produce 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 thed by the president of

united states, like we were by bush, to authorize an aufm. abdi youothing but an -- abdication of our obligation. adam shift tried to sunset out the aufm that we gave to which has been used by president obama. not understand how we in congress can continue to what the constitution says is our responsibility. james madison once said, the power to declare war, including causeser to judging the of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature.

not believe sincerely, because when this -- this obama. to be president he wants to have another aufm, extension of what we have. it's not going to be but so long that you have sent more and more train, many ofto these former saddam hussein loyals. now they're fighting with isil. some are fighting on the other side. very complex. i understand that and i agree with that. but for goodnes goodness sakes,n world should we make such a commitment, and we don't have an end point to it. you or generalr dempsey -- i have great respect for both of you -- to submit for things, veryo quickly. how does this new war end in your opinion?

i realize it's just your opinion. it's very important, because of who you are. what is the end state of what we're trying to accomplish? american people, over 50% of the american people, do not want personnel in syria or in iraq. and i will be honest with you. i don't know how we can convince the american people that a that's financially broke -- you sat right here, and you'repsey, exactly right. sequestration and all the budget problems coming your way. for five orsking six billion dollars to drop more armaments in iraq and syria? is it coming from? americanplain to the people and to this congress how this war is going to end some advisors or we are we're fighting. and i hope to god we're not fighting. i hope wewe do not -- do not give the president a new aumf. if you get those into the committee in written form, then you won't have to answer the

questions. but this, again, looks like we're going down the same road secretary donald rumsfeld told us we had to do. we had no end to that as well. >> congressman jones, if i might briefly.ond you very accurately described my i was in the senate.tates but it's basic to the responsibilities of congress. congress.mes out of the authority of military force president. that authority comes from the congress of the united states. the congress will engage in this. i have great confidence the will.ss they need to. they must. it is the responsibility of the congress. with you on that, on that point. and i'll give you my best

other questionr as well. thank you. ms. bordallo? >> thank you, mr. chairman, for hearing.his important secretary hagel and general dempsey, thank you for your time today. as i stated before, i believe that isil could become a direct the united states or our allies in europe. and we must make efforts to avoid that threat. while i believe that we must open, itour options must be a joint effort with our coalition and allies to stop isil. secretary hagel, what additional military support do you believe it will take for iraqis, the kurds or the syrian rebels to hold their current position and eventually retake areas now controlled by isil?

>> congresswoman, as i noted in a veryement, that's important part of what we are doing to assist the iraqi security forces as they strengthen their capacity, capabilities. oft's obviously a big part the train and equip effort, as our coalition partners are with us on this, as well as a reinstitution of the iraqi top withforces at the confidence, with trust, of the men and women in uniform. the unity government. believe it's worth fighting for, as general dempsey said, that they have some confidence in, not just for themselves but their families. h fighting i have noted, it is a

comprehensive strategy. believe it can be done. fight.s is an iraqi it is their future. and we can help. we are helping. we can.ing everything and we'll continue to support our, as we will with partners. justhat's the way i would very briefly respond to the question. >> thank you. general dempsey, in testimony before the senate back in mentioned that oco is not the veution to funding -- not the solution to funding. i have stated that i agree that the oco credit card is going to to an end sometime very soon. however, as the ranking member readiness, i'm deeply ocoerned about the loss on on readiness. when will you have a better tose of what this is going cost, both monetarily and in

operationso continue against isil? what is the department doing to plan and budget for this and the baseivities into budget? >> thank you, congresswoman. i did say that. tofact, i think i went on say that oco, or the overseas wasingency operations fund, gas money and that the service chiefs actually also need the support the recruiting, training, organizing and force overf the time. you can't sustain the force with oco. you can use it. and that's why i described it as gas money. your question, we actually have a pretty good idea of what it's costing now. we think ourt level of commitment is about the it will be for foreseeable future, it's approximately $8 million a day. the funding requests that the secretary mentioned accounts for that. we're well aware of the desire to rely less on oco and more on

base. a debate -- you know, from a military perspective, i needust tell you what i and you all have to decide how to provide what i need. an the base budget is important component of readiness, because it's the foundation on which we build. >> thank you very much. and i yield back, mr. chairman. >> yields back the balance of the time. mr. secretary, we understand that you recently had to postpone your trip to vietnam and burma to prepare for this hearing and others on capitol hill. our allies and partners in the region are concerned with senior administration officials postponing important travel to the region. i share their concern. understand that our government does have the ability to walk and chew gum at the same time. focused in this hearing on the isil challenge, evermain as committed as to america's enduring interests indopacific area. i appreciate the accommodations you made to the hearing.

also hope you'll reschedule your trip and continue your strong record of engagement in asia. and thank you for being here. the last time you were here, we asked a question about a strategy to cut off the finances for isil. enoughhink you were kind to acknowledge then that we needed to develop that, and i was just wondering if you could outline for us a little bit about the strategy that we have thein trying to cut off finances of isil. >> congressman, thank you for your thoughts on the asia-pacific emphasis. i you've accurately noted, unfortunately had to make a and i didn't want to have to do that for the reasons mentioned. as you probably know, since i've been secretary of defense, i had six major trips to the asia pacific. this would have been my seventh.

reschedule. we are planning on that rescheduling. our asiano all of partners, pacific partners, explained to them why i was reschedule. emphasis.the i agree with you completely. time, to youre point about the administration and chew gum walk at the same time, as you know, the president is there now. in that area for a few more days in different countries. we'll have other follow-up visits as well. but i am rescheduling. it is important. emphasis on the importance of the rebalance. question about financing on isil, i alluded to a couple in my statement when i talked about cutting off their

obvious oil sales, as they have, as you know, taken control oil fields in eastern syria. and they did have some in western iraq. we've been able to take back of that, the iraqis have, the oil refinery and so on. that is one thing we're doing effective.etty been able to not only disrupt that but stop that oil flow out thehere that gets into borders. and they were getting a few day from that. a now, other things. our treasury department is lead on this, with partners all over the world, the nations, european partners, middle eastern partners. trying to shut those money markets off any way of funding resourcing isil has, continues to have. we have made a global effort

we lead. they also get funds from contributions inside. that through our intelligence communities. so this is as much of a focus as when i was here two months ago, has to be for the reasons that i mentioned. as i also said in our comprehensive strategy, cutting off those funds is a very big part of what we're doing and what we're attempting to do and will continue to do. >> the gentleman from mr. courtney, is recognized for four minutes. >> thank you, mr. forbes. earlier, secretary hagel, some of your predecessors were some groundsrt of or authority for the notion of boots on the ground, larger presence of boots on the ground in iraq and i suppose in syria. just, for the record, again remind people that farewell gates, in his

address to west point, stated, i think correctly, that any who advises defense a president to engage in a ground invasion in the middle east ought to have their head examined. and i think the approach you've described here today, which is forces, toen local provide assistance, as we've kobani, is really the right approach to adhere to gates's good advice, i think, which is that we're not going down that path again. voted for the title 10 authorization, i just want to share with you, a mother connecticut, of a marine came up to me and said, you know, i'm with you to this extent, but, you know, i'm counting on you not to, again, to just a redux went of what this country through over the last eight years or so. i just want to share that input with you. your request for additional

obviously is in the middle of a lame duck where it's not clear where we're going yet, in terms of whether it's going omnibus.only an i just wonder if you could share a crthoughts about what would mean in terms of being implement the things that congress authorized. >> well, recognizing the purview of the congress on appropriations, i will answer your question this way, because asked me for my thinking on it. i begin with what chairman dempsey said. any enterprise must have the flexibility and essentially the to plan, as best we

can. every business, every nonprofit, take away that critical management tool for the cannot plan,re we based on a continuing months,on, every few maybe will will happen, maybe this will happen, or maybe it happen, is really disasterous. and it does damage to our institution. it does damage to the confidence of our men and women that we ask to go out and serve. it does huge damage to our future investments. sometimes't recognize that our defense enterprise has and yearsking years down the road. the platforms that we have sophistication of our platforms, far superior to anything since world war ii. this just didn't happen, a year ago, two years ago, three years ago. these planning stages and

investments and having some that you've got aing budget and you know what -- that you've got a budget and you know what you're going to have this that budget is critical to planning. continuing resolutions are not good for the department of defense. >> and in terms of the specific operations that we're discussing mean, again, is that of, again -- does it make it difficult for you to figure out what extent of conduct?s you can >> well, you factor that in. that's exactly right. take away, those are hugely important management tools. but we're talking about our national security here. we're not talking about putting at a new product or new-colored shoe or overcoat or automobile. nationalking about the security of our country. so as much ability, flexibility we have to have some certainty as to what's ahead, a force thatn these young men and women,

smart. they've got other options. and these young enlisted what'ss think about ahead. are we going to continue to draw down? what's the future? i understand it's an uncertain unpredictable world. we all do. but you can't run an institution, especially the defense,t of responsibly on continuing resolutions. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from south carolina, mr. wilson, is recognized for four minutes. much,nk you very mr. chairman. secretary, thank you very much for being here today. countingcan people are on you to provide information, to our president. and you've indicated, secretary, is your defense priority. and i'm just so concerned that odd worldent has an view. me, theonceivable to release of trained mass fromrers, as detainees

guantanamo, that it builds good will anywhere. it puts the american people at risk. it puts our military at risk. interest. a personal two of my sons served in iraq. they developed a great appreciation for the people of iraq, who do want to live in a democratic society, no t a a totalitarian. additionally, i've got four sons serving in the military. counting on you, and so are my constituents, the american people. this regard, mr. secretary, stilllamic state, does it pose an imminent threat to the people of the united states, and an imminent threat to our allies? you, congressman. and i thank your sons. again, i'm well aware of their service and what your family has done for our country and do.inues to as i said in my statement, and i

the comments if made here this morning, it is a threat. a continues to be a threat, significant threat, to the united states, to our interests, to our allies. and we've seen every dimension of that play out. yes. >> and such a threat, with the the seizure, say, of an extraordinary city, mosul, that enhances the threat, it?n't >> it does. honest abouty that. as i said in my statements, i that there is good progress being made by the iraqi security forces, peshmerga, as we -- just to give you one example. weekend -- you may be aware of this -- there was a ceremony in anbar province. 2,000 sunni tribesmen were to beand are preparing sworn in to the iraqi security forces.

in the province, the general area of mosul and the will have to be taken back. the isf forces have taken much back.t not mosul yet. they will. dam, i mentioned oily comments zumar, the field. a lot of good news there. but, yes, of course. time they hold significant pieces ofle cities or geography, it makes it more difficult. >> and we should remember that osama bin laden operated from a cave in the middle of afghanistan and was able to thisct mass murder in country and around the world. ad in regard to achieving stable self-reliant iraq, can this be done with the personnel

sent, or what do you anticipate? we, the first, aited states, cannot assure stable iraq. the iraqi people will have to do that. as i have said, we are supporting them. weare doing the things that think are most important, the things they've asked us for. have requested from us. and that's a significant recent years.m they've invited us in. they've invited us with our partners in to help them. ministerieve prime abadi and others understand the seriousness of this. it's imperfect. they have to do it. we'll help them do it, but they it. to do >> chairman recognizes the massachusetts. >> i, like my colleagues, remain

greatly concerned with recent in both iraq and syria. but given the long-term consequences of u.s. operations region, i think we have to be sure that the overarchingons strategy and objectives are fully discussed and robustly debated here in congress. this is especially important given the lessons of the last despite seven years of conflict in iraq, 4500 morecan lives lost and than $1.5 trillion spent. our military effort did not resolve is conflict we are now confronted with. harsh lessons and because a full debate has not acurred, i voted against short-term authorization to train and equip the moderate syrian forces. before we move forward, we need to be clear on what we are and will ask of our brave service men and women, what the goingmight be, how we are to pay for any operations against isil, what the exit

is, what we are asking of our regional partners, their willingness and capability to meaningfully engage in this ultimated what our goal might be. but it seems to me the horse is ever more out of the barn. have appreciated the president's current commitment troopssend u.s. ground into combat, i am troubled by an recent tasking of iraq.onal 1500 troops to and president obama's statement that he has not ruled out deploying more troops. general dempsey, i appreciate your candor. are very forthcoming when you describe a complex, long-term effort that requires strategy patience. that willtion continue to evolve. and you have said in the past clear about today saying that there are situations in which you could consider recommending ground troops. you also just described the very

iraqiant role of the security forces and the deep investment that we're making in their capability back to par, so that they can take on this task. but what if they are not up to the task? could you talk about some scenarios you might envision? as you've said, you only make recommendations. i'd like you to talk, if you could, about some of the you might make if it becomes clear that the iraqi security forces cannot take this on. >> yes. what i'd like to do, congresswoman, is give you kind unclassified answer but promise you that in a classified week, we can talk about contingency planning. earlier, if some of the assumptions we've made are rendered invalid, of course have to have a branch, as we call it, in military terms, our campaign plan. look, we absolutely need a

credible partner to provide ground forces in that region so have to provide the ground combat power to accomplish the task. if the government of iraq fails kind of national unity agenda that we think they need, which would empower and encourage the iraqi security forces, then we'll have to look for other partners in the region to assist us or build other partners in the region. defer to a i would classified setting. we -- iay that since think we agree that this is a long-term commitment. mentioned end state. the end state is defined as ultimately the defeat of isil. i've actually said, including in opening statement, that will occur when the 20 million disenfranchised sunnies reject see somelogy and we

indication, just, again, a glimmer of indication, that that's beginning. continue to advance to succeed. momentum.maintain and we've begun to break that momentum. then i think we'll have a and answer toe your question. one last point. this campaign will be marked or characterized -- i've described it this way. three steps forward, two steps back. and at every step forward or we'll debate about the size of the step. >> i look forward to your classified briefing. >> general, the time has expired. chair recognizes the chair we'e of the tackle subcommittee, mr. turner from ohio. >> secretary hagel, i want to personally thank you for your that's for a provision in the national defense authorization act that protects the custody rights of our women. men and as you know, the house on a bipartisan basis has in the past years taken action to provide a national standard to

women inen and uniforms, their custody rights. i appreciate your letter of 30 where you both affirm the d.o.d. support for that further tout also go say that this legislation did otherfect other -- affect state custody laws and precludes federal court jurisdiction. spentyou for the time you with me and for your thoughtfulness on this matter. general dempsey, you said that been limited in your recommendations to the president. we are also aware that he's in hiseen limited ability to reject them. you is not to whether or not you have been forthcoming in your the gapdations but in that might exist between your recommendations and the president's proposal that's us.re we all have concerns about how effective the air strikes have been as they've both and dispersed. also, the issue that sanchez has having theo

diversity of populations participate in being able to how the kurdish and other forces might be able to be and your assurances that that will be able to be with thehed, working iraqi regime. so our question to you is, in our support for the president's proposal, we'd like to know what is missing in your whatmendations versus we're receiving from the president. >> before i actually answer the question, you've described the air campaign as -- i think you described it as erratic or episodic -- >> intermittent. i would never say erratic, because i have too much regard for you. >> the word i want to add is precise. look, the thing that will cause sunni populations to actually take heart and begin to if we're very careful not to create

circumstances of civilian or to, in some way, impact on other groups, tribes, example. so we've got to be very, very deliberate and very precise in our air campaign. i think we're accomplishing that. in just over 800 strikes to date, i think we've been both successful and careful. point about whether there's a gap, i can say to you today there is no gap. general austin and i have and thosemendations, recommendations have been accepted. any recommendation is made with risk assessment. you know, there's high-risk options, moderate-risk options low-risk options. a low-risk option to the probably include the introduction to u.s. ground forces to take control of the fight. neither general austin nor i believe that's the right thing to do at this point. gap rightthere is no now. >> you know that we will continue obviously to write an

inquiry into that and we hope you will certainly share with this committee to the extent we'reap evolves, because very concerned about the success of what the president's goal is, defeat and degrade isis. we look to your leadership for that. >> general from iowa is recognized for four minutes. both of you for being here. i was writing down lots of you were while talking, because i think i probably reflect my concerns about what we're doing there and the number of questions that they have. to getesn't even begin at what i've been hearing over the course of the past several district in iowa at least and i may be repeating some things. step out for about a half an hour. i apologize if i am. if you could first explain in some detail, what is the isil otherwise?onally or can you lay that out? what is the threat?

>> well, the threat -- you started, i think, with regionally or otherwise. threat is the extent of the brutality, and the inhumanity of whatthey have been doing, they continue to do, as they expanded their base up until we, recently -- the united states and our coalition partners, got into ago. about three months they are a threat to the iraqi government. as was noted here in an earlier they stillbout

control sl second -- control the second largest city in iraq, mosul. if they would be allowed to continue, they would not only as they already have, to a great a secretary in war, and continue to gather with their ideology, which brings in their successes and momentum, foreign fighters, from thepassports united states, from european nations. that starts to extend the threat not just the region and to but tod countries there europe, to the united states. and i could continue. but i think you get the picture. >> thank you. the word heard counterinsurgency in this debate, i don't think, because that was obviously our approach earlierand afghanistan on. and then correct me if i'm kind ofut it seems we trance formed whatever --

transformed whatever military operations to count terrorism perhaps. where would this fall if there is a continuum of such? between counterterrorism and counterinsurgency. because isil or isis is creating a state, if they're actually creating governments. if they are consolidating their control, might counterinsurgency be really the way to go as far as responding to them? i'm not advocating that. i'm just asking from an analytical point of view. think our strategy -- and it's a good question -- is pretty clear on this point, because you have really, i think, hit the centerpiece. counter-isil.s and if you were here for my testimony, i walked through a of those points. general dempsey has further those points, as to how we are countering isil.

what are we doing about that? noted, it'soint s i a comprehensive strategy. it has to be. many of the questions here this into that.e gotten one being the funding, cutting off their funding. coalition partners, all the partners of the region involved. strengthening the iraqi security forces, doing everything we can unityport a new iraqi government that reaches out to everybody, the sunni, the shiite, the kurds, all the minorities, giving everyone some participatory power in their government, which elicits confidence and trust in their government. so that's our strategy. frame it up by however way you want, but it's counter-isil. a strategy that's focused on this particular issue, this particular threat. and the world is dynamic and changes. to whate not going back ago.d 12, 10 years

we learned from mistakes. but this is a unique threat. >> gentleman's time has expired. >> may i just -- i can do this seconds. >> thank you. >> clearly we are alert to any threats that could emanate from iraq and syria with planning and operational activities that homeland.aten the you've seen us take some actions clearly alignhat counterterror strategy. i would suggest to you that iraq is actually conducting a counterinsurgency and we're enabling it with our air power and assistance, because they do an insurgency on their hands. it allows them to think about a military component, so as they clear an area, -- wherever it is, they've got to follow it up with governance, humanitarian assistance. otherwise, that insurgency will

persist. >> the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. gentlemen.u, just following up on this discussion here the last minute or two, i think it's important for all of us on this committee, all of us in america for that certainly you gentlemen, to keep the focus on what the policy is. defeat isis, to our enemy. whatever we do with iraq is a policy.achieving that our ultimate goal here isn't to protect iraq and build a stable iraq. just need that tool to effect our policy of defeating isis. and sometimes i think we forgot. we start talking about how many what are wen or doing, can the iraqis defend forth.wn country and so all useful discussion. but the policy is to defeat isis. dempsey, are americans flying helicopters now in iraq?

>> yes. >> thank you. and in a classified session, i'd like to get more information that force looks like. that while we me may have forces in compounds intelligence and logistics and so forth, we actually have americans out and and that harm's way, me think that -- i hope, and, again, probably a discussion for another day -- we have good american medical support for those soon to be 3,000 or so american forces there. don't want americans in harm's way being reliant on, in medicale, iraqi support. so, again, probably a discussion for another day. then my question, general, is you said in an earlier answer to a question, as you were turning over to iraqi security forces some

to do someity fighting, that if they can't do would, quote, hold them accountable. i can't understand what that accountable.hem how would we do such a thing? accountable? >> yeah. i actually think, congressman, answers that two have been pulled together into one to create that confusion. said was that among the of our strategy is that, and thesist the isf anding peshmerga, that the government be heldhas to accountable for progress that matches the military progress. >> but what does that mean? that means is, if they do not form and actually unityst this national agenda, then frankly it will be among -- i will be among those that we do not support them to the degree we're them, because there

ourthe some conditions to support, it seems to me. >> i agree with you. i'm just not sure that we know what that whole accountable means. we don't give them any more money? i don't know what that means. but i do think that's important that we all, and certainly the think about, and the president and so forth, what does that mean, hold them accountable? keeping in mind what our policy is and what your job is, to defeat isis. mr. chairman, i yield back. back.tleman yields the chair recognizes the california for four minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. general dempsey, thank you very for your service. academy secretary, the same -- and secretary, the same. all youriate attempting to do. my question, general dempsey, and syria?ar in iraq >> we are at war against isil,

yes, sir. case, wouldt is the you, secretary, please provide most recent legal authority for the united states war?nduct such a we know that previously there war powers act. but apparently that is no longer days has since 90 passed. and we're still at war. the iraq or the useanistan authorization to military force. but i'd like to have the most justification. if you would please, for the record. also, we heard the chairman in his opening remarks say that any use military to force that is not unlimited is arrival. since the chairman is not here, perhaps his staff could tell the

chairman that, at least this member of this committee would see his proposed authorization to use military force, as broad as he might like to do. bottom line here, this is more you twohan for gentlemen, the obligation that we have under the constitution to declare war. legalhere may be some justification in the past that be stretched for this war. i don't think so. have an obligation here. and we should be about that. we ought not wait till the next congress. you have said, the president has the war conduct all need to bee supporting it. we're not at the moment. now, my questions to you two gentlemen have to go with two issues that have not yet been discussed. you mentioned the coalition but you have not specifically

iran.ned turkey or would you please do so? what are they doing? and whatheir role, now do you see it in the future? >> well, iran is not a member of the coalition. iranu know, historically, cultural,ave had a religious, economic ties. hasn'tesn't stop, stopped. we are not coordinating with the government of iran. we're not working with the government of iran. >> is the government of ierch any of -- government of iran involved in any of the of iraq?operations >> they're not involved in anything that the united states or the coalition is involved in. >> that's not my question. are they involved in any military activities in iraq? iranianr as i know, the army is not engaged in iraq. be other components,

militia, those kinds of andps that have been there over the years that we've dealt with over the years. but as far as an official iranian government military presence in iraq, i'm not aware of any. turkey?ow >> turkey, as i noted in my comments, has agreed to be be the training sites for the train and equip of the syrian moderate opposition. they, as you know, worked with us opening up the airspace to get in supplies into kobani for resupply theiro forces. ony continue to work with us other areas of common interests to oure important efforts there. and of course their own border. you know, are hosting one and a half million refugees

of syria. so, no, they are part of the coalition. an active part. and we continue to work with areas. those >> the gentleman's time has expired. like to yield my time to the chairman of the subcommittee. >> dr. heck is recognized for four minutes. forhank you, gentlemen, yielding. appreciate your general comments about gtmo in the hearing. we've undertaken an investigation in the circumstances surrounding the of the five from gtmo. we appreciate your cooperation in this very important matter. in addition to previous requests, the committee recently sent two letters to you requesting additional material and support, just ask if the havettee will continue to your commitment for the department's cooperation, with the tension noted in these --

in theseitems noted letters and with other aspects of the committee's ongoing work. >> yes. of course. to cooperate,inue as we have been. >> secretary, i'm curious as to beingr or not you are kept up-to-date regarding the compliance. who in the department is responsible for keeping you updated, and are you satisfied with the terms of the met?eing >> yes. every two weeks, i receive a report. we have a special envoy in the we work with,t along with the general counsel's office. counselith the general every two weeks about this. steve preston. thatcontinually assured is qatari government fulfilling its commitments it made to us in exercising the

wouldions they said they in order to maintain security of individuals. but yes, every two weeks. sometimes more often than not. but every two weeks, i get a readout. would ask you now there's been some reports in media about that thehe visitors detainees have received and whether or not they are having to communication systems outside of what is permitted through the mou. concerns from us in regards to that type of activity? >> within the limits of an open hearing here, i am aware of reports. and i -- nothing that i have concerns me more than what we're doing now, and boundaries ofe the assurances that we received and the agreement that we have from the qatari government. thend i appreciate continued support as this subcommittee continues its

investigation. gentleman yields back. the lady from california, ms. speier, is recognized for four minutes. >> thank you for your leadership. the chair early on spoke about guantanamo detainees joining the fight with isil. numberpeated that on a of occasions. is there any evidence that from guantanamo have joined the fight with isil? >> not that i'm aware of. dempsey?l >> the secretary, in his comment, referred to approximately -- of the 89 or so weeased, that 90% of them, have clear evidence that there has been no recidivism. 10% are largely unaccounted for. isil, of course, is a recent

within about the last nine months. but if i could, we'll take that one for the record. >> all right. you. you know, sometimes i feel like we're in a time warp. we've been sitting here talking about isil, cnn has been reporting that there's a change by thetegy administration, and it is now to potentially refocus its toppling assad. isilile we're focusing on rgs it appears another strategy is being undertaken by the administration. respond toof you that, please? >> i believe the administration addressed that. last night and again this morning, as well as the state thertment, as well as defense department. thethere is no change in strategy. the national security council addressed it. the state department has.

we have. so -- >> well, let me ask you -- >> that's all i can tell you. there is no change. and there's no different direction. >> let me ask you this question then. our presumption has been that we army train the free syrian and that they would, as trainees, then fight isil. many reportsen that suggest that they're not willing to fight isil. topple theo first assad regime. so what confidence do we have that by training them, they are fighting isil and not assad? the essence ofs the training and the purpose of the training. and this is also part of the vetting process. a clear understanding of what they would be doing. but let me get to a more basic point. one of the points that i made in moderateent, as to why

syrian opposition would be part effort, and ing noted that their homes and families are in jeopardy from isil, from the brutality and the the murder of isil. their first issue. yes, they want to see assad go. question.'s no yes, there are other forces and interests. yes. the most absolute, immediate threat to most of these people isil. and what isil is doing to their villages and to their families and homes. clearly in their own interests. but this is also part of the process. >> i only have 19 seconds. maybe you can provide this answer in writing. i continue to be concerned about how we shut off isil's revenue stream. and i want to know what we're doing to try and shut down their

revenues by closing down the oil refineries that they appear to of. taken control i'll yield back. >> i'll do that, in the interests of time. thank you. you.ank the chair recognizes the readinessf the subcommittee, mr. wittman, for four minutes. >> thank you for joining us and thanks so much for your service. each of our service branches, i significant challenge in front of them. haves andre are the the have-nots. a significant challenge for them. it affects not only today's mission but future missions, to you are capability -- what our capability might be. our service branch chiefs have talked about this readiness and what that means force, how it affects morale and retention. and now, today, my question to do we address that current situation? integrateow do we

into that the challenges that we are now facing in syria, in iraq, with isil, and accomplishing that mission in addition to missions around the world that we want to continue to try to be successful at? seems like to me that we're a deep.ide and an inch so i want to get your perspective on that too. a pointdo we get to where we are returning to full training in making sure fullwe have a continued complement of readiness across our structure? this. me take a shot at very profound question, meaning intricate. this.will say we arecorrect that generally consuming readiness as soon as it's built. sixe had this hearing months ago, we wouldn't be talking about the necessity of european allies, we wouldn't be talking about isil, about ebola.

have pressurized our readiness. that's why we exist. earlier questions, when will this all end? personally, i believe that the state of security affairs is about what it will be next generation. stated another way, peace is norm, as youthe look back at history. and it's certainly not the norm today. has to respond to whether it's a security threat or a threat of infectious disease. to answer your question, it's why i mentioned in my opening remarks that we really need budget certainty, flexibility, time. and i will say to your question, i think that we will need funding to account for new requirements. i mentioned the three of them just over the last six months. i also think we're going to need gain your support for some of the reforms we've recommended,

care,ompensation, health weapons systems, because that will allow us to be more sustainable over time. and i think we've absolutely got of this horrible shadow of sequestration, because places both a physical but shadow overological the defense budget. it has very bad long-term effects. >> thank you. question. this specifically today, as we speak, back in 2015,omes and we have the reduction in oco funding that's projected to go $30 billion,ion to give me a one-sentence assessment on where you believe our military will be. than atll be less ready any time in my 40-year career.

>> secretary hagel? >> well, i haven't had a 40-year career in the military. completely agree with the chairman. and i have been on the record on point. it will put the military and our national security enterprise in a very, very deep hole. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> the chair now recognizes ms. davis from california. mr. chairman. and thank you both for your leadership. and chairmanel dempsey. i wanted to ask about the level expertise that would give us confidence in the troops that right now ing order to pull out of our activity. we're not that talking ant boots on the ground -- about boots on the

advisoryre but in an capacity. i think americans are well aware the fact that in order for us to do our i don't know, we need trained professionals, like our seal's and our special operations. to know if we're in any position to see that level of hair-triggerally preparedness, that's required of go intond of those who special operations like that. i would have to believe that the possibility of something occurring that would require that kind of professionalism is we must be planning for. how do we respond to people that are wondering if they're having of expertise? would it require -- it wouldn't require only consulting but clearly boots on the ground. and, again, whether or not there thethose who would be on ground, who could order air strikes effectively in order to

make that happen. >> well, congresswoman, i can you i wouldssure never come to the secretary of defense and suggest he send anyone into any mission unless the are, in our judgment, joint chiefs, the best trained, best led, best equipped force on planet. so we -- there's no shortage of skills and expertise. whether it's in the conventional forces or the special operation forces. the way -- >> i'm talking about our iraqi partners or the syrians as well. >> well, of course, there's gap between our level of expertise and theirs that we try to close, to the extent we can. i guess maybe the only thing i is it'ssting conventional. it's special operating forces. it's air, sea and ground. kind of gloss we over -- not you, but we tend to doing onwhat are we

the ground. but we've been flying for eight weeks now an extraordinary air campaign. and those young men and women frankly,ting that, exceeding expectations, in my view. how to address your question about the expertise issue. a bit could elaborate more, i would -- i'll give it a shot. >> thank you. is there a metric? with eneed to have a -- do we need to have a certain level of ofertise and a quantity those trained, on their part? >> yes, absolutely. know that our team will not be required to go in -- >> yes. operation?kind of an >> yes. and i'll give you this briefly. the iraqi security forces have an organization called the service.rrorism they're absolutely capable. if anything, they've been overused, because they are the best of the iraqi security forces. so what we're trying to do with

them.s recurrent they're also very well >> we did not ca lack of response on their part. >> when we get our assessment? >> in terms of what happened.

>> yes. >> two divisions and a few more brigades collapsed in northern iraq, they collapsed because of corrupt leadership. there was a period of time just a couple years ago when a man could purchase his command of an iraqi division. that was a terrible outcome, as we saw for iraq in general. anyway, they collapsed because of poor leadership, no confidence in the central government, and a kind of mythology that it built up around isil that it was unstoppable. isil has now been stopped. some of the forces that have abandoned their posts have been reintegrated into the military, which is a very positive sign i think, and the assessment that we've been making suggests that

discussion of the health impact on consumers and the overall economy. >> chuck hagel so there are systemic problems with the management of the nuclear weapons program. he has announced several changes following to government reviews that show serious issues. ranging from officer training to weapon security. this briefing is about 55 minutes.

>> good morning. earlier this year, following revelations about troubling lapses and poor morale in our nation's nuclear forces, i ordered reviews of our entire nuclear enterprise, scanning the air force and navy systems. i tasked them to examine the health of the nuclear enterprise. to demand oversight mission performance and funding. this morning with me here on the stage are individuals who have played a particularly important role in these reviews. but probably most importantly, they had the responsibility to carry out the recommendations that came from these reviews and i believe you know that after i leave this morning, the deputy secretary and others here will stay on the stage and answer more specific questions.

i'm going to thank you, admiral, for what you have done as vice chief of naval operations because your component is critical to this. admiral haney, thank you for your continued leadership at -- centcom.ry it is an integral aspect. we are going to go to the air force base in north dakota and spend the day. general wilson, thank you for what you do with your forces and your team. these individuals as well as other leaders have all been integral to what we are doing and the internal review part of this.

our reviewers visited all of our operations and many of the key support facilities. they interviewed hundreds. the review team leaders from the external review part of this are with us this morning. i want to particularly thank admiral harvey and general welch for your leadership. madeleine headed up the internal review and general welch and general -- and admiral haney headed up the external. the work they put into this, the

dedication, hundreds of hours, was pretty spectacular. for all of your teams, we are grateful. thank you. today, i am announcing the results of those reviews, the actions that the dod has already taken to carry forward and carry out the recommendations of those reviews. and the actions that we are in the process of taking to address the reviews findings and ensure the safety of america's nuclear deterrent. first, i want to be clear about the importance of the nuclear mission and its role in defending our nation. deterrentr plays a critical role in assuring u.s. safety. it is the dod's highest priority mission. no other capability we have is more important. our nuclear triad deters attacks on the u.s. and our allies and partners.

it prevents adversaries from trying to escalate their way out of failed conventional aggression. it provides the means for effective response should deterrence fail. consistent with president obama's guidance, our policy is to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our nation's security strategy and seek peace and security in a world without nuclear weapons. we will continue to do both but that does not diminish our responsibilities. as the president has made clear, as long as we have nuclear weapons, we will and must ensure that they are safe, secure, and effective. dod senior leaders and i are in full agreement. we are in full agreement that today, america's nuclear deterrent remains safe, secure, and effective. that is thanks to the heroic efforts of the airmen, seamen,

and marines. however, the internal and external reviews show a consistent lack of investment and support for nuclear forces over far too many years has left us with too little margin to cope with mounting stresses. the review has found evidence of systematic problems that if not addressed, could undermine the safety, security, and effectiveness of the force in the future. this includes manning and skill deficiencies. a culture of over inspection and inadequate inspection and follow-up and accountability by

senior department in nuclear enterprise leadership. the cause is a lack of sustained focus, attention, and resources. it results in a pervasive sense that a career in the nuclear enterprise offers too few opportunities for growth and advancement. i know this from my many conversations. we have been taking steps to resolve the problems and implement more than 100 recommendations from the internal and reviews. involvethese reviews recommendations for changes in organization, policies, and culture. others require an increase in resources, allocated to the nuclear mission. we must address all of the underlying problems. many begin with the many steps that we have already taken, starting with improving oversight. first, i established the oversight group. it brings together the entire senior leadership of the dod's

nuclear enterprise not only from , the pentagon but from , strategic mandate in nebraska and air force global strike command in louisiana. previous reviews of our nuclear enterprise lacked clear follow-up mechanisms. recommendations were implemented without the serious follow through to assess that they were implemented effectively. there was a lack of accountability. to fix that, i have directed our analysts to track both the status of the actions we are taking, the progress we're making, and the impact on the health of our nuclear force. we need to know what is working and what is not. they will report every month.

they will report to me approximately every 90 days. i will hold all leaders accountable up and down the chain of command to ensure that words are matched with actions. we must change the cultural perception of the nuclear enterprise, which has particularly suffered in the air force. we must restore the prestige and attract the brightest minds. that is why i have granted that air force authority to elevate global strike command to a for star billet. they will no longer be outranked by their non-nuclear counterparts. this gives the nuclear air force the second to none leadership it deserves. lastly, secretary james, who has been a tremendous leader, personally awarded the first nuclear deterrent service

25 medals, a new medal to recognize the contributions they make to american security. cultural change must permeate down to the individual, with every airmen in the nuclear enterprise knowing how much we value them and their service. we already have started to match much needed leadership with much-needed investments. earlier this year, the air force established a program to address the most urgent shortfalls in programs, equipment, and manning. we allocated $150 million in fiscal year 2015. some of it will fund incentive pay for critical nuclear assignments. helping us regain our best airmen and keeping of focus on what matters most. the air force has exempted 4000

airman from manpower reductions while adding over 1100 billets to forces under global strike -- to fill film gaps. our efforts must be sustained. that is why we are in the process of doing much more. dod will soon finish updating and standardizing how we conduct inspections and elevate our personnel across the nuclear enterprise, eliminating micromanagement, redundancies, and administrative burdens that overtax the force and harm the mission. the navy is reducing administrative distractions and is planning to hire more than 2500 workers at public shipyards, weapons facilities, and reactor training systems. meanwhile, the air force is

planning construction to improve weapons' storage facilities. we will replace helicopters and revamp how it trains and manages the nuclear force. both services are elevating and reinforcing the nuclear mission, including in the budget requests they are preparing for fiscal year 2016. we will need to make billions of dollars of additional investment in the nuclear enterprise in the next five years. this new funding, which will be detailed in our budget submission next year, will be critical in continuing upkeep and security while addressing shortfalls that undermine morale in the nuclear force. there is much more we need to do leading up to our modernization. over the last year i traveled to , wyoming and montana.

i visited kirtland air force base in new mexico and the air force base in omaha. i met with sailors at the uss tennessee in kings bay, georgia. right after this press conference, we will leave for the air force base in north dakota to speak with crews and support teams that are now stationed there. my message to them and to their colleagues across the military is simple. our nuclear enterprise is foundational to america's national security and the resources and attention we commit to the air force must reflect that. we need our best people in this enterprise. i will now take a couple of questions before we leave and as i said, this team will stay

behind and answer further questions that you may have. rita? >> you talk about accountability. several years ago, they fired people and had similar reviews. where is the accountability for the failure to improve and take the steps that were needed over this time? it has been quite a while and steps have not been taken to see -- do what was needed to improve the force. what is the accountability? i could question on the money. qwik question on the money. you're talking about billions of dollars. can you narrow that down? >> on the budget issue, let me address it this way.

we will get specifics on how much and where and all of that in our budget that we present to congress. over the next five years, future fiscal years, we're looking at a 10% increase over each of those years. right now, we spend $15 billion to $16 billion on our nuclear enterprise, if that gives you some kind of range. on the accountability issue, there has been already accountability in a number of instances in specific areas as we are holding people accountable. there will be more. as i said, here in my remarks, and, i think, in backgrounds

most of you received yesterday, this is also a process as we work our way through accountability, as we restructure. again, i go back to a comment i made. i know secretary james feels strongly about this. all our leaders do. accountability is key to everything. it is critical. you could have the structure and process and resources but if you do not have accountability, it will unwind. so, everyone who is holding responsible positions, and by the way this cuts across lines, it is not just the nuclear enterprise, it is all the institution -- who hold responsible positions, are accountable and will be held accountable and we will continue to make adjustments where we

need to make them. david? >> we are told one of the things that the panels found was a situation in which there was one copy of a wrench needed to attach warheads to the missiles. one wrench, 450 missiles at three bases. is that true? and if it is, how did they manage with just one wrench. >> it is true. i think it is indicative, david, of the depth and width of what has happened over the last few years. as i said in my statement, a lack of focus, little attention to some of these specific areas, it wasn't just resources. partly, it is cultural.

as i noted, people taking their eye off the ball. it is important to note that this did not affect the safety , security, and effectiveness of our nuclear weapons. we are talking about delivery platforms as opposed to nuclear war heads. but your point is exactly right. it is indicative of a system that has been allowed to kind of slowly back down hill. we have seen as a result of the intense reviews, internal and external, these kinds of things like you just mentioned about the wrench come out. how did they do it? they did it by federal expressing the one wrench to each base. there were creative and innovative and they made it

work. that is not the way to do it. we now have a wrench for each location and they're going to have two for each location. that is one of many of the issues and problems that we found. >> one follow-up question. everyone is asking. what happened to your cheek? >> well, i had an incident with a cabinet door in the kitchen. i know it is not an exciting story. it depends on the audience as to what i tell people. i thought over the years, it is always better to tell the truth. that is what happened. i engaged the corner of the cabinet in my kitchen and it did not go well for me. but it is going to be all right, no stitches and it all heals. but i have had more bandages on

my face in my career and have been in tougher spots. [laughter] you are all too clever. i wish i had thought of that line. i'm sorry not to make it more interesting. actually, general dempsey asked me when he came back what happened and said it was not interesting. the explanation. one more question. we have to go. >> over the years, we have heard similar words from your predecessors. how do you convey to the american public that this time will be different? each time we have heard, we're going to make the nuclear enterprise. is it because we have been at war and officials have been diverted?

how can you explain that this will be different this time? >> i think it is all the things you mentioned and the number of things i mentioned in my statement. let's start with what this enterprise has been focused on mainly for the last 13 years. two large ground wars. when you have that situation, when america has been at war and had large numbers of troops commitments in those two wars, when a nation is at war, that is a focus. that is not the only reason, i think, that this is nuclear enterprise has been allowed to back down hill a little bit. it is that. it is not paying attention where we should have in some areas.

our young people, upon whom we rely on, if career paths are blocked or seen as not conducive to promotions, and they are young people with a lot of focus and commitment, where they want to go with their lives and commitments, if they see that not as a very attractive way, that is going to affect where we are. i think, too, the good news about this, there has been no nuclear exchange in the world. that is the whole point of deterrence. that is the reason this triad system is so critical for our security.

i think there has been nationally a sense of taking it for granted. so what? there is not going to be a nuclear exchange. the big problem is what is going on in the middle east, africa, al qaeda, that is the threat to america. yes, that is the threat to america. it still is. we have taken our eye off the ball. i think this is the right time to have this assessment and review. the seriousness of this issue has always been there. i do not think anyone has diminished the seriousness of a nuclear threat. i think it is those things and many other things. the good news is, there is nothing here that we cannot fix. the good news is, none of this has endangered americans or put

our security at risk. that is all good news. but if we cannot pay attention to this, fix this, eventually, it will get to a point where there will be questions about our security. that is all the good news. i think, it is not unlike institutions and life and the world. we have so much going on in the world and so many new threats. there is the convergence of challenges and threats in the world. i don't know if i have seen it in my lifetime. your business records at every moment of every day. it is all coming at us at one spirit we have to manage this. we cannot lose sight of the long term. at the same time we managed to lead through and coalitions another means, but we also cannot take our eye off the ball for the longer-term issues and challenges to keep this institution strong, but also to

keep it prepared for what is coming. the new asymmetric threats, cyber, you know about those things. there is a lot of good news in this. that is the way i look at it. thank you very much. >> good morning, everyone. i am deputy secretary. i would like to make the couple of remarks and then we will get into questions. like to all, i would echo the secretaries thanks to our reviewers, both of them had a very hard problem. the internal reviewers, matalin -- working onday the war had side of the problem. she could not be here today because she was traveling. having us senior enlisted on the review was absolutely critical. we wanted to get his sense on

what was happening all the way down. was of very hard problem. they were talking truth to power. it was not up pretty story. they stuck to their guns at the secretary's behest and did an incredible job. nuclearnd that then deterrent is safe, secure, and effective. action,e take immediate the possibility of something happening in the near future goes up, unacceptably. we needed to address it right away. , theyternal reviewers were not asked to give an assessment of whether or not the nuclear deterrent was safe, secure, and effective. they were tasked by the secretary to say where the gaps in the vulnerabilities are. i have to tell you that they took this job so seriously that -- it was not bundled -- done by committee.

it is one of the most thoughtful, hard-hitting reports i have ever red. i am proud of the job that there you reviewers did. they did an excellent job. they told us what we need to do. how is this different? we have had many nuclear deterrent enterprise reviews. this is why, i think, this is different good one, the senior leadership is involved. one of the things that the internal review said is that you do not have anybody looking at this as an enterprise, and you better it's him but he did look at it as an enterprise. to this pointp have been telling you where individual problems are, icbms, sl pms, and the sufferings. you did not have anybody look into the enterprise. they recommended we consider that. the external reviewers, as andne, really knocked me

punched us between the eyes through they told us that you have got to take ownership of this issue, mr. secretary. the secretary did. what makes this different is the nuclear deterrent enterprise review group is chaired by me, the number two civilian in the department and the vice chairman of the joint keeps -- joint chiefs of staff. we report directly to the secretary. that is it. this is much different. the insistenceof of two really seasoned nuclear officers -- if you do not do this as the secretary level initiative, you will go the same way as in the pastor the second thing is follow-up. there are more than 100 recommendations. as the secretary said, he assigned the director of the cost analysis and program of valuation shop to put together 18 that tracks each and everyone

of these individuals. we would have it check list. it said to do this, yes, we did it. now we have metrics for everything are one. , are therselves metrics doing what we want them to do. are they causing problems that we did not anticipate? the follow-up is different. muchccountability is different. as the secretary said, now there will behave four-star global strike command, a3 to star on the air force -- a3 star on the , and everyonef will be coming in on the quarterly basis -- essentially basis, and6 week then report to the secretary. he will hold us all accountable. we are making very big moves and oversight, both we've talked about, and in the personnel right liability program.

also the inspection regime. these are pointed out in both reviews as getting out of control. there is an old saying, don't expect what you don't inspect. inspections became the reason why. they were not helping the force. they were able to. both internal and it and review made that clear. as of matter of fact, the next meeting is on the 19th of november, and we will make final changes to the personnel reliability program, the inspection regime, and the security regime to take the burden off our airmen and the officers who supervise them. as the secretary said, the investment will be billions of dollars. we spend about $15 billion at year. we will need to increase that anna sustained basis by at least 10%. training, ifand you have questions on security and inspections, we can answer those.

it is an actual toolkit, to thread the bolts so that the wrenches could attach, and they were being fed extra round. as marines, that is the metaphor. sendingt want to be your gauge from company to company. it is ridiculous treaty was an metaphor for how far things have fallen. it is because the people stopped reporting it. they had reported it over and over. that is the thing i would like to lead you with. the people in this enterprise are unbelievable. they were able to make this deterrent safe, reliable, effective, and secure. we were doing it on their back straight make no doubt about it. that is what the secretary said. that is what makes this one different.

from the leadership on down, all of us are really invested in this. we are not going to ask the impossible of our sailors and soldiers and airmen who have been making this enterprise work. we are going to make it better for them. we will make sure that it remains that way. -- that, the historyces have of putting other priorities and heart -- in front of nuclear work. is it time to take the nuclear budget out of the defense budget and make it its own separate entity? backrst of all, this goes to one of the things that happened over 13 years of poor. because our budgets have been coming down, we say were going to do this in the nuclear enterprise, well, when you have to make our choice like that,

you go ahead and support the war. you make it as best as you can. now we said we can't do that. this is going on too long. this has to be one of our primary things. if we had sequestration, this is going to be in major problem. an major problem in this particular enterprise and the major problem across the enterprise. if you go to sequestration level cots, you will not be able to make will we believe are the prudent investments that you would have to do to make sure that we have faced safe, secure, and effective deterrent. your own question, this is something we talked about within the department. i separateis will be 80 discussion. we are trying to prepare for the downgrading of our defense resources in trying to accommodate that. the navy faces the problem, michelle can talk about this. program, it is

of very extensive replacement for the icbms. replacements for the bomber, that is expensive. we will have to address that. we will in the future. yes? >> can you explain why it is going to take 10% more money to fix this problem, why it can't be done with -- without increasing the budget? we heard about the idea of reducing the whole nuclear enterprise. why is it going to cost more? said thatsident has his goal is of world without nuclear weapons. the new start treaty with russia has brought us down to 315 weapons. we need to keep those weapons, safe, secure, and effective. i argue, when your inventory comes down, it is even more important that you are absolutely sure that you are taking care of it. we have made the decision that icbms,ad, land-based

c-based nuclear deterrence, and they flexible bomber force that is nuclear capable is the best way to achieve it deterrent. wilson and general admiral hauer to say -- you have to add people to the shipyards to allow the submarines to get through. i will let them give you an example on why we need more money to help. they might be of to give your couple of examples. >> thank you for the question. infrastructure, they are continuing to age. i just visited our strategic weapons facilities last week. those buildings were built 25 years ago. they are in good shape. when you think about it, it is like at 25-year-old house. things start to degrade overtime pay you have to invest money to keep,. as things age, you continue to

invest more money and maintenance. we are finding in the cycle for our submarines, as they get older, we need our maintenance availabilities tend to turn longer as we put more work into them to get them up to the highest operational level. one of the ways that we can reduce that maintenance i can is to hire more people. we can put more workers on it. we have been given permission to hire more shipyard workers pay it we are doing the hiring now. adding morethat is people, it cost more money. having to do more maintenance of the lifecycle as things age cost more money. >> let me give you two examples for the air force. -- the icbms we are using came on in the 1970's. we have missiles that have been on alert for 52 years. just like admiral hauer talked about. that infrastructure has to be modernized. the cost money.

for helicopters that we fight today in the missile fields are 1969 then ditch helicopters -- 1969 vintage helicopters. we need are new helicopter. ose those are couple of great examples of what we will be looking for in the future to spend money on. of thee are two parts problem. we have to spend money to maintain an aging nuclear deterrent enterprise. to bridget to the new nuclear deterrent that we will build that we will be building in the 20 20's. yes? -- there haveout been at couple of scandals. one involving cheating. what did the reviews find on how

about the culture was and what is being done to address the issues within the force? >> these questions would be best addressed by all three. i would like to start with admiral haney. >> i would stay -- start off by saying that most of our warriors come to work every day with integrity, commitment, and service to this mission. there have been some stumbling blocks. managed to remove those folks. when you look at the discussion we had here, and the amount of effort our warriors have in terms of bridging that gap, in terms of making sure that this is safe, secure, and effective, they are on board. i visited all of our nuclear bases, more than twice in most cases, over my tenure here.

i have met with small groups, large groups, etc. , and most of our folks were very committed to the point where they were perturbed at the performance by those who demonstrated flaws and integrity. and are very passionate hopeful as they look at this commitment that the department has had associated with this mission, which is very important to our country. thank you. >> i would add that what the culture had happened is the culture of micromanagement. today, what you will see across the air force, certainly in the nuclear business, is that this is about leadership and empowerment. we are empowering our airmen. if you go to the missile fields, you will find that they get it.

they are excited and motivated about this empowerment that they have not seen before. lesson 1% of our folks are the ones that are messing up. the 99.9% of our folks are amazing people. they come to work every day. they are committed to their mission good they know it is important. job for ourterrific nation. they live our core values every single day. the discovery of the incident and charleston, the director of naval reactors did an investigation. he did something else. he decided to step back and look more broadly across the nuclear forces. he also had some other groups come in. the conclusion is that this is not about culture. exhibit ourtruly core values of courage, honor, and commitment. to say, ok, it is

not systematically but go back and look at what happened in trust in. that gets to what was discussed in the report. one of the factors is the workload at charleston. the workday. the factor becomes that folks -- evenwas ok to take know it was cheating. that is one of the reasons that in addition to the shipyard workers, will will be hiring additional instructors, so we get the workload balance right, so our sailors continue to exhibit courage, honor, and commitment. thank you. if i might ask someone else to come up. the number of enlisted who are is in nuclear enterprises the thousands. they are the bulk of the

security and maintenance force. they are the backbone of this enterprise. perhaps he can address this issue on culture. of the troops each and every day come to work focused on doing the right thing. they are instilling the right pride and drive took him push the mission. you have that 10% that bring the culture in that they grew up on, and they try just for the culture among the workforce. i'm here to tell you that that way out thatlly 10% to try to take the shortcut. the culture there is the culture we have across all services. that is to allow democracy to rein in this country. >> yes, ma'am? sounds like the defense department has been in fomenting fixes.

you would two a variety of basis. pentagonring why the has taken so long with respect to my not air force base. the review said many of the senior people -- you have no expense with that system. what if you been doing to mitigate that? it was as special case in the external review. or larry tojohn address it. but frankly, the senior leadership, certainly at the deputy secretary and secretary level, it was very helpful for us pray to pointed out that this is where you have to look. this is one of her most austere, remote bases. some of the decisions we made were really indicative of an lack of real attention. the secretary is gone today.

he's been there before. i will be going out in february, because both larry and john told me that if i did not go there in january or february i was aware of. an went. >> go ahead. >> there was the time in the air -- aswhen the catechism what that was to express was that it was the toughest mission in the air force. there was the sense of pride minot.nt with being from

over the years, that disappeared. as the nuclear mission moved from major command to major command, it did not get the kind of emphasis that is demanded in the kind of environment that you exist in on the northern territory. ot is the academy of that. today,inotok you find some of the oldest maintenance facilities. you find extreme reluctance to accept an assignment to minot. againas to happen is once we need to instill that special pride that always went with being able to do the toughest job in the toughest place.

i think they are taking actions to restore that attitude. it will not be an easy thing to accomplish. >> sir, can you give us some examples? 1950's and 1960's knew that the nuclear mission mattered. i don't think you would find a lot of americans today who are worried about it. airmenyou convey to the that it does on the daily basis? do you visited the folks in minot? what do you do? -- admiraleart the harvey noted that you would be surprised about how much these people know. you would be surprised about how much attention the maintenance

guy that works on the icbm or the truck driver that has to move things around on the roads along with these oil industry trucks -- you would be amazed about how much they know about what the leadership is saying and what the public is saying. step to really restoring pride in what they do is for the senior leadership to say how important this is. where move from the point former government officials suggest that we don't need icbms and they don't hear any response from the senior leadership. we have to move from that to constant reminders from the most senior leadership that this is job one. that this mission is important. the peopleatly value who perform this mission. we have seen that happen.

all levelen that at now that we have not seen for years. it has to continue. as you pointed out, we have seen it before, but it did not last long enough to ring about it lasting change. ithink admiral harvey and believe that this time there will be lasting change. there has to be reminders to those people that it is job one. that they are valued. that we understand that it is tough duty and you ought to be proud of performing it. >> one more question. >> this is secretary james is third visited. he has been in office for 10 months. she has been to everyone of our nuclear bases twice. she is on the books to go again on february. -- a criticals

nuclear skill sets. aircraft maintenance is one of those critical. we are making sure that we have the right experience, the right numbers, the right basis. we are focused to get the right numbers and skill at the nuclear bases. that is why the major issues going forward. just to safeway -- top-down -- we diddmiral fretz the bottom up review. we came to the same conclusion. there is an 95% overlap. we agree with everything that is in those reports. they are really well done. from recruiting, manning, training, testing and inspections, security and investments -- we have been moving the last seven months to do this. >> yes, ma'am. >> what isnvestments

the timing of that? the second, you spoke the other day about the maintenance backgrounds you have for the aircraft carriers. i wonder how you ensure that these investments go into nuclear submarines, or can you separate investments in this part of the force versus the non-nuclear force? >> i was couple of and turn it over to michelle. one of the destructive things of last year when we had sequestration and then the government shutdown, both on the furloughs as well as the hiring freezes on civilian workforces, we took the fair approach and we said that we cannot exempt anybody in the force. we have to treat everybody the same. this is an appalling thing to happen. wedid not think that maybe should have exempted the nuclear shipyards. you can see the effects it has had on the maintenance.

right now, we have approved the hiring authority for the navy to go after these 2400 folks. that is happening right now. you will see the actual dollar figures attached to that when we drop our budget on february of 2015. michelle, did you want us anything? >> you are right. there is the symbiotic relationship across all nuclear propulsion plants. by raising up the level of nuclear workers, that helps. we are hiring now. yes. >> i would just like to leave the last word with admiral haney. he is responsible for the entire nuclear enterprise. just how important this is. as the secretary said, we follow and we will now

our words, this is the most important mission we do. it is absolutely critical to the safety and security of our nation. i would like to leave the last word with admiral haney and thank you all for coming out this morning. >> thank you, mr. secretary. as you look at our strategic forces today, and it is not just the triad, it consists of everything from the mechanisms we have associated with the so thatence apparatus when some country launches something and determines if the threat against united states of america. was that of threat against one of our allies? so that we going's can quickly assess that. through ourormation command-and-control and mutations apparatus such that we can very quickly get the right set of leaders together to issue

the decision to go from the president of the united states down to our warriors associated with the very's platforms we have been talking about. that is also part of it. we are doing the business right, which we have been doing right and an effective manner for some time. as the result, you don't we'd about it. you don't see the mushroom cloud of that sort of thing. we must continue that. it is important in the 21st century as the deterrent and an insurance to ensure that we can continue to benefit as we have from our strategic capabilities. being that they have been successful, they have in fact been under the radar. the good news is that the great work that has been done by professionals through these

reviews, as well as the internal reviews, the services of been involved in and also strategic command, they put aliens on this to ensure where we need to go for the future. as we look at the threats that are out there, what other , and giving, etc. the series consequences of having amiss, -- and miscalculation and not having the strategic ability that we need in the world, especially as it relates to the united states of america. this is an important business for our country. it is good to see that it is getting attention today great it is very important as we go forward. thank you. >> on the next washington journal, former justice department officials talk about the new carbon emissions reduction deal.

instituteof the cato will discuss civil asset forfeiture laws. will take your calls. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. washington journal, live at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> the republican-controlled house has passed legislation approving the construction of the keystone xl well pipeline. the vote was 252-161. the yes vote included 31 democrats siding with republicans. the bill not rest of the senate. also during the end of the week session, house majority leader of california and minority whip discussed next week's legislative schedule. the house will take up three bills to limit the power of the epa. congressman mccarthy of the lame-duck section will end by december 11. they also discussed the possibility of an omnibus spending bill, tax extenders,

and terrorism risked insurance legislation. this is just over 10 minutes. >> i want to congratulate the majority leader on his reelection. i want to congratulate him on the expansion of his majority. -- that is theng reality. i would like to say to him that i -- the speaker of house is now an order. >> the house will be in order. >> gentlemen -- >> police take your conversations off the floor. please take your conversations off the floor. >> all of us look forward to moving forward and hopefully -- to respond to what the american people want.

sides to be working together to make their country better and more successful. and so i want to congratulate the majority leader. at this point in time, i yield to the majority leader for the purposes of telling us what the schedule if is for the week to ome. mr. mccarthy: on monday the house will meet at noon and 2:00 p.m. for legislate i have business. on tuesday and wednesday, the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and 12:00 for legislative business. on thursday, the house will meet 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. last votes are expected before 3:00 p.m. no votes are expected in the house on friday. a complete list of bills that will be considered will be released today. the house will consider three

bills to alleviate burdens on small businesses, h.r. 1422, the --.a. science advisory board mr. hoyer: the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house will be in order. the gentleman is recognized. mr. mccarthy: the first h.r. 1422, the e.p.a. science advisory board reforming at, sponsored by representative chris stewart, would establish board member qualifications. the second, h.r. 4012, the by et science reform act, representative david schweikert, would prevent them finalizing a regulation unless the data is made public. and another by steve scalise will bring much-needed transpay