i'm proposing cutting personal property taxes for small businesses. this burdensome tax and bureaucratic paperwork discrrges the creation of new businesses and drives small businesses and jobs elsewhere. [applause] this legislation would create a tax exemption for the first 10,000 in personal property, entirely limb -- eliminating this tax for one half of all maryland's businesses. after siphonning a billion dollars for the transportation frusttund, a decision was made to enact the largest gas tasme. this legislation also included language which would automatically ip crease its taxes every single year without

it ever coming up for a vote. marylanders deserve the transparency to know how their elected leaders vote every time the state takes a bigger share of their hard-earned tax dollars. this is a regressive tax that hurts struggling maryland families and our most vulnerable and which adds to the cost of almost everything. these automatic tax increases should be pealed and we will submit legislation -- repealed and we will submit legislation to do so. this initial tax relief package is just the starting point in the process of rebuilding our state's economy. and of course tax relief is only a part of the solution. we have other important initiatives as well. including number 7.

improving transportation. over the last several years moneys for local road improvements have been slashed by up to 96%. our administration is committed to restoring the money that was taken from the transportation trust fund and to making sure that it never happens again. today -- [applause] today i am pleased to announce the supplemental to our fy 2016 budget that will increase highway user revenues by $25 million and give counties and municipalities the most money that they have received since fiscal year 2009. further, we are committed to

increasing the local share of highway use from 10% to its original high point of 30% over the next eight years. number eight. improving education for all maryland children. education is our top priority. in our proposed budget, we spent more money on education than ever before. we fund k-12 education at record levels. and we have committed over 290 million to school construction. and this is the first time in history that any administration has provided additional supplemental funding for education through gcei in their first year. we have some great schools here in maryland. but the gap between the best and the worst schools is

dramatic. i believe that every child in maryland deserves a world class education regardless of what neighborhood they fro up in. -- grow up in. we must fix our underperforming schools, while also giving parents and children realistic and better alternatives. so let's expand family's choices. let's encourage more public charter schools to open and operate in maryland. this month our administration will submit legislation to strengthen maryland's charter school laws. this legislation will expand choices for families and make it easier for more public charter schools to operate in maryland. our administration will also push for the enactment of the building opportunities for all students and teachers

legislation also known as boast. it provides tax credits to those who make voluntary contributions to private and parochial schools and it will help free up more money and more resources for our students in public schools. this legislation has been debated in these chambers for more than a decade. the senate has already voted to approve it. we need to work to convince our colleagues in the house that it's the right thing to do. protecting the environment a healthy bay is a key to a strong economy and a high quality of life for all marylanders. it will be a top priority of our administration. even after spending $15 billion in maryland tax dollars on the health of the bay, chesapeake

bay's health has declined. maryland just received a d-plus on a recent report card. this is just the latest indicator that our current strategy for protecting and restoring our greatest natural asset is failing. our administration intends to reverse that trend. it's time for a new approach. we can and we must do better. we all agree on the problem. there's too much phosphorus, nitrogen and settlement entering our bay. we must take action to prevent as much of this pollution as possible from entering the bay. however, restoration of our bay must not fall on one group disproportionately. placing unreasonable burdens upon maryland's farmers will serve only to devastate more rural communities. we will work with the agricultural and environmental communities to find fair and balanced solutions for limiting

phosphorus. in addition, we will take a comprehensive approach to restoring our bay by addressing the long ignored impact of upstream polluters and the sediments spilling over the con wingo dam. we will work with all the stakeholders to come up with fresh, innovative solutions to protect and restore our greatest natural asset. number ten. tackling maryland's heroin epidemic. as i travel throughout our state, i hear the devastating stories from families and friends who hurt from the

devastation heroin has wreaked on our communities. throughout maryland from our smallest town to our biggest city it has become an epidemic. it is destroying lives. i have tasked the lieutenant governor with bringing together all the stakeholders in order to come up with a plan to tackle this emergency. later this month we will excute an executive order which will address this heroin epidemic in our state. finally, campaign finance and election reform. the strength of our democracy rests on a balanced, honest, and open political process. that challenges convention and encourages progress. the fair campaign financing act

for gubernatorial elections helps provide this balance. it levels the playing field and holds our elected leaders accountable. and while many have said that we would never elect a governor because of the low spending limits mandated in our public finance law, i stand before you today as proof that that system does work. we must replenish this fund as soon as possible and make it available to future candidates. therefore, we will submit legislation to reinstate the voluntary checkoff which allows a taxpayer to make a donation towards the public campaign financing system each year. and we also need to address redistricting reform. we have -- [applause]

we have some of the most gerrymandered districts in the country. this is not a distinction that we should be proud of. jerry mannedering is a form of political gamesmanship that stifles real political debate and deprives citizens of meaningful choices. fair and competitive elections and having checks and balances make for a more vibrant and responsive citizen republic. to advance this discussion, i will excute an executive order that creates a bipartisan commission to examine maryland's redistricting process with the goal of fully reforming this process and giving this authority to an independent bipartisan redistricting commission. [applause]

though this is an ambitious agenda i believe that these actions will begin to put maryland on a new paptsdz -- one that leads to a new era of opportunity and prosperity for all our citizens. though our visions may differ, our goals are the same -- a better stronger cleaner healthier and more prosperous maryland. we can't accomplish these goals alone. we need your help. your ideas. and your support. and while i'm sure we may disagree on a few points during the coming weeks i am prepared to create an environment of trust and cooperation, one in which the best ideas rise to the top based on their merit regardless of which side of the political debate they come from. [applause]

so let us commit ourselves to that goal, to live up to our potion, to work together to solve the big problems with cooperation and good faith for the stake of our children, and grandchildren. let us renew our sense of optimism and make maryland a place of unlimited promise. together, let's change maryland for the better. thank you. god bless you. and may god bless the great state of maryland. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015]

>> good morning.

the committee meets this morning to consider the nomination of dr. ashton b. carter to be the secretary of defense. there are standard questions by committee rule that i would put forth to dr. carter at this time. dr. carter, in order to exercise its legislative and oversight responsibilities it's important that this committee and other appropriate committees of the congress are able to receive testimony, briefings and other communication of information. have you adhered to applicable laws and regulations governing conflicts of interest? >> i have. >> have you assumed any duties or undertaken any actions which would appear to presume outcome of the confirmation process? >> no. >> will youensure that your staff complies with deadlines established for request and communications including questions for the record in hearings? >> i will. >> will you cooperate in providing witnesses and briefers in response to congressional request? >> yes.

>> will those witnesses be protected from reprisal for their testimony or briefings? >> they will. >> do you agree, if confirmed, to appear and testify upon request before this committee? >> yes. >> do you agree to provide documents, including electronic forms and communications, in a timely manner and requested by a duly constituted for good faith denial in providing such documents? >> yes. >> that concludes the routine questions we ask nominees. before the committee proceeds before us today on behalf of all members of the committee we'd like to extend our deepest condolences to the family of the brave family killed by

isil. together with jordan we mourn the loss of a hero that galvanized the nation and the world. i hope this heinous crime helps us put in place what thus far has been lacking, comprehensive strategy to achieve goal to degrade and destroy isil. let there be no doubt, we still do not have a viable strategy to counter isil. and if you are not winning in war, you are losing. america has no greater ally in the fight against terrorism than jordan. as we made clear to king abdullah in our meeting yesterday, this committee's concern is to ensure jordan has equipment and resources necessary to continue taking the fight directly to isil. many of us on this committee will be sending a letter to the administration on this urgent issue of concern, and we invite all of our fellow committee members to join us on that

letter. i think there was a consensus on both sides after the meeting with king abdullah that we would send a letter out this morning. that letter will be distributed to the members for your perusal and signature so we can get that letter out as soon as possible. i thank all members of the committee for their cooperation. i'd also like to add if legislation is required in order to achieve the goals that king abdullah articulated to us yesterday as absolutely necessary to defend his nation we will be considering that legislation as well as soon as possible, and i thank all members. the senate armed services committee meets today to consider nomination of ashton b. carter to be secretary of defense. at the outset i'd like to express my sincere gratitude to chuck hagel for his years of service as infantry sergeant in

vietnam and as our nation's 24th secretary of defense. chuck hagel is a consumate and honorable public servant. during his time in the pentagon men and women of the armed forces had a true ally who always put their interests first. this committee wishes chuck the best in his future endeavors. dr. carter, even in the best of time, the position you've been nominated is one of the most challenging in government. i'd like to thank your wife and children for being here today and for loaning you to our nation and service again. dr. carter is one of the most respected defense professionals. he's served as assistant secretary of defense for global strategic affairs under secretary of defense for acquisition technology and logistics. most recently as deputy secretary of defense. in these positions, i have known him and members of the committee have known him to be an honest, hardworking and a

committed public servant. i've had the opportunity to work together with dr. carter on several issues of shared concern, especially trying to reform the defense acquisition system, improving financial management of the department and rolling back sequestration. on these and other issues facing the nation, we all look forward to having you as our partner once more dr. carter. i must candidly express concern about the task that awaits you if confirmed and the influence you would have on some of the most critical national security issues facing our nation. two of your predecessors secretary gates and secretary panetta, have severely criticized white house micromanagement of the defense department and over centralization of foreign and defense policy. according to numerous news reports secretary hagel expressed similar frustrations with insular and indecisive white house security team over issues ranging from isil to

ukraine, detention policy to sequestration. dr. carter, i sincerely hope the president who nominated you will empower you to lead to the fullest extent of your ability. at this time america needs a strong secretary of defense now more than ever. americans are confronted today with a diverse and complex range of national security challenges. iran is on the march in iraq syria, yemen. other parts of the middle east isil continues to expand its influence and territory. as new director of central intelligence agency recently testified to congress. a revisionist russia and rising china each seek in their own ways presents challenges to liberal international order as we've known it since the end of world war ii, a system that cherishes the rule of law, maintains free market and free trade and religates wars of aggression to their rightful

place -- in the bloody past. amid the present upheavel and conflict, america disengagement can only produce more turmoil and increase in the chance of large scale american interventions at greater cost in blood and treasure. that's why we need a coherent national security strategy incorporating all elements of america's national power to defend international order extended security, prosperity and liberty across the globe. crafting a reality-based national security strategy is simply impossible under the mindless mechanism of sequestration. despite the growing array of complex threats to our security, we are on track to cut $1 trillion out of america's defense budget by 2021. readiness is falling across the services, and moral is falling right along with it.

army and marine corps end strength is dropping dangerously low. the air force is the oldest and smallest it's ever seen. the navy's fleet is shrinking to pre-war 1 levels and last week each of our service chiefs testified before this committee that american lives are being put at risk due to sequestration. sequestration represents a failure to meet our most basic constitutional responsibility to provide for the common defense. america's military can no longer be held hostage to political disputes totally separated from the reality we face. after the budget control act it's time to put an end to this senseless policy. rolling back sequestration is necessary to provide military strategy driven budget necessary to confront what we face but it will never be enough without reforming how the department secures major

weapons systems. many of our military's challenges today are the results of years of mistakes and wasted resources. for example, over here, the army's future combat system was initially estimated to be a $92 billion project to modernize into a cohesive network, new army vehicles, and radios. but it more than doubled its price to $200 billion without ever getting off the ground. secretary gates and congress wisely canceled future combat systems, but only after spending $20 billion with nothing to show for it. between these four systems -- the next chart up there, please -- between these four systems, future combat systems, expedition fighting vehicle command helicopter and presidential helicopter, we spent $40 billion with nothing

to show for it. that's $40 billion of training and equipment our military doesn't have today to confront the threats we face. the problem continues today. the cost of the evolved expendible launch vehicle has exploded from around $100 million per launch to $400 million per launch over the last 15 years after the air force allowed years of sole source contracts while especially over the last few months actively keeping out any other companies from competing. hopefully this year we will see the air force certify a new entrant and this can bring down cost and end reliance on russian rocket engines. like many programs that exceeded it, lcs cost overruns predictably from chronic lack of planning in three key areas unrealistic initial cost estimates and unreliable assessments of technological

and integrated risk. the gerald ford class nuclear aircraft carrier was originally supposed to cost $10.5 billion. it will now cost $12.9 billion a $2.4 billion increase, and we have no assurance such increases will not plague the follow-on ships. this is unacceptable. f-35 joint strike fighter was originally estimated to cost around $220 billion to research and engineer and build 2,800 airplanes. now we're going to spend more than $330 billion, a 50% increase to buy 400 fewer airplanes, even worse the amount of money squandered and wasted is the fact each of the weapons system cases i've

mentioned no individual has been held responsible for these massive cost overruns and egregious acquisition failures and the result has been the slow degradation of america's defense technological advantage which we lose all together if we persist with business as usual in acquisition policies. this must change. it will be a priority for this committee and me personally to change it. dr. carter, i look to you as a partner in all of these endeavors. if confirmed, i hope you will provide independent leadership and work closely with congress on issues that matter most crafting a coherent national security strategy to meet today's threats, rolling back sequestration, continuing to reform defense acquisition process, modernizing our military compensation system and many others. i thank you deeply for your willingness to serve once again, and i look forward to your testimony today.

>> senator reid. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. let me join you extending our condolences to the brave jordanian pilot and the people of jordan. let me welcome dr. carter and thank him for his willingness to serve the nation. i also want to welcome stephanie and the children. also my colleague joe lieberman for being here today. dr. carter as deputy secretary of defense and under-secretary for acquisition technology and logistics, you are uniquely qualified to lead department of defense at a time when henry kissinger said last week united states has not faced more diverse complex since the end of second world war. if confirmed you'll advise the president, lead the defense department and leading a staggering number of challenges with our international interest.

iran, while secretary of defense is not a party to the negotiations to iran's nuclear program, the secretary will undoubtedly be responsible for any number of potential contingencies relating to consequences of different outcomes of these negotiations. in the event of a breakdown in the negotiations, the consequences could alter the face of the region for generations and generations. isil. isil's depraved and violent campaign in iraq and syria to establish a religious caliphate threatens erase borders, destabilize region, create a breeding ground of fighters willing to return to the west and attack united states interest. the department must provide critical leadership, a coalition effort that includes arab and muslim states to degrade and defeat isil while being careful to ensure the u.s. doesn't end up owning the conflict in syria and elsewhere. afghanistan. the hard won gains of the past decade are significant but

remain fragile. with afghan security, the afghan forces are taking over responsibility for combating taliban and securing afghanistan. however, the united states forces with our coalition partners must transition to a more limited mission of training and assisting forces and counter-terrorism operations. yet it remains to be seen whether conditions on the ground in afghanistan will improve sufficiently by the end of 2016 to warrant the pace of further reductions under the current plan. ukraine. russia's aggression against ukraine challenges order and progress in europe. in the past few days separate ises in eastern ukraine with substantial russian equipment training and leadership abandoned any pretext of a cease-fire and launched a broad offensive against forces. the united states must determine how to best support iranian people in defending their country. cyber. for years we've devoted attention to looming and complex challenge of cyber warfare. the attack on sony corporation in america was in respects a

watershed event that should stimulate fresh critical thinking. this attack demonstrates a relatively small and rogue nation can reach across the ocean and cause extensive destruction of u.s.-based economic target and very nearly succeed in freedom of expression through cyberspace. the real and manifest advantage of offense and defense of cyber warfare that enabled military inferior nations to strike against homeland is a new and worrisome factor for national security. these issues are only a few of the challenges facing the defense department, but there are also significant internal challenge that must be addressed. sequestration. last week before this committee general maddux said no foe in the field can wreak such havoc that mindless can be achieved today. brigades willing to fight. general wells testified less than 50% of our squadron

fighters are combat ready. sequestration threatens not only national security but risks damage to public safety, health, education, transportation and environment. while the department manages these difficult fiscal realities congress must find balance and bipartisan solution and repeal sequestration. rising costs, chairman alluded to this succinctly and correctly. even without sequestration defense has to tackle rising costs, including personnel costs which consume one-third of the budget. yesterday we heard testimony of compensation and retirement committee. their recommendations are far reaching and would fundamentally change military personnel benefits. these recommendations must be carefully considered. changes must occur between ensure properly fighting men and women. other in defense department acquisition, whether significant acquisition reforms many under your leadership

defense acquisition takes too long and costs too much. we can and should do more to streamline and improve the system. acquisition, whether significant acquisition reforms many under your leadership defense acquisition takes too long and costs too much. we can and should do more to streamline and improve the system. finally, but most importantly if confirmed as secretary of defense, you will be leading 1.3 million active duty military, 820,000 reserve and guard and 773,000 civilians. they are tired and overtaxed from a decade of war in years of fiscal uncertainty. they are wrestling with the same issues as civilian society issues like sexual assault and suicide. yet they are committed to protecting this nation and remain the finest force if the world. dr. carter, i look forward to discussing these and other issues with you and thank you for your service. >> thank you senator reid i note the presence of our beloved friend and former colleague, a member of this committee since coolidge administration and we're very happy to have him here this morning our beloved

friend joe lieberman. senator lieberman. >> thanks, mr. chairman. it was a great comfort to me when i arrived during the coolidge administration to find you had already been here several years. [ laughter ] i must say i'm delighted to be here. it's really somewhat sentimental for me to be here. i appreciate very much the opportunity. it's a privilege for me to appear before the senate armed services committee today to introduce dr. ash carter. this is not the first time i have had this privilege. in fact, it is the third time. the first was on march 26th 2009, when ash was nominated to be underisn't of defense for acquisition technology and logistics. second was on september 13th 2011, when he was nominated to be deputy secretary of defense. so today i suppose i could say i don't think i've ever been so pleased to be asked to repeat

myself as i am honored to have been by ash carter to introduce him to you as president obama's nominee to be the 25th secretary of defense of the united states of america. ash carter graduated from yale college summa cum laude with a unique combination of majors physics and medieval history. during his time as a rhodes scholar at oxford he temporarily resolved the question which was on everyone's mind, i'm sure about whether he was primarily a historian or a physicist. he earned a doctorate in theoretical physicist. nonetheless to profound prognosticators he went object to become chair of global affairs faculty at harvard and co-director of the project at

kennedy's school bellfor senator. mr. chairman senator reid, it would really be hard to find someone to serve as secretary of defense who combines as much practical pentagon experience with so deep a background in national security policy as ash carter. the fact convened this morning to consider his nomination means that the talents and abilities of a brilliant and extraordinary strategic thinker and public servant and administrator can again be put to use for our nation. it also means, as you've said that ash carter has again chosen, with the support of his wife and family, to answer the call to duty to serve our country. over the past 30 years, dr. carter has worked directly or indirectly for virtually every secretary of defense, no matter the political party of the secretary. he knows the department he has

been asked to lead very well. and therefore, can begin leading it on day one. from 1993 to 1996 ash served as the assistant secretary of defense for international security policy. during that time he worked on the landmark lugar arms control program, and i got to know him when we traveled together with secretary of defense bill perry and senators nunn and lugar to the former soviet union to observe them destroying nuclear submarines and dismantling missiles and missile sites as part of nunn-lugar. i think we actually bonded personally at one dinner hosted by the high command of the russian military in which i believe it's accurate to say that ash and i were the only two members of the american delegation to keep up with the

vodka toasts of friendship with our russian colleagues. when -- when i think back to those days, and you think of the -- what's happening in russia today, and what russia is doing outside its borders, those memories are really quite poignant. too much has changed for the worse. but, in thinking about introducing ash today he's done so much, it's important to note that he spearheaded some developments during that period of time, particularly the removal of nuclear weapons from ukraine, kazakhstan and belarus. which, needless to say, have continued to make our world a lot safer than it would otherwise be. speaking of travel, ash had the good judgment, mr. chairman to come with us several times to the munich security conference. and i must say watching him

there i was impressed by the range and depth of his relationships with the top level of particularly military, but also foreign policy leaders of our european allies in nato. i would say, and i would guess that members of the committee would agree, that ash carter's most important contributions during his past pentagon service have been in american lives saved on the battlefield. he was the driving force in providing 6,500 amrap vehicles to our troops in afghanistan in record time. an action that saved many lives and gave our troops the confidence that there was someone in washington who was working for them. ash carter's fierce dedication to our war fighters is well known, and i think will be one of his greatest legacies. more broadly the improvements he brought about in the pentagon acquisitions process show his

mastery of this complex and critical field and will make him an excellent partner for you, mr. chairman in the continuing work that i know you senator reid and this committee want to do to improve defense procurement. dr. carter's service on boards and commissions includes the defense science board the defense policy board, the secretary of state's international security advisory board, and the congressional commission on the strategic posture of the united states. ash carter has been accurately described as a man for all seasons. a man of enormous talents and experiences. it is also true that he has made choices in his life about how he has used his talents and experiences. he has chosen to go where his intellect, his values, and his patriotism, have called him. we are fortunate, indeed that

president obama has nominated dr. carter to be our next secretary of defense and if i may say so the president is fortunate that he will have so experienced a leader at the pentagon and so wise an adviser in the inner councils of this administration. all of which explains why i'm so truly honored to introduce ashton carter to this great committee at this time. thank you. >> thank you very much senator lieberman. always glad to have you here. and if you'd like to take a seat on the dais we'd welcome it. dr. carter, welcome. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ranking member reid all of the distinguished members of this committee. thank you all. thank you for inviting me to appear before you as president obama's nominee to be secretary of defense.

i'm honored by his trust and confidence and also by the prospect of serving once again the troops, and the country that i love so much. if confirmed, i will take the office of secretary of defense after one of our nation's most honorable and conscientious public servants, chuck hagel. i worked for secretary hagel. and i've known him for decades. though not over all of the many decades he served our country. among the many traits i admire in secretary hagel is the tireless care with which he carried out the most solemn duty of secretary of defense, which is to the relatively few brave young men and women who defend the rest of us. i also thank senator lieberman for his warm and generous

introduction, as he noted it's not the first time he's done so. but especially for his service to this body, and to the nation over many years. thank you, sir. my perfect wife stephanie, and wonderful children will and abe are behind me as they always are, every day. and i thank them. the president frequently notes that america has the greatest fighting force the world has ever known. to the men and women of the department of defense who make it so, and to this committee, which watches over them, i pledge that if i'm confirmed as secretary of defense to keep faith with the dedication that brought them in to service. to ensure that their training and equipment are as superb as they are.

that the well-being safety, and dignity of each of them and their families is fostered and respected. and that decisions about when and where they're sent into harm's way are made with the greatest reflection and care. the principle reason that stephanie and i made a u-turn in our life to accept the offer of nomination is our respect and devotion to them. to chairman, members of the committee, i'll be brief. if confirmed as secretary of defense my responsibilities would be to protect america and its friends and allies in a turbulent and dangerous world. at the same time i never lose sight of the fact that the united states remains the strongest, most resilient and

most influential nation on earth. we do, indeed have the finest fighting force the world has ever known. we have an innovative economy that has long set the pace for the rest of the world. our country has friends and allies in every corner of the world. and our adversaries have few. this is clear testimony to the appeal of our values our principles, and our leadership. all this makes me proud and hopeful and determined to grab hold of the bright opportunities in front of us, as well as to counter the very real dangers we face. these dangers, as the chairman has noted, include continuing turmoil in the middle east and north africa, and the malignant and savage terrorism emanating from it.

an ongoing war in afghanistan. the reversion to old-style security thinking in parts of europe. the long-standing tensions from the past and the rapid changes in asia, and the continuing need for the stabilizing role of the united states in that region. which are so important to the future. the continuing imperative to counter the use of weapons of mass destruction. and new dangers and new domains like cyber, as noted by senator reid. strategy. strategy needs to keep all these problems in perspective. and to craft lasting approaches to each of them. i have promised president obama that if i am confirmed, i will furnish him my most candid

strategic advice. in formulating that advice, i intend to confer widely among civilian and military leaders including on this committee. experts and foreign partners, and when the president makes a decision, i will also ensure that the department of defense implements it with its long admired excellence. i will also ensure that the president received candid professional military advice. this is not only consonant with the law as vin in this country committee but with good sense. since our military leaders possess wide and deep experience and expertise. the law also prescribes the chain of command. and if i'm confirmed as secretary of defense, i will be a stickler for the chain of command.

i'd also like to say a word about the defense budget. chairman, members of the committee, i very much hope that we can find a way to the out of the wilderness of sequester. sequester is risky to our defense. it introduces turbulence and uncertainty that are wasteful. and it conveys a misleadingly diminished picture of our power in the eyes of friends and foes alike. i'm not familiar with the details of the 2016 budget submitted just a couple days ago, and if confirmed, i will come back here for a full posture hearing to discuss that. but i strongly support the president's request for relief from sequester caps in 2016 and through the future year defense plan. if confirmed i will do my part

to assist the president in working with congress to resolve the overall issues of the country's fiscal future of which the defense budget is a part. but, i cannot suggest support and stability for the defense budget. without, at the same time frankly noting that not every defense dollar is spent as well as it should be. the taxpayer cannot comprehend it, let alone support the defense budget. when they read as the chairman has noted the cost overruns lack of accounting and accountability, needless overhead, and the like. this must stop. every company, state and city in the country has had to lean itself out in recent years. and it should be no different for the pentagon. and in this matter i know i'm

echoing chairman mccain senator reid and this committee, which has long called for and taken concrete action on reform of acquisition and other parts of the defense enterprise. in the weapons system reform act of 2009, and before that dating back to the packard commission, and the goldwater nichols act. i began my own career in defense in connection with the implementation of the packard commission's recommendations. the issues and solutions change over time as technology and industry change. they extend from acquisition, which was high lated by the chairman and programs such as future combat systems and the presidential helicopter, which i canceled, i signed the cancellation orders for in 2009 to the ford aircraft carrier, which senator mccain also noted

which was not satisfactorily solved and still not its overruns and i agree with the chairman in that regard, we got a lot of work to do. the issues and solutions for acquisition reform change over time as technology and industry change as i noted. they extend from acquisition, and this is important, to all other parts of the defense budget. force size compensation and training as well as equipment. if confirmed as secretary of defense, i pledge to make needed change in the pentagon but also to seek support from congress, because i know that in the end, congress holds the power of the purse. i look forward to partnership with this committee, and what can be a period of historic advance. mr. chairman, senator reid, members of the committee, thank

you. thank you for giving me the opportunity to come before you. if confirmed, i will seek out your thoughts, perspectives and combat experiences to help me do the best job. thank you. >> thank you very much dr. carter. and we will have multiple round s but we'll have short ones, five minutes, because that will give more opportunity for members to ask questions, and in in about an hour dr. carter needs a short break as we all know he's recovering from recent surgery. so, we'll take a break then for as long as you need and we will go in to this afternoon so that all members are able to answer -- to ask sufficiently the questions that they have. and to start with dr. carter members of this committee met with king abdullah yesterday. he made a graphic statement about needing some weapons and the difficulties he's having

with those, and we will be signing a letter this morning. and as i said it may require some legislation, but are you aware of the problems that jordanians are having with acquiring some of the weapons that they need? >> i'm not, mr. chairman. i learned of them this morning, as well. and if i'm confirmed i definitely want to find out what they are. and resolve them. because we need partners on the ground to beat isis. and the jordanian people have clearly reacted the way that encourages us to support them. in combatting what is really a savage and -- >> thank you. last week general matous was before this committee and said in afghanistan we need to consider if we're asking the same outcome there as we saw

last summer in iraq. should we pull out all our troops on the administration's proposed time line? at great cost against our enemy in afghanistan general kaine said all we accomplished in afghanistan will be at risk as it was in iraq if the troops are pulled out not based on the conditions on the ground. how can we not learn the obvious and painful lessons from iraq? do you have a position on of a withdrawal from iraq? do you believe that it should be calendar based, as it is now? or should we be looking at the conditions on the ground to base those decisions? >> mr. chairman thank you, and also thank you for your consideration about the back. i appreciate that. the campaign in afghanistan has been close to my heart for all the time that i've been associated with the department of defense. i've been there a number of

times. i think that success is possible there. but as you indicate requires the united states to continue its campaign and finish the job. i understand we have a plan. the president has a plan. i support that plan. at the same time, it's a plan. and if i'm confirmed, and i ascertain, as the years go by, that we need to change that plan, i will recommend those changes to the president. >> well, all i can say is it's not a matter of years. it's a matter of weeks actually. because one of the major withdrawals is going to start this coming june. and so i hope that you will assess that as quickly and as carefully as possible. in his testimony, the committee this week, dr. kissinger said, quote, in the middle east a multiple of evils are unfolding simultaneously. iran has exploited this turmoil to pursue positions of power

within other countries. do you agree with that? >> yeah, i do. >> do you believe that we need to have a strategy to combat isis and the continued successes in many respects that they are achieving? >> absolutely. >> do you believe we have a strategy at this time? >> i believe i understand our strategy at this time, mr. chairman. i also have the intention, again, if confirmed, to make it my first priority to go there to talk to our leaders military leaders there, to confer with you -- >> what do you understand the strategy to be? >> and to -- i think the -- strategy connects, ends and means, and our ends with respect to isil needs to be its lasting defeat. i say lasting because it's important that when they get defeated they stay defeated.

and that is why it's important that we have those on the ground there who will ensure that they stay defeated once defeated. it's different on the two sides of the border. it's one enemy but it's two different contexts, mr. chairman. in iraq, the force that will keep them defeated is the iraqi security forces. that's our strategy is to strengthen them and to make them that force. on the syrian side, not to take too long about it, we are trying to build the force that will keep them defeated. and that's going to be a combination of moderate syrian forces, and regional forces. >> well it sounds like -- doesn't sound like a strategy to me. but maybe we can flesh out your goals. it sounds like a series of goals

to me. do you believe we should be supplying arms, defensive arms, to ukrainians? >> i very much inclined in that direction, mr. chairman, because i think we need to support the ukrainians in defending themselves. i -- the nature of those arms, i can't say right now because i don't have -- i conferred with our military leaders or ukrainian leaders. but i incline in the direction of providing them with arms, including to get to what i'm sure your question is, lethal arms. >> thank you very much dr. carter. senator reed? >> thank you very much mr. chairman. one way to evolve a strategy is to first look at the threats. the middle east. do you believe the most immediate threat there to u.s. interests and to the region is isil? >> i hesitate to say isil only

because in the back of my mind is iran, as well. so i think that we have two immediate substantial dangers. in the middle east. one is isil and one is iran. >> in terms of our current military operations they are clearly directed at isil. is that the appropriate response at this moment to the threats in the region? >> it is. >> and as you point out, there are two theories. one is iraq, where we have more traction and the other is syria. so you would think in terms of responding to the threat that our actions are vigorous support of the current iraqi government is appropriate in responding to this isil threat? >> it is appropriate. if i, as i said, whether and how to improve it will be my first job if i'm confirmed as secretary of defense. >> one of the issues in particular with respect to iraq

is that not only improvement as you suggest in your comments the long-term defeat of isil rests not just on military operations but on political arrangements, and what we've witnessed in iraq particularly was a political arrangement that consciously and deliberately degraded the sunni population. at least that's their perception, and gave rise. so, would you acknowledge that part of the strategy has to be constituting an iraqi government that is perceived by its own people as being a bit fairer and inclusive? >> absolutely. that's what the previous government of iraq did not do. and that was instrumental in their military collapse. >> and one of the issues that complicates, you pointed out, in terms of a round being a strategic issue of the united states in the region, is their

relative influence in iraq and throughout the region was enhanced over the last several years by the government in iraq. by the maliki government. is that accurate? >> that's accurate, yes. >> so we are now in a position of -- of trying to essentially contain the regional ambitions of the iranians and kinetically defeat the sunni radical islamists, is that the strategy? >> yes that sounds right. >> and you understand that and that to you is a coherent strategy? >> it is. yes. >> now, that means that, you know, you're prioritizing or the administration is prioritizing these actions you've talked about, and building over time capability in syria. in terms of using your resources in addressing the most serious threats is that a coherent response in your mind?

>> i think it is the beginning of a strategic response. i think that as i noted on the syrian side of the border the assembling of the force that is going to keep isil defeated there is -- we're in an early stage of trying to build that force. we are participating in the building of that force. but i think it's fair to say that we're at an earlier stage there. on the iraqi side we have the existing iraqi security forces. >> let me -- >> senator reed, if i can just note one other thing. >> please. >> it may be something i missed in your line of questioning. there is an issue looming over this which is the role of iraq in the whole region -- i mean iran, excuse me, in the whole region. which is why i pointed that out at the beginning. that is a serious complication. >> i agree.

let me turn to the issue of ukraine, which the chairman raised the issue of providing weapons systems to defend or allow the ukrainians to defend themselves. but weapons systems have to be differentiated from a commitment of american military personnel. would that be a clear line of demarcation that you would draw? >> excuse me. i was suggesting the provision of equipment to the ukrainian military, yes. >> thank you very much. dr. carter, for your service, mr. chairman thank you. >> senator wicker. >> thank you very much. thank you for your testimony, dr. carter. i look forward to supporting your confirmation. i look forward to working with you. at a point some two or three years ago, the pentagon, along with the administration made a

decision to rebalance to the asia pacific. so i want to ask you about that. would you agree that our challenges with regard to an expansionist russian agenda the situation in eastern europe and other areas near the former soviet union, have become more challenging, and that also our challenges in the middle east are more problematic now than when the decision was made to the asia pacific? >> you're absolutely right. the issues in the middle east, and in ukraine have developed since we first formulated that rebalance. that's true. >> and to the extent that -- well, tell me this.

how do you understand as a prospective secretary of defense, the rebalancing to the asia pacific will actually work? and can we afford to move resources from -- from europe and the middle east to the asia pacific, given the circumstances that we see today in 2015? >> thank you. thank you for that question. the rebalance to the asia pacific region as the term goes is, in my eyes, a commitment to continue the pivotal american military role in the asia pacific theater which has kept peace and stability there for decades now. it has been that american underwritten peace and stability in a region where there's still many historical animosities, and unhealed wounds of the past it

is that stability underwritten by the united states that has allowed the japanese miracle and the south korean miracle, and the southeast asian miracle, and today the chinese and indian miracle. it is thanks to us that that environment has been created. and in a sentence i think the rebalance is a commitment to keep that going. now you asked can we do that? and keep our commitments in the middle east, and to europe at the same time. and my view is that we can, and must, and let me say why that's possible. i think that while isil and events in ukraine are terribly important in their own regard and require a lot of attention and take a lot of attention. they're on the television, they're in the headlines and so forth, and the asia pacific is not, we have to remember that half the population of the world and half of its economy is in that region.

and our military presence there, the naval presence, the air presence, our allies and partnerships finding new allies building new partnerships, conducting exercises, those things can be done at the same time that we're doing what we need to do in ukraine and we're doing what we need to do in iraq, and syria. so i think the world needs to know the united states can do more than one thing at once. and we can keep our commitments there. >> is it going to be necessary to move resources from the middle east and from concern over europe and russia to the asia pacific, to move resources? sounds like you're proposing a continuation of long-standing ongoing policy. >> well, it is a long-standing, ongoing policy but to keep the american military predominance in the asia pacific requires us continually to modernize, and

add to what we have there. we're adding ships we're adding electronic warfare that is we're improving our forces qualitatively, we're investing in them a new bomber. which is importantly intended for that theater, which i think is very important. so we're buying new capabilities that won't necessarily have a role in the middle east or in nato, but are principally designed for that theater. and i think we need to keep those investments going. >> you don't advocate a diminishment of the resources we're spending with regard to the middle east or russia and europe at this point? >> i think we need to keep our investments going. when it comes to date-to-day employments, and i want to get in to too much detail here but i'm sure you know this. when it comes to day-to-day deployments and the location of ships and so forth we do move back and forth between the gulf and the pacific. and so there is some tradeoff there on a day-to-day basis.

but in terms of our fundamental investments, in new capabilities, and remaining ahead of any other military opponent, including in asia and in our building and strengthening in our alliances with japan with south korea, with the philippines, with australia, with thailand and new partnerships with other countries like india, we need to keep all that going. it's an important part of the world. >> thank you, sir. >> senator donnelly? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you and your family and i also want to thank secretary hagel for his service as secretary of defense and to our nation. he took the point in vietnam. he took the point for our defense department and we're grateful for what he's done. i was privileged to travel with some other senators recently to the middle east, and we talked to a number of the nations there. and i just want to make sure that, in your mind do you believe when we look at isis

our goal should be to eliminate them on a permanent basis? >> yes, i do. >> one of my concerns is time. and what i mean by that is when you look at the map of where they were a year ago, where they are now they've substantially grown. and so we have windows that we're working in, and when we look at our plan, i'm concerned about how we look at the depth and the size of our plan, that what it really does, they have 30,000. we're talking hundreds. it gives them time to go even more, and you worry about a tipping point where "x" crosses "y," and they become much more difficult. so, what kind of time plan are you looking at to get movement on this? >> i think it's important to

strike back at isil as we're doing from the air, but to begin to retake territory as soon as we can build the forces on the ground. which will be local forces that are capable of sustaining defeat when we have achieved defeat in a given location. so i hope that in coming months, and again i'm not in a position to have any special information about this or talk to our commanders or so forth but i it's my understanding that in coming months the iraqi security forces assisted by us will begin to take back territory from isil. and i think you're right that it's important to get that territory back soon because you don't want them to settle in and you don't want the population to settle in to having isil rule them in their barbaric way. >> when we talked to the king yesterday, and to others in the region, what they said is, we're

not asking you to fight our battle, but we need you, as a partner, shoulder to shoulder, to help us train, to help us plan, to help us implement. is that what you see our ground role as? >> yes, i think exactly right. you're referring to the assistance we provide to the jordanians, if i understand. >> right. and to the other nations who are looking at the same thing. >> that's right. one of the things we had testimony on yesterday was in regards to switching themes a little bit dod and the v.a. with drug formularies. we lost 479 young men and women to suicide in 2013 who were in the military. we lost 132 in combat. we don't want to lose any more, so part of what general corrally was telling us was that with the drug formularies, it causes dramatic change for those who

are coming off and going in to the v.a. all of a sudden they look up, they're being forced on different drugs and stuff. as secretary of defense, are there things you can do to help us with that? >> i think there definitely are, and must be. i think the relationship between the department of defense, and the department of veterans affairs has to be a relationship like this, because it's one soldier. if they cross the boundary from one to the other when they move and become a veteran, but it's one soldier. and so, i am familiar -- or that is i remember from years back when i was in the department of this question of the difference formularies, people call -- dod calls a drug one thing and v.a. calls it another thing and they have one set of dosages -- >> and our troops -- >> and -- we've got to get this together. it's one patient. >> they get lost in the shuffle. >> exactly. >> and it's at a most critical time to them personally. and so your absolute commitment to that, and i know it is is

going to be critical. i wanted to ask you one other thing as i'm starting to get a little short on time. and that is your expertise in the nuclear area and i was wondering if you are familiar with the report issued by madeline creeden and rear admiral fanta. they did a departmentwide nuclear enterprise review. it is classified but it is very sobering. i just want to make sure i didn't know if you'd seen it yet. if you have, will you take ownership of the issue and ensure its findings are addressed? >> thank you, senator. i have not had access to that particular report, but with respect to the nuclear enterprise, i have a long history in that regard. and a strong believer in a safe secure and reliable nuclear arsenal for the united states. and that encompasses both the nuclear weapons themselves, it -- and the delivery system ss

of the department of defense, and the command and control systems for it. so i can well understand it. they're calling attention to the enduring need to make that a priority. that's another thing that's not in the newspapers every day. thank god. nuclear weapons being used aren't in the newspapers every day. but it's a bedrock of our security and we can never forget that. and so continuing quality and excellence in the nuclear enterprise is very important. i am committed to that. >> senator ayotte. >> i want to thank the chairman i want to thank you, dr. carter, for all your service to the nation and your willingness to serve again. i would like to ask you about, according to the director of national intelligence we know that at least 107 terrorists who were formerly detained at guantanamo and been released have been confirmed of re-engaging in terrorism and in

fact, an additional 77 are also suspected of that 73 in fact, we know that public reports tell us that at least two guantanamo detainees have also joined isis. and so what i would like to ask you, number one, there were reports that secretary hagel said that he was under pressure to increase the pace of transfers of guantanamo detainees by the administration. and as you know the statute says that you, as the incoming secretary of defense will have to make the determination, and only if you determine that the actions, there's a whole set of factors, but in particular, you have to determine that actions that have been or are planned to be taken will substantially mitigate the risk of such an individual engaging or re-engaging in any terrorist or other hostile activity that threatens the united states or

united states persons, or our interests, or i would assume our allies, as well. and so i would ask you, secretary carter soon to be secretary carter, thank you, but, i would ask you to tell us, and to make a commitment to this committee that you will not succumb to any pressure by this administration to increase the pace of transfers from guantanamo. will you commit to that? >> absolutely. >> and i would also ask you to commit to this committee that you will take with the utmost seriousness because we had general matous before the committee the other day and he expressed deep concern over the notion that one of our men and women in uniform could confront a terrorist that we had previously captured and the implications to them that you will commit to this committee and to all of us, that you will not allow the release of someone that you think could re-engage

in terrorism so that our men and women in uniform will be confronted with them again. >> i do senator. i understand my responsibilities under that statute and i'll, as in everything else i do, i'll play it absolutely straight. >> we appreciate that. that's very important because we have seen an accelerated release of detainees and as you know, there have been public reports about one of the taliban five re-engaging in terrorist activities. so this is something that i think is of utmost importance. the last thing one of our men and women in uniform should confront is a terrorist that we had previously captured. i know you agree with me on that. i wanted to follow up on the aid to ukraine and i really appreciate the comments that you made that you are inclined to support lethal aid to ukraine.

when we met in my office, you had told me that you were actually there, and involved in the signing of the budapest memorandum in 1994. is that right? >> that's right. >> so as you look at what's happening in ukraine and having been there for the signing of that memorandum what are the implications given that the ukrainians gave up their nuclear weapon s weapons in return for the assurances not only from the united states of america, but russia, who has clearly violated blatantly the budapest memorandum, if we don't support ukraine given that we do not want more nuclear proliferation around the world. i would assume that it would send the wrong message if you give up your nuclear weapons and we don't provide you at least defensive weapons why would any country give up their nuclear weapons again? could you tell me what you think about the violation of that mem mum and the significance of it? >> thank you senator. it is a clear violation. i was there. i remember when that agreement

was signed in budapest in 1994. as i think senator lieberman said, i ran the nunn-lugar program during that period. and i was in ukraine the day the last nuclear weapon rode across the border from ukraine in to russia. and that agreement provided for russia to respect the territorial integrity of ukraine, which it's obviously not done. and that was part of the climate and context in which the ukrainians agreed to get nuclear weapons in the first place. and so by the way the united states took on a commitment in the very same agreement to respect but also assure, as the phrase goes, the ability of ukraine to find its own ways as

an independent country. that is at stake today. and that's why i think that we need to provide support to the ukrainian government as they try to maintain a position -- find their own way in europe. >> oh, thank you. my time is up. but i also think it's very important that we also get nato buttress our nato support for all of this. thank you. >> senator gillibrand. >> thank you mr. chairman. welcome dr. carter. as we met prior to this testimony, we covered a few issues, and i'm going to submit questions for the record since we won't be able to cover all of them but they include military sexual assault issues concerning combat integration military compensation cyber, iran, and syria. so i will send those, you can answer them in due course. but specifically let's focus a little bit on the military sexual assault issue, which you know i am very passionate about trying to solve this scourge. one of the concerns i have is

that last year we had 20,000 cases of sexual assault and unwanted sexual contact within the military. and i would like your view as to whether you believe that level of sexual assault today is still the good order and discipline we would want from our services? >> no, senator. it's not. and i use the word passion. i'm at the same pogs passion you do. this problem with sexual assault is something that is -- persists in our military. it's widespread in our society. but it's particularly offensive in the military community because the military ethos is one of honor. and trust. you have to trust the person who's, so to speak in the fox hole next to you. these are violations of honor and trust. also, in military life, we put people in positions, we put them in situations of austere

deployment. a situation where the hierarchy of military life is a necessity, in battle. and these also provide opportunities -- this context, military context for predators, so it is more offensive in military life even than in civilian life. and we've got to root it out. and i know that many members of this committee, but you, especially, senator, have led in that regard, and i'm grateful for the -- for the thoughts, and frankly for keeping the heat on. if i'm confirmed i'll feel that heat and i'll understand it, and be with it. >> the one statistic i was particularly concerned about the most recent report is that of all those who were willing to report the assault openly were retaliated against. 62% of those who reported these

crimes were retaliated against experienced some form of retaliation. so i'm highly concerned that the military is still failing in living up to their zero tolerance policy. do you agree? >> i do agree that retaliation is a dimension of the problem that, to me at least is becoming increasingly apparent. this is a problem if i may say, and you know this because you've worked so hard on it but that the more we dig in to it, the more dimensions of it we come to understand. and i think the idea that victims are retaliated against, not only by the hierarchy above them, but by their peers is something that is unacceptable. but we have to combat, also, and the survey that you refer to indicated that that is widespread. and we need to get at that.

>> i understand from your testimony that you place a premium on the chain of command. and i fully understand that for combat situations the chain of command is not only essential, but necessary in every respect. i would like you to, though, consider all options for how you can reform the military justice system to actually professionalize it, make it more effective, and when our allies have reformed their military justice system to guarantee more civil liberties, and to professionalize it and to take out biases they've not seen diminution in the ability to train troops to instill good order and discipline within the troops, and to do their jobs. i would ask you that you would keep an open mind to look at all possible solutions for improving our criminal justice system within the military. >> i will. >> thank you. another concern that i have is in terms of the issue of how we can create opportunities for women in combat.

one of the issues that i have looked at is how are each of the services being able to open those positions opening all positions to women in combat? because as you know in order to become promoted within the military, oftentimes combat missions are required and having certain roles that require combat is required for promotion. are you committed to allowing women to serve in all positions, and to gender neutral standards for each of the services? >> i'm certainly committed to gender neutral standards. the -- what i do know is this, that the services are examining whether there are any position ss in the military that should not be open to women. i strongly incline towards opening them all to women. but i am also respectful of the circumstances. and of professional military judgment in this regard.

i've not been involved in those studies. if i am confirmed i'd want to confer with our own leaders in the department of defense. with you, and others who have thought carefully about that problem, and tried to come to a view. >> senator ernst. >> thank you dr. carter for being here today. thank you mr. chairman. also, senator lieberman, thank you for joining us today. as we sat down in my office the other day, one thing that hopefully was very clear to you was my passion for the national guard and the army reserves, and all reserve members. actually. and so we have spent a considerable amount of time talking in this forum about sequestration and the effects on our services, not just our active duty forces but also those that serve as wonderful weekend warriors. so i would love for you to please address the panel, and

just talk -- talk to us and explain to us those impacts that you have seen regarding sequestration and how it has impacted those reserve and national guard forces, please. >> thank you, senator, and by the way, thank you for your own service. appreciate it. and i begin by saying that we owe a great debt of gratitude to the guard and reserve, for what they've done over the last 12, 13 years. we couldn't have done i know this from the time i was in the department of defense previously, in the wars in iraq and afghanistan were at their peak we couldn't have sustained the tempo of combat in those two locations without the contributions of the reserve component of our military. so if there's ever a time when

they're value was made clear it's been in the last 10 to 12 years. and they are impacted, as every other part of the defense department is, by sequester. that's the terrible thing about sequester. it's everybody. and it hits them hard. and it hits them soon. which means that we don't have time to adjust. so i think the guard and reserve component have borne the impact of sequester as all the rest of the departments have. sad to say. >> and thank you for that. i appreciate that. if confirmed, we do -- we do have a number of rising threats that we see all around the world. and specifically, in the middle east right now. so considering those threats, with many new possible

deployments, coming up then if confirmed, how do we ensure that our guard and reserve units then maintain their ability to reinforce our active duty component, as effectively as they have in the past dozen years? how do we ensure that they're being supported? >> thank you for that. and that is the key issue, as you well know. and i think that the reserve component forces need to be as prepared to go in to action if they're called to go in to action, as any active duty element. but you never want to send anybody into harm's way on behalf of the united states who hasn't had the training and isn't fully prepared, and isn't adequately equipped to do the

job. so i think it's important that the guard and reserve are at a state of readiness that is commencerate with the need we have for them, and in -- one other thing i'll add is that they also not incidentally at all, very importantly, play a role in responding to disasters in our own country. that's another important and by the way, also amply demonstrated in recent years, attribute of having them. so both for defense of civil authorities, and for deployment in a national security emergency, they need to be fully ready when we need them. >> thank you much, dr. carter, and thank you, mr. chairman.

>> senator manchin. >> thank you mr. chairman. dr. carter thank you so much for first of all all the service you've given. having such an esteemed senator introducing you. that shows your intelligence there. and next of all, willing to serve at this most difficult time. i appreciate all of that. because i know how difficult it is. let me go, you know, we had an unusual day yesterday, and we had to speak to king abdullah. and without regarding too much about i'm sure that you've been briefed on that. but the bottom line is this, we're all concerned i think that our chairman has taken the lead on this, how we're going to accelerate what we do and what we think in this committee of how quick we can get necessary military equipment to the people willing to fight, and the jordanians are willing to fight. and about the red tape. i just couldn't believe what i heard yesterday all the red tape that they have to go through to get something on the front lines to help them defend themselves. i didn't hear so much they need our combat troops. they need our expertise and our people in the right places to

make sure we're efficient. they just need the weapons to do the job. do you have thoughts on that? or how you can help us on that and break through this gridlock? >> i do. and i don't know what you heard but i can well believe what you heard because i have a long experience of frustration with getting equipment to the war fighter. our war fighters, never mind partner war fighters on time. this is an element that in -- that is important when we talk about acquisition reform the cost control is very important. but also getting things done. when i was working on the wars in afghanistan, and iraq, it was, even for americans, assistance to our own forces, way too much red tape stood in the way. you had to constantzly try to cut through that. and i guess in the context of the jordanian circumstance, which i'm not familiar with, i am not -- i'm sure you know more

about it on the committee than i would, as a nominee. but i do read the newspapers, and i understand the need. and i can well believe that it's slower than king abdullah can finds acceptable and that you and i would find acceptable. i guess all i can say is if i'm confirmed as secretary of defense this is one i'm pretty familiar with, and i'd work to get those things out -- >> seems like the greatest challenge is coming out of the state department and we're going to help them work on that i think, and chairman's committed to that and the ranking member and all of us are on the same page. this is not a partisan thing. this is basically an american thing we want to get done. if i can go to that basically and the auditing i'm very concerned about the cost of our military and if it's being spent efficiently. there's not a western in west virginia, not a person in the country, that won't sacrifice for a person in uniform. not one. they'll give up something. they'll pay more taxes. they'll do whatever you ask them. but we've got to make sure we're spending it wisely and i think

that our chairman has been very diligent on this for many, many years. look at the staff and how they double and quadruple and every time we get a new change. the staff. we don't talk about that. we just talk about your readiness and having people able to perform but no one's checking the staff sizes. and i'm told from the people on top that they don't need these but no one can get rid of them. put them back where they're needed. also using our guard and reserve. but the staff size that's something you will have oversight on. >> it absolutely will. and i agree with you. we need acquisition reform. we need lots of other things, too. overhead headquarters staffs, lots of parts of the -- of the department. for just the reason you said. >> and let me tell you why the audit is so important. why i'm so committed to having an audit of the defense department. i think we can help you help

yourself of the institution, and the reason i say that is there's a lot of things that you're doing, that sometimes you don't ask for, you don't want. there's equipment being sent your way. there's things being produced in different parts of the country. just because of who we are. we want to make sure that our people are getting the jobs, i agree to that. but i can tell you. if there's something we're building in west virginia you don't need need, i will be the first one to say we're going to find something else to do. we're not going to force you to buy something you don't need or want. we have to look at this and we won't know unless we have an audit and i would hope that you're committed to helping us get that audit and complete transparn transparency of what's going on. also the contractors. i have been here four years. i can't get an accurate account of how many contractors we have and what branches. >> thank you, i am committed on the audit front. i agree with that as well. i appreciate what you say about us working together to make sure

we buy what we need and we buy it well. >> thank you, sir. >> senator sullivan and then we'll take a break after that. how long do you need? 15 minutes and then after that the next questioners would be senator heinrich and senator fischer and senator shaheen would be in line for the next questioners after a 15-minute break. committee will stand in recess for 15 minutes. after senator sullivan is finished with his question. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and dr. carter, i want to thank you for your service and your family, your wife and kids. i know how much they go through in these hearings. sometimes it's tougher on them than it is the nominees. i want to to start with just a little history and geography.

1935 general mitchell often referred to as the father of the air force was testifying in front of congress. he said quote, i believe in the future whoever holds this place will hold the world. it is the most important strategic place in the world. it is the most central place in the world for aircraft and that is true either of europe, asia or north america. you know what place general mitchell was referring to in his testimony in 1935? >> i think, senator it was alaska. >> correct it was alaska. do you agree with general mitchell? >> i do i point out that one proof of what he said, i suppose suppose, is that your state is home to one of our principle missile defense batteries and the reason for that is it's kind

of on the way to and from a lot of bad places. >> i look forward to hosting you in alaska soon to show you why general mitchell was correct. but i want to get -- >> excuse me senator reid says maybe that's why he was court-martialed. >> i think he may have had a drinking problem, but i'm sure. his strategic assessment was still very correct. a tough part of your job is as a member of the president's cabinet you also critically important part of the job, if confirmed, is leveling with this committee, showing your straight forward approach, which is great, but also with the american people. i think we all recognize there are challenges, but in some ways when the president is talking to the american people, his views seem o to differ. in his state of the union, he painted what i would consider a

benign, almost delusional view of the world environment with quotes like the shadow of crisis has passed, we're stopping isil's advance, we're opposing russian aggression, we have halted the progress of iran's nuclear program. these are all quotes from the president to the american people. do you agree with his assessment in these areas? >> i think if i'm confirmed as secretary of defense i'm going to be confronting some of the most challenging problems that we have had in our national security in a very long time. my intention my obligation will be to help our president and help our country confront those problems and provide the advice to the president that will help him deal with what is -- though

we have many efforts and many successes because we are the indispensable nation in this world, we have many challenges and i think my role for him, if confirmed, is to help him work through these challenges. >> just in terms of straight forward approach, you have been watching the international environment, do you agree with what the president was saying and telling the american people? i think it's critical that he level, that you level, the administration levels with the american people on our challenges. i'll give you another example. he's talking about ending combat operation operations in afghanistan and yet we're going to maintain a robust c.t. presence, which i think is important. but a robust c.t. presence is not ending combat operations. do you agree with what the president was saying in the state of the union on some of these specific quotes i

mentioned? >> i certainly agree with the president's overall thrust -- >> that we have a benign world environment? >> i would say that the world continues to pose serious challenges to international order and that the united states is indispensable to the solution of those challenges. that's what i would say. >> let me ask a final question. in the hearings the last three weeks that the chairman has had, which have been a great. education for all of us for the american people, i think there was consensus that we certainly need to work on all instruments of american power to integrate those as part of a national strategy to address significant challenges that the president has not laid out. one of these instruments that we didn't have ten years ago but there was common agreement on is energy and being once again the world's energy superpower in terms of producing oil and gas and renewables.

last week the president took over 20 million acres of some of the most perspective lands in america for oil and gas development off the table. do you agree that having energy and using that to help our national security is important and would you agree that taking such huge areas of land off the table, billions, potentially billions of barrels of oil, you think that helps or undermines america's national security? >> i certainly think energy security is an important part of national security, and i'm incredibly encouraged by what the progress that the united states has made in developing new resources both oil and gas in recent years i think it's showing up in terms of our economy and also it's showing up geopolitically. with respect to the particular issue you raise, senator, i'm simply not knowledgeable about it and can't give you a knowledgeable answer.

>> i think those kind of actions undermine our national security significantly. >> i understand. >>. the committee will stand if recess for 15 minutes and then reconvene. the next questioners will be senator heinrich and senator fischer and senator shaheen.

the committee will reconvene and recognize senator heinrich. >> thank you, chairman and welcome back, dr. carter. . it's certainly been a pleasure to work with you and i just want to say it's really refreshing to work with someone who worked this this potential position who has your technical background and your ability to work with people across the services and with congress. you seem to balance those things remarkably well speaking as an engineer who struggles with that

myself sometimes. if i remember right, you served as a staff director on the strategic posture of the u.s. that released its report back in 2009, when i was sitting on the house arms services committee. and i think that report made some very important strategic recommendations. in particular, i thought the idea that livermore should be designated as national security rather than nuclear weapons laboratories was a very important recognition of how the threat environment that we face in the world today has changed. in addition one of the things the commission recommended was that the president issue an executive order formally assigning the secretary of

defense joint responsibility for the health of these laboratories. and you and i discussed this a little bit when we met in my office recently. i wanted to ask you based on a recommendation from the strategic posture commission what sort of joint responsibility do you believe that the department of defense should have for our national labs? >> thank you senator. i recall our conversation and you're right, excuse me i was the executive director of the commission that did make the recommendation you named, you pointed to. the so-called national laboratories at the department of energy are national laboratories. i know this because when i worked in the department of defense as acquisition executive we used them a lot. we asked them to do things because of their technical excellence. so those laboratories that were

found ed founded to serve the nuclear arsenal of the united states and continue to do so now do lots of other things for national security for the department of defense, the intelligence community, the law enforcement community, i think they call it work for others, which means other than the department of energy, but it's important and it was certainly valuable to the department of defense when i was there to be able to get that kind of technical excellence. >> i think one of the challenges has been that originally work for others didn't really exist at the national labs. they were solely nuclear enterprises and as that has become a larger and larger percentage of what they do it's been more challenging to sort of feed the underlying foundational aspects of the lab, the overhead and other things. so what i would hope is that if you're confirmed and i certainly hope that you are, that i can count on being able to work with

you to figure out. there's not a way we can formalize that responsibility for the health of d.o.d. and the other agencies i mentioned as well as the long-term health of those national security laboratories. >> i understand and if i am confirmed, i look forward to working with you on exactly that, i understand. >> i want to move back to ukraine for a minute. we heard early ler about the issue of providing additional defensive military u equipment to the ukrainians. we have also heard a lot of testimony in recent weeks emphasizing the importance of deterring additional russian aggression in the baltics. particularly by continuing to position more troops and equipment in those places, and i just wanted to get your sense for are we doing enough in that

region to deter additional russian aggression in the baltics? >> thank you and i think it's very important that we do deter russian aggression in the baltics. the baltic states are a part of nato, after all. it's a pretty big deal. and but to answer your specific question, are we doing enough, i'm familiar with what we're doing. i have not been in a position to discuss it with our commanders there. that's something that i would, if i were confirmed, be a very early priority to see if we are doing enough. i know we are doing things we are rotating forces in there to serve as a warning and a trip wire that nato really is there and i support doing that but everything we're doing i'm probably not aware of. i have not investigated, but i promise if i am confirmed, i would. it's very important. >> thank you very much dr.

carter. >> dr. carter thank you for your service and thank you for being here today. yesterday we saw the islamic state burn alive the pilot of one of our key ally. in recent months they have buried women and children alive. they have crucified christians. they have beheaded american citizens and our allies. they have critical knowledge that we need to stop them. they know where hostages are being held. they have information that would allow us to go after the financial support. they know where other senior leaders are. they have a lot of intelligence value. if american forces were to capture one of these leaders, would you recommend that the president send him to guantanamo to be fully interrogated for intelligence value? >> i would certainly recommend that he would be interrogated for his full intelligence value. it would be a legal determination about where he ended up and so forth but i

think it's important that we get that intelligence value if we capture people like him. >> would you recommend he stay in american custody or be transferred to the custody of an ally? >> as i sit here right now, i u don't know enough to answer that question. that would be a legal determination about his ultimate disposition, but i think the key from a secretary of defense's point of view would be let's get that intelligence. >> and would you want to see him transfer o to the united states mainland given his miranda rights or put in an article three federal court? >> again, i don't know what the ultimate disposition would be appropriate, but i coknow that it would be important to interrogate that individual, so whatever the ultimate disposition or legal process was, it should make provision

for interrogation. >> i want to move to the recommendations of the national defense panel for the overall military budget. the defense panel is a bipartisan and congressionally mandated panel that reviewed the qdr. that panel stated, quote, congress and the president should reveal the budget control act and return as soon as possible to at least the funding baseline proposed in the fy 2012 defense budget, end quote. the panel went on to note that even while that amount would be inadequate it represents the minimum required to set course and set the military on a more stable footing. do you concur that bob gate's 2012 recommendation for the coming fiscal year is the minimum funding baseline needed for the department of defense? >> the 2012 baseline just to make sure i understand

correctly, is the -- would have removed $500 billion from the defense plan at that time. sequester would remove twice that so i don't know what the national defense panel, but if what we were saying was that the sequester level was unacceptable and that the level that secretary gates recommended was the one that they supported, i actually supported that too and continue to think that sequester is a bad idea. and i am familiar with the results of the national defense panel and its membership, which is distinguished. >> so to be act, secretary gate's budget said in fy '16 it should be $600 billion.

sequester levels would be just under $500 billion. this would be another $70 billion plus that the defense panel recommends for the coming year. >> i see what you're saying. yes, that's absolutely right. i think the defense department budget has been under pressure now for the last three or four years in a way that i experienced the effects of firsthand and they are damaging and that's one of the reasons i want to get back on track to getting enough money for defense by getting rid of sequester. >> so why some congressional number in that neighborhood whiegt be better than $500 billion, you think $610 billion as recommended by that panel is the minimum necessary to put our military back on the right course? >> i wouldn't say it's the minimum necessary to get us back on the right course. we're not going to get that amount of funding, but i can

tell you we can make good use, i believe, the department of defense can make good use of the fund ing funding the president has requested. i'll say one other thing. if i'm secretary of defense, i would like to see more spending on defense. i'm very open about that. i want o to get sequester and i would like to see us spend more on defense. i think that we're having -- this may have been what the ndp was getting at we're having to accept risk in the execution of our strategy as a result of our funding problems which i would rather see us not accept. >> thank you. >> senator shaheen? >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, dr. carter for your past service to this country and for your willingness to continue to serve. i want to talk a little bit

about the proliferation of nuclear weapons. i remember being at the kennedy school when you gave a compelling presentation that showed dismantling some of the weapons through the lugar program. i continue to believe that this is one of the most serious dangers we face both for the united states and the world particularly with terrorists like the islamic state, who seem to be willing to do anything to achieve their ends. and i wonder if you could talk a little bit about how to balance the need to address nuclear weapons and material that is still out there that is still with the effort of d.o.d. to modernize our weapons systems and where you see the priorities are and what we need to do to address that.