms. sanchez. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm going to ask a little bit about what has changed with respect to working and training the iraqi troops in order to make them effective. and i say it with all due respect because you gentlemen weren't necessarily involved in which, but i've been here for 18 years so i've been clearly on

this side asking some of these questions, because in afghan, of course, we saw that we had ghost people in the afghan army, meaning they didn't really exist. we had 63-year-old men, ill literal people, you know, and that's one of the reasons why i think we've been so ineffective with respect to the training and bringing up of the afghan forces. but i'm particularly very interested in the iraq situation. this goes all the way back to the bush administration where they were throwing out hundreds of thousands of numbers of who was being trained and who wasn't and of course they were completely and totally off and wrong. and so then what we saw was the iraqi army either run away from the fight with respect to isil or fall in with respect to isil. and some have said that the

malaak i cma la i can wasn't doing the 60-20-20 thing. but my question is what has changed or what needs to change in order for us to continue what i see is your strategy in part, what i called the iraqification of that army, of having iraqis actually fight the battles so that our people don't come in as boots on the ground? what is it that has changed, or what did you learn from the fact that we haven't gotten it right in afghanistan and haven't gotten it right in iraq? what are you doing to change that so that these men actually do take the fight to isil and our men and women don't have boots on the ground? >> congresswoman, i'll give you an answer, but i'm going to also ask chairman dempsey to answer this because as you all know chairman dempsey spent a lot of

time in iraq. and there are few military leaders that we have today in this country who know as much about iraq based on personal experience than general dempsey. so i will give you my brief response and then i think this committee will want to hear from general dempsey on this. what's changed? a number of things have changed. let's start with isil and the threat of isil and what it represents. i've said before this committee, i've said in other places, and believe it absolutely, we've never seen a threat like isil before. the comprehensive threat that isil remits, the sfis sophistication, the armaments, the strategic knowledge, the funding, the capacity, the ideology, it's new. the threat is significantly worse than we've seen ever

before not just in iraq but in the middle east, what isil represents. certainly to the future of iraq. second, you have -- >> mr. secretary, i'm not -- i understand the threat of isil. i'm asking what's the difference in the men of -- the iraqi men that we have in the forces there in making a difference, not running away from the battle, being trained correctly, being led correctly? >> i'm going to get to that. but i think it is important -- you asked what's the difference. there are a lot of differences, like i said, starting with isil. second, a national unity government by a new prime minister who, in fact, as i said in my system, for the first time has designated, picked a minister of defense. we haven't had a minister of defense in iraq for more than 44 years. prime minister maliki took that job unto himself as he did the

minister of interior. this new minister of defense and this new government is reconstituting the leadership of the iraqi security forces as i noted in my testimony, 36 new commanders were switched starting at the top, across the top. men and women will not fight if they do not have confidence in their leaders. if they do not have confidence in their country, in their government, if their government won't support them. those are fundamental changes. now, let me hand this off to general dempsey and i can get more of the specifics. >> with respect to that second point, maybe, general dempsey, you can clarify whether those 36 new commanders are a 60-20-20 split or the same as before. >> well, i'm hoping we'll find out. we don't know yet. we've got some who have been retired, some who have been relieved, some who have been moved, and i don't -- we're not

yet familiar with who's taking their place. and i hope it's not actually some artificial 60-20-20 ratio, because what you really want in the is fx is somebody who can lead and fight and inspire and be inclusive. but we'll see, we'll see here very shortly actually who takes the place of those who have been changed. this is a very brief answer to a very complex question. we left iraq and we left it with some things undone. we hadn't fully established the logistics architecture, an intelligence architecture. we -- they did not have close-air support and the capability to integrate fires. and we left there with a ministry of defense that was largely dysfunctional in the way it would assign leadership. and they knew that. they knew we knew that. but it was a -- it was not a completed work. it was -- it remained a work in

progress. and then to cup that will back to the secretary's comments about the -- what creates courage on the battlefield is can have that you've got somebody at the central government that actually will care for you and your family. i mean, look, you don't think we'd be out there swinging and fighting if we didn't have the support of the congress of the united states and the kind of support that the american public provide to our men and women in uniform. so we really can't hold the iraqis to a higher standard that just simply didn't exist. that's why i've said that one of the important assumptions about this campaign is that the iraqi government does establish its intent to create a government of national unity. i can predict for you right now, if that doesn't happen, then the iraqi security forces will not hold together. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you.

mr. cornbreadth. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for being here. mr. secretary, you said that the president would be engaging congress to support a new updated, revied authorization for the use of force. my understanding is in every previous instance an administration has proposed language and sent it up to the congress. is this administration going to propose language and send it up to us? and if so, when? >> congressman, i don't know specifically what they are going to propose. i don't know specifically if they are going to send it up as a legislative proposal. i do know that conversations are being held right now, have been with various members and their staffs about the right approach. the president said as you know last week that he intend to engage congress on this. i know the president has had specific conversations with

specific members of both the house and senate on this. >> well, i'd just comment that having conversations is one thing, but as we learned with the authorization to train and equip the folks in syria, until you get words on paper, it's kind of hard to make progress. let me follow up a little bit with your -- some of your comments that you made to miss sanchez. and i noted never before seen a threat like isis or isil, worse than we've ever seen before. one of the key question s quest underlying this is to what extent we can ultimately be successful against isis without dealing with assad. and what is your view of that? some people believe -- some of our closest allies involved in this effort believe that we can only be successful against isis if we become involved in the effort against assad. >> congressman, it's a

fundamental question you ask, and i'll answer it this way. first let me just make a brief comment about my assessment about isil. i make that assessment, and by the way it's not only mine, but when you look at the brutality, the slaughter, the indiscriminate brutality and slaughter of what isil is doing and has been doing, killing, slaughtering, murdering women and children, sunni, shia, kurd, minorities of any kind, me completely indiscriminately. and t sophistication of that when you add it up represents a pretty clear and different threat. how does that relate to your question about syria? i think it's also clear that

assad, because of how he has governed, has brought this astounding instability on himself, on his people, on his country. and it has allowed groups like isil, al qaeda is still there, other terrorist organizations, to be strengthened for obvious reasons. but just alone dealing with assad, where we are now, maybe two years ago, three years ago, that's not going to put isil back in the box or the feet -- beginning with degrading or defeating isil. assad's part of the equation, of course. but when you look at what isil dominates now, the swath of control they have, eastern syria, much of north and western

iraq, you can change assad today, and that's not going to change all the dynamics quickly, certainly, and in syria. but who are you going to replace assad with and what kind of an army would take on isil? so, yes, assad is part of it, yes, it is the longer-term part of this, defto find a stable government, leader ys syria to be able to bring some stability to that country is part of it. but isil is right now, and isil is threatening the country of iraq and the government of iraq. and so that's why we are dealing with that component first, because we must. they're threat to our allies. they are a threat to us. >> thank you. mr. larson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary hagel, you have my first two minutes, and general dempsey, you get the next two.

so for secretary hagel, there's been no discussion yet of the oco request for '15, which is $5.6 billion. wondering not what's in it. we have some information on t t that. but what do you know about a current 2014 oco request through the end of the c sflshgs what's in that and why do you need additional $5.6 billion in '15 give than there's authority for you at least through the cr for 2014 money? >> well, the quick answer to your question as to why do we need additional, as i have noted in my testimony, part of that new additional money, the $5 billion for defense, is for a new train and equip program in iraq. when we had the budget hearings when the original oco submissions were made months and

months ago, that wasn't the case. so it is a new and sustaining, and sustaining effort. the other -- the other dollars are for the continuation, which we didn't have six mos ago either, of our efforts in syria and iraq, air strikes, trying to assist, train, and equip will be in $1.6 billion, but the continued assistance and other assistance that we're giving iraq. so it is separate, it is new, it is different, and particularly the sustainability of us being able to do that and carry it out. and we thought, too, it was the most honest way to do it -- set up a fund, let everybody know the accounting and how we're doing it and why. so that's essentially the bottom line of why we presented the way we did. >> all right. two minutes. >> general dempsey, the defense has requested a broad waiver of existing laws in this request for the iraq train and equip.

i understand there's a request waiver.milar why does the department need such a waiver, and what would the impact be if you didn't get you, for example, had to follow existing acquisition laws in order to implement? >> the issue is pace, i think, is probably the short answer to question, congressman. we think that a national security waiver in the hands of secretary of defense allows us to move with the pace we anieve we need to move, in environment where -- you know, interesting -- it's interesting. one of the realities of this conflictis kind of the between progress and patience. you know what i mean? mentioned that strategic patience is actually a of conflict.s kind i think progress purchases patience. context, the waiver would allow us to move at a pace produceld allow us to

that kind of progress that result ina result, patience. >> all right. that's fine. thank you both for giving me food for thought. coming in.e you i'll yield back. >> thank you. mr. jones. >> mr. secretary, it's kind of ironic. time i heard before today a secretary of defense involvementilitary in iraq was secretary donald runsfeld. i know isis is evil. no question about it. need to be taken out. but i looked at some of your statements from 2002, when you you feltnator and how about the obligation of a member of congress to make a decision to send a young man or a woman to die. statementsed at your in 2007 when, like myself, you the surge innst iraq. now we are possibly going to be asked by the pde