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. >> thank you, senator.

i think we need to do both and can do more in the way of securing fiscal materials and the wherewithal with nuclear weapons and also biological weapons around the world. and i also believe that the united states needs a safe, secure and reliable nuclear deterrent, because as much as we would like to see nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction rid from the earth, that doesn't look like it's something that's going to happen soon and it's important that the american deterrent that we provide to our own country, but also to friends and allies who rely upon him is safe, secure and reliable. i think we need to do both and can do both. >> you wrote an article last year for foreign affairs and you

talked about two lessons from iraq and afghanistan. first, that the pentagon was not prepared to fight a nontraditional enemy and, second, that the length of those wars was underestimated. there was little incentive to pursue acquisitions tailored to the specific fights. can you talk about how as secretary of defense you would avoid repeating those mistakes of the past two wars? >> yeah, thank you and this is something that i have a lot of passion about, which is why i wrote that. the experience that i had all too often in trying to support iraq and afghanistan is the executive was that when the troops said they needed something, the response of the bureaucracy tended to be oh we have one of those, we're making one of those, we have one, it

will be finished in ten years. i mean, incredibly that is in essence the response that would come back. we'd all recognize immediately that that's not sense call because they needed that equipment, vehicles they needed it now, not 15 years from now. our acquisition system got in the habit, and i think the chairman was referring to this earlier because it's a driver of cost but also this problem got in the habit during the cold war of doing things very slowly. soviet union we always had plenty of time. the soviet union, the cold war would go on for a long time and we would have programs that extended over 10 and 15 years. you can't do that when you're in the middle of a war and people are dying and success depends upon your acting more quickly. that i obviously feel

passionately about that anybody who observed that tendency would have the same attitude i did. we've got to turn faster as a military. when you're in competition with other countries that are using the global technology base to advance their own military, if we're going to continue to be the best military in the world we can't make steps in 15-year increments. . we have to turn faster than that. i think that's the larger meaning of going forward, the lesson, to your word of that experience. >> my time is almost over but you and others here today have talked about the importance of reform. i assume that will be a top priority when you go. back to the department as it has been in the past? >> it would, if i'm confirmed, absolutely. >> thank you very much. >> senator inhofe? >> thank you, mr. chairman.

dr. carter, i apologize for not having been here and i don't want to ask something that's been over and over again. we have a conflicting meeting that's taking place right now. everyone who has appeared before this committee has talked about the mismatch that's out there unprecedented mismatch. i'm talking about all the chiefs, the old-timers, we had george shultz, al awlakilbrightalbright all of them could not find a time in history with the level of threats we're faced with today and the limited resources we have. and that's the mismatch that they are talking about with the things all over the world that are taking place right now. do you agree with that? let me restate a that. in the years you have had such a variety of experience, do you ever remember a time like this? >> i think we are in a time

where the number and severity of the risks is not something i have seen before in my life. >> how do you, even the president after what happened yesterday i'm sure is not talking about junior varsity anymore. we know we have a serious problem with isil. we have been talking about the fact that they are building a militia and we have seen the brutality of what they are capable of. i wonder sometimes if -- i would like to have a stronger response from the president when the disaster took place yesterday, but do you -- i fail to see a strategy in terms of dealing with isis with that force that's over there. do you see a strategy? where will you be on this? >> thank you, i can describe what i believe to be the strategy and to revert to what you said at the beginning, we used -- when i started my career

in defense, it was a simpler world. there was one big problem, which was cold war and nuclear disaster. to get to your point i assume this is what your other witnesses were saying. it's a much more complicated world, and many more problems and issues for the united states to take on. at the same time i believe we're up to it and that we're capable of surmounting all these problems. with respect to the strategy for isis, i would describe it in the following way. strategy is about connecting ends and means and the end here is the defeat of isis and the sustained or lasting defeat of isis. and to achieve that lasting defeat of isis, we are trying to rebuild the morale and power of

the iraqi military and the confidence of its government in a multisectarian approach so that we don't revisit the maliki experience, which led to the disintegration of the experience. so on that side of the border, the lasting defeat will be made lasting by an iraqi security forces and associated forces in iraq that are rebuilt. one enemy, two locations to get to the other location syria i believe the approach there similarly needs to be to inflict a lasting defeat and in order to do that, we need a partner and we are trying to build that partner in terms of a moderate syrian force and local forces from the region that can -- with

our air power and other kinds of assistance inflict defeat onnist skpis then make it a lasting defeat. that's how i would characterize what i see. i'm not in the counsels of government, but that's what i infer. >> i appreciate that very much. when you were in my office we talked about having just returned from ukraine and also when i first walked in senator heinrich was talking about lithuania and that area. their concern was all of our attention seemed to be in that part of the world concentrated on ukraine. it's true, we have never had -- i happen to be there when they had their election for the first time in 96 years they don't have a communist in their parliament in ukraine. so we have that problem at the same time as the others you're addressing. what do you think about our european strength as it is right now? are we adequate?

are we becoming inadequate? >> i think that our strength in europe is our alliance with nato and the political solidarity that that represents, which is very important when it comes to the baltic states and also the response in ukraine, which while not a nato nation is certainly a european nation and european unity is an important part of that. so one of our strengths is that. another strength is our military strength. and there i understand that we are adding forces rotational forces to the baltic states as a presence there as a deterrent to any russian kind of adventurism on the part of russia. in those states i certainly

support that, and if i'm confirmed, i'd want to look into what more we can do. i wish the european states and secretary of defenses have said this were investing in their own defense. >> lastly, i'm out of time, but for the record if you'd submit this for the record to me, in the event we're able to get the perpetrator of the horrible crime that took place, would you examine the expeditionary legal complex that we have as a place to do our interrogation? i heard your response to the first question that we at least considered that. >> sure, i'll learn more and respond. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, dr. carter. thank you for your continuing presence at this hearing. i appreciate your acknowledging at this hearing the importance

and the seriousness of sexual assault in the military. and in response to questions that have been submitted to you, you said that you would take a personal role in addressing the prevention and dealing with this scourge in a much better way. so i will have a continuing interest in seeing how you do in that regard. i also agree with you that the security of our country is very much dependent, i would say, on maintaining the stability in the asia-pacific area, so of course, we need to continue our commitment to the rebalance and at the same time be able to deal with the instability in other parts of the world. now president obama recently visited india and announced a series of bilateral agreements with prime minister modi. can you talk briefly about the future of the u.s.-india relationship in the context of our rebalance commitment?

>> thank you senator. the rebalance is a rebalance not only within -- to the asia-pacific area, but within it. our historic focus has been east asia and i think that your question points to the importance to pay greater attention to south asia as well. . india is, in my view, destined to be a strategic partner of the united states. it's a large democracy shares a lot of our political values and values of pluralism so i think that destiny will bring us

together but i'm for hastening that. in the military area and the defense cooperation and technology cooperation areas i think there's a great deal that we can do with india. if i'm confirmed i would take a strong interest in doing that. >> thank you. do you view u.s. energy security as a vital component to our overall national security, and clearly on the military side? what role if any, do you believe that the department of defense has in supporting efforts to increase u.s. energy security? >> i think energy security is an important part of national security. the defense department does play a role not a central role but a role in energy security. i think every dollar we spend of the defense budget we need to be able to justify on defense

grounds, and we make some investments in energy technology because they pay off for the defense budget and for the soldier, we make investments in batteries, solar cells, things that are inhalation -- insulation. so in some ways the department of defense, like other large institutions in the country, is investing in energy efficiency in the future. i think that's an important thing to do. >> d.o.d. is the largest user o of energy in the federal government. regarding acquisitions, with your experience in the defense acquisition process including the time in which you led the acquisition technology and logistics directory at the pentagon, as you review our d.o.d. acquisition program with the various cost overruns delays et cetera, which others have noted including the

chairman, what would be your first priority to improve the acquisition process? for example, would you look at the kind of contracts that we enter into. , training, requirements process, what would be your first priority to improve matters? >> all of those are important. to take the point you made about contract structure, contracts are a way of providing incentives to industry to control costs and meet schedule, that's an important part of negotiating a strategy. to get to your other suggestion in order to negotiate those contracts well, we need people on the government side who are capable, who understand acquisition and who understand industry. i am in favor of introducing -- reintroducing to the acquisition system the role of the customer, which is the chiefs of the military services. i think that's been a proposal

made by others with which i associate myself, so there's no one silver bullet. there are many things that we need to do to improve acquisition. >> thank you. >> senator fischer? >> thank you mr. chairman. and thank you, dr. carter, for your service and your willingness to continue that service to our country. i appreciated our frank conversation that we had in my office the other day, and i look forward to many more in the future. in that conversation and today also you talk about the deterrents, our nuclear deterrence is being the bedrock of our defense. i appreciate your views on that and i agree with your views.

we also talked about modernization and the importance of modernization and how as a country we need to step forward and really see that through if we are going to continue to enjoy the security that we have as a country. so thank you for your comments on that. in 2013 you led the strategic choices but the gao has issued reports that cast doubt on if that will

take place and even if we have an accurate picture on what the full resources are that are devoted to that headquarters staff. so a couple of questions here will you, if confirms maintain the goal of the 20% reduction in the headquarters staff and how will you accomplish it if we don't have any idea what those numbers are? >> i certainly think it is important to -- to diminish headquarters staff and other forms of overhead. i think the 20% goal is a sound one. i do not know where it stands in terms of implementation but if confirms i will try to meet that goal. because we have to get rid of the overhead so we can spend the dollars on the war fighter, which is what it is all about. >> have you seen the gao report questioning if those numbers are even out there and if they are

even available, and if you believe that, how are you going to get the numbers? >> i have not seen that gao report. but if i am confirmed we'll find out where the department stands in terms of implementing that goal and if they are off track, try to get them back on track because i think it is a good goal. >> do you think now is the time that we should look at elevating cyber to its own command or even with the commission that we had yesterday, there is a recommendation in that commission for a joint readiness command. when we look at overhead and administrative costs what would be your initial response to those that are promoting ideas for additional commands. >> i'm all for paying much more attention to cyber and think we need to do that.

but the creation of new commands and new headquarters in this budgetary environment is something i think we need to look at very closely and cautiously. >> as you know, our chairman senator mccain, is interested as we all are, in gaining more knowledge about the information sharing with regard to our cyber security threats and that is one area that i believe has broad support. i know there is support not just from members of this committee and members of congress but also the president has discussed the need for information-sharing on those cyber security threats. i agree that information sharing and better defense is a first step, but do you think that we can achieve relative cyber

security simply by improving those defenses or do we need to perhaps go on the offense and impose more -- i guess you would say visible costs with regards to our actions on cyber security? >> i think both are important. we need to improve our defenses. but we also need to improve our abilities to respond. and those responses can be in cyber space or in other ways, but certainly they should include the option to respond in cyber space. >> and the option to respond, would you say that would include demonstrating that we have the capability to do so, is that part of our deterrence when it comes to protecting our country our agencies and private businesses when it comes to cyber attacks?

>> i agree with you. i think deterrence requires that a potential aggressor know that you have the capability to respond and they obviously can't know all of the details of that or they can counter respond but they should know you can respond. >> and would respond if necessary. >> and would respond if necessary. >> mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> senator cask ill. >> i want to talk about the weapons. you are in a special position because you have been in the weeds on all of this in the previous position and we worked on war time contracting reforms which are now in the statutes and i know you will be aggressive about making sure of all of those provisions are adhered to. i also want to address a question to you for the record on the murky line on the building of infrastructure during contingencies in theater

while we are fighting. i think what we've learned in iraq and afghanistan through the special inspector general's reports is that this line of passing back and forth responsibility for building roads, building highways building grids, building water systems and power plants between aid and defense has made it difficult for us to hold everybody accountable that needs to be accountable for dramatic failures and on that note i want to talk about special inspector general reports. yesterday i learned for the first time in six years the special inspector general reports as to the way we are accomplishing our mission in training the afghan security forces was going to be classified by general campbell. that was never done before. that is essential to robust oversight. i kicked up dust last weeb about

it and on monday it was announced that general campbell was reversing his decision in some regard. i want to ask your commitment to make sure that throughout the chain of command there is an understanding that the decision to classify is a very, very precarious decision because if you don't do it when it needs to be done, but if you over-classify it removes the ability of us and the taxpayers to hold the military accountable and i wanted to bring that up to you and ask you for your commitment in that regard. >> i give that commitment. >> and i also wanted to briefly talk about sexual assault in the military. the report that came out in december while it still shows work to be done, i think it is important that on the record we talk about the success that we have had. reporting is up. we've gone from one in ten victims coming forward to one in four in a matter of a few years.

incidents is down. importantly, restricted reporting is up. and maybe, the most important information in that report that hasn't gotten a lot of cover in anonymous surveys and focus groups with victims more than two thirds of the victims said they had complete confidence in their commanders in how they are handling the crimes and they feel their privacy is being respected and that they are being supported. that is huge. and i wanted to point that out because i do think we are making progress. but on retaliation, that same report, as senator gillibrand reported, we still have a 62% of retaliation. if you look at the report you realize it is not retaliation by the convening authority, by the command as making the decision as to whether to go to court marshal.

but it is peer command. we make retaliation a crime. we expect to get say report in how many times that has been pursued in the military justice system. that just went into place a relatively short time ago. what do you plan on doing in connection with this retaliation problem and with this new crime in the military justice system to pursue it. >> thank you and thank you for everything you've done. i've, from the outside looking in observed and admired the ideas and the energy and the commitment you've shown to this -- getting rid of this scourge of sexual assault, so first of all thank you for that. with respect to retaliation, that is one of the dimensions that i think the report you cite uncovered as very prevalent.

i think the 62% of victims were reporting experiencing retaliation. and as you say not so much -- although not to the exclusion of -- but not so much from the chain of command, but from peers and subordinates. and you are right, this is a crime and its prevalence suggests we are not doing everything we can to root out that crime so if i'm confirmed you can count that i'm attentive to this issue of retaliation and determined to do something about it. i look forward to working with you if i am confirmed. >> thank you very much. dr. carter. i look forward to looking with you. >> senator lee. >> thank you very much dr. carter. i appreciate you being here. i appreciate the visit we had in my office the other day. and you've certainly proven yourself as someone who knows a

lot about the department of defense, having served at the highest levels as department secretary in the past. i want to talk about a few things. first let's talk about the f-35 for a minute. the f-35 is an amazing system with units at hill air force base that are set to be hosting the f-35 starting this fall. it is a program, however, that has been marred by delays and cost over-runs as you know. as the department of defense looks at acquireing other new weapons systems and equipment to make sure that we maintain our technology advantage over our adversaries, i think it is important not only to work time and cost efficiencies and acquisition into the equation for such programs but also to integrate that with logistics

and maintenance processes that are absolutely essential to make sure we get our money's worth. and of course with the program like the f-35 the biggest single expense through the life cycle isn't just acquiring it it is maintaining it and making sure we get our money's worth out of it. given that the department of defense has been reforming the acquisition process in various ways for decades, what would you do differently not only to improve that process but to make sure that acquisitions and development and logistics are all aligned in a way that increases the life cycle and increases the efficiency and utility of these various weapons systems? >> thank you, senator. it is exactly as you say. the lion's share of the cost of any weapons system is not in buying it, but in having it. which is why in getting to the

f-35 system that you cite, the long-lasting strike is still ongoing and it going on as long as it is in existence has to go on as long as it is in the aircraft. we have worked on cost control in the eric and in sustainment as well, exactly as you say. >> thank you. and i appreciate your thought on that especially because your experience gives you a real strong ability to appreciate the nuances involved there. general john kelly, the commander of south com called last year's border crisis an existen shall threat to the united states. do you think our ability to adequately enforce security at our borders does present a

security threat to the united states including a security threat that could involve the possibility of terrorists entering into our country without our knowledge. >> i think control of our borders is an important part of our national security yes. >> and that is something you would continue to watch out for if confirmed at this position? >> absolutely. >> it was reported on february 2nd, a few days ago, that iran successfully placed another satellite into orbit using a two-stage rocket. do you think the continuing development of iranian ballistic missile technology presents a threat to the united states and what do you think we should do about it? >> it is a threat to the united states and friends and allies to the region and one of the things that iran is doing that is dangerous. with respect to the ballistic missiles that threaten the

united states, that is one of the reasons that we need to keep our missile defenses and especially our icbm defenses current, capable and large enough in size to deal with both the perspective iranian threat and the also very real north korean icbm threat. >> thank you. as has been noted in several capacities within the department of defense including most recently as the deputy secretary, you've had to confront the issue of sequestration. now many of us, including myself did not want sequestration to hit. i voted against the budget control act in part because i didn't think that we ought to be putting this burden disproportionately on the department of defense as we

were. none of us wanted the super-committee to come up with a solution after that happened and many of us hoped it wouldn't come to that, and of course it did. but one of the lessons that i think we learned from two years ago was that while it is good to hope for the best, we also have to prepare for the worst. what can you do to make sure that we're not caught flat-footed and that we are ready for anything that we have to confront on that issue? >> well, we need to continue to adapt our plans to the resources we're given. my own view is that we have made adaptations over the last few years to our strategy to accommodate the budget squeeze that are getting to the limits of what it is safe to do. and that is why i really want to

see an end to sequester. we need to do more to spend the defense dollar better and i'm all for that as well. but it is also basically -- it is the truth that we are getting to the point where we have bept the strategy -- bent the strategy as the phrase goes, and i don't think it is safe to keep bending it. >> thank you. i see my time is expired. chairman. >> senator kahne, but before that i would like to announce we will break after after kahne, and then senator graham and there is a vote at 2:30 so we'll reconvene at 2:45 for the benefit of the few remaining senators and any second round that any member wants and we appreciate your patience dr.

carter. senator cain. >> thank you, chairman and thank you dr. carter for your strong testimony today. the chair and the ranking member in their opening comments put the issues on the table and i want to focus on the elimination of isil. it was asked if that should be the goal. we all had the challenge yesterday of visiting with king abdullah at a very emotional and difficult time. but i was struck by something he said to us. he said, look we need you desperately, but this is the fight that is the regions fight. if we're not willing to stand up against extremism in the region there is no amount of outside forces as powerful as they can be that can beat this fight. and he really took ownership of it in a way that i thought was pretty courageous. do you think it is possible for the united states military to eliminate isil on our own or

even with other western nations if the region doesn't go all-in to combat the home grown jihadism in the most home grown by isil? >> we have to have regional partners because we have to make sure that the defeat inflicted upon isil is a lasting defeat. and for that there needs to be conditions created in the -- where isil is now occupying territory that don't make it a breeding ground for victory for that kind of -- what is the right word -- malignant and vicious kind of terrorism. so the united states involvement is i believe, essential. it is necessary. but it is not sufficient to have lasting victory. >> i would share your view

necessary, essential not sufficient. it is still my hope that the white house will send us a draft for use of military force. i think after the president's comments after the state of the union it seems more likely. i don't think this is a war that can be waged in perpetuity without putting our thumbprint on without risking our lives, congress will debate and vote and authorize it. but if we have that debate about the american role, one of the things that i think is notable if the region has to go all-in against the isil threat, so far 80% of the airstrikes has been u.s. flown. jordan has been rock solid in doing airstrikes but the other nations that are directly threatened by isil much more directly than we are threatened by isil have not, other than been associated with the coalition, have not stepped forward in showing and been

willing to show they are going all in against this threat and i think that is subject of significant debate if we get into a discussion on authorization. second, dr. carter, on afghanistan, i completely agree with senator mccain the chairman's point in his opening. i hope we have a condition's based strategy and not a calendar-based strategy. and i think it is okay we have a plan. a plan is a plan. you can adjust the plan based on the current reality. senator king and i were in afghanistan in october and talked with general campbell and it seemed like after those discussions, the white house did adjust the plan once already. there were ideas about the way u.s. forces would be used in calendar year 2015 that after hearing from gem campbell and others, the white house adjusted the authorities during this calendar year and that was a decision-based decision which is good.

but i worry for the same reason you do. we've, at the expense of blood and treasure, achieved a lot in afghanistan. the nation's life expectancy has gone from 44 to 61 in ten years. and my back of the envelope math say people living ten years longer seems to be a good roi to me, for as expensive as its been so why would we want to go backward? i think in afghanistan what we heard when when he were there was a little bit of the iraq worry. wow, they've taken their eye off the ball before because of things in iraq and pulled resources away and this is the perception in afghanistan maybe this is getting ready to happen again, as significant a threat as isil is and we need to be at it, in afghanistan they are nervous that the isil threat

will pull our attention away and they could lose the gains and i hope in your capacity as you dig into the plan and the daily conditions that we'll make the right decision about how to keep the progress that we've gained in afghanistan and that we won't let a day on the calendar be the determination of our policy. thank you, mr. chairman. >> do you want to respond to that doctor? >> 2106 americans have lost their lives in afghanistan. afghanistan is from where the attacks emanated so i think -- finishing the job there is very important. i've been part of that war in my previous time in the department. it is what i woke up to every morning and so i'm very committed to success there. and we have adjusted what we've

been doing continuously as we went along. so i don't have anything to add to what you said except to remind that the afghan security forces are what we increasingly have trained to provide security on afghan territory. they are going to need support after 2016. in the president's budget about which i'll appear before you in a few weeks i understand that there is if my memory serves, $3.8 billion requested for the afghan security forces. that carries through the end of 16. and then a question arises will we stick with them the afghan security forces. so it is not just about american troops, it is about the overall commitment so that the afghan security forces can keep the

peace there after 2016. >> senator graham. >> thank you. the idea of joe lieberman introducing is a risky proposition, but we'll see how that turns out. bottom line, do you agree with the following statement the only reason 3000 americans died on 9/11 is the islamic terrorists who attacked us could not find another way to kill more of us. >> yes. >> if they could they would kill more of us? >> that is my guess. >> i don't think it is a guess i think it is a fact. >> do you think isil represents a threat to our homeland. >> i think they do. >> they say they want to attack us. there is no reason to believe they are kidding. >> i agree. >> the head of isil is in camp buka and he said i'll see you in

new york. >> right. >> and they want to hit us. so i couldn't agree more with senator mccain, and if you don't get that it is not just about a buy-in. they have the best platform since 9/11, they hold a large territory and they are rich and have crazy people under their control and they mean it when they want to hit us. do you think al-nusra wants to hit us? >> they do. >> they recruited a guy from florida, a suicide bomber, he came back before he became a suicide bomber and they are trying to hit us too. do you think aqap wants to hit us. >> very definitely. >> they are the people who hit us in paris. do you think the iranians have to believe that a military options on the table during

these nuclear negotiations? >> absolutely. >> and if they don't, we're making a huge mistake, right? >> absolutely. >> do you think the russians are being provocative at a time when the world is already in chaos? >> yes. >> do you think that a cyber pearl harbor is a potential threat we face? >> absolutely. >> and we're not ready for it? >> agree with that also. >> do you think china is intimidating their neighbors? >> certainly trying to. >> can you tell me in light of all of this why in the hell would the congress be devastating the military budget? can you explain that to me? >> no, i can't. as long standing -- i'm against sequestration. >> and i left out a bunch of threats, because i only have five minutes. canada is in good shape so we

appreciate canada being a good neighbor. so the plan on the table now is to have 1,000 troops left in afghanistan, kabul-based. do you agree with me given the conditions that exist in the region that the likelihood of a re-emergence of al qaeda and other terrorist troops along the pakistan-afghan border, we would be wide to have troops outside of kabul? >> that is not the plan now senator. >> can you please tell me why i am wrong? it is the plan to go down to 1,000 by 2017. they increase the number of troops in 2015, but it is the plan and if you are going to be sect of defense, you need to understand. the plan is to go to 1,000. i think that is beyond unwise. that will destroy our ability to see, hear and listen to what i think is a re-emerging threat

along the afghan-pakistan border. so if i'm wrong about the plan, please correct me. this is something you can go home and check out for yourself. >> no i think you are correct about the plan. >> that plan has to change and if it doesn't we are incredibly stupid as a nation. i want to withdraw from afghanistan responsibly. i want lines of defenses over there so they don't come here. doesn't that make sense? >> it does make sense. >> i'm glad afghan people are living longer and girls are going to school. but i'm worried about americans living longer. and the reason i want to continue to invest in afghanistan and al nusra and all of the other, is because they are trying to hit us. do you believe the only way to deter radical islam is you can't deter it you have to --

>> sir, i can't give an answer. >> they don't mind dying. >> i think a counter-terrorism strategy begins foremost with defenses but has other dimensions as well in terms of removing the conditions that create safe havens and some of the ability for recruiting of terrorists so it is a complex issue, but protecting ourselves needs to come first. >> and i'll close to me. to me it is not complex. the only way you can keep them from coming back here to america, is to stay over there, disrupt the operations keep them on the run, don't let them gather strength make poor, on the run and entrenched. i'll limit this. syria, how in the world are we going to dislodge isis from syria without a ground component. and i agree with senator mccain

that that needs to be syria based. people want to go in. saudi arabia said you could have our army. the amir said you could have our army. how can we train up an army and send a force into syria if we don't first deal with the assad air threat. how in the world could you train somebody to go fight isil and one day they turn on assad and not expect him to kill them before they get the capacity to come after him one day. how does this work without dealing with assad? >> senator let me say something about that. it is a very important question. the situation in syria, is as you indicate more than a

problem of isis, it is is a problem of the assad regime as well. and the forces that we're supporting there have first and foremost the job as we've discussed here this morning, of defeating isil. but i believe that they also need to be creating the conditions for the removal of assad. that is a much more complex task. i understand that. i'm not trying to oversimplify it. but i think that has got to be at the end of the road. and if that is what you are pointing to, i completely agree with you. >> well, couh just say you really didn't respond. in all due respect, dr. carter, to sending young syrians, in training them and sending them into syrian and be barrel bombed by assad. and the unworkability of that is

in contradiction to everything the united states ever stood for or thought for. i hope you will rethink your answer to senator graham's question. thisiddy assy of cooperating with the iranians and quote taking isil first of which bashir assad is nonsense and immoral. the committee will return at 2:45 since there is a vote at 2:30. and members who seek a second round or those members who have not asked questions will be allowed to at that time. so we'll stand in recess until 2:45. thank you.

>> i don't know what to say about it, but the level has hit a stride.

>> he covers congress for military times. he is covering ashton carter hearings. how is he viewed on capitol hill? >> senator mccain and a lot of the other congressmen walking into this hearing set he is known and well-liked and should not have a problem. i'm hearing is more of a chance to criticize obama on a number of national security issues, on his syria strategy and his afghanistan strategy. >> it sounded like mccain and ashton carter were in agreement in terms of getting rid of the sequester. the pentagon spending caps. how are they going about doing that?

>> that is the big question. you heard senator mccain, german thornberry on the house side. the mandatory spending cuts are supposed to go into effect in 2016. they are all concerned, the nominee included, that that can cripple the military and will set them back. but as of now, we have not seen much of an alternative plan, just a lot of promises that they need to get rid of this. the military absolutely needs to have that money. we heard carter say that he thinks it is a full's that will harm national security. we heard senator mccain say he wants to see it go on, but there is still no real alternative. >> ashton carter was asked about arming the ukrainian rebels. what did he say? >> he was a little fun -- he was a little fuzzy on the specifics. he supports the idea but will look into it more. this is one of several different issues he will have to wade into

immediately. the pentagon now is in wait and see mode as the white house has been. we will see where that lands when he gets into office. >> another issue is brought up by several senators, including senator gillibrand. sexual harassment in the military. you tweeted about ashton carter's response. he called the problem of sexual assault widespread in u.s. society but particularly offensive than the military and we have to root this out. some senators have tried to do that, changing pentagon policy. what do we know of ashton carter's policies in this area? >> he says he wants to be aggressive and look for ways to attack the problem and further the work that the military has done already. senator mccaskill came out shortly after that tweet and try to reverse some of the conversation there.

the legislation that she proposed and senator gillibrand proposed has been an ongoing fight with the two of them taking that issue out of hands -- out of the hands of the military commanders. but he said this is an issue he is looking at, something that he definitely wants to find a solution to. he said this is a wider problem than a military problem. but again, the military is a specifically offensive problem because of the teamwork and camaraderie involved. >> back to chairman mccain and his opening statement. he claimed -- what did he hear from ashton carter? >> i don't think he heard anything from the nominee that called -- that calms many of his fears. he has hammered the obama administration in months about

having a lack of a coherent strategy. out of continued presence and continued idea about combining -- about combating islamic terrorists. what is the long-term goal in afghanistan, how long troops should be there. secretary carter is still the nominee, and a lot of his answers were i will look into that, i will see you. pivoting from those in giving different advice. he is sticking with here is the administration's plan and i plan on stepping in and trying to implement them. >> leo covers congress and you can follow his twitter at leo shane. the senate armed services committee meets today to look at the detention to salute at guantanamo bay, cuba, and u.s. detention policy.

you can watch it live beginning at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span3 and c-span.org. >> keep track of the republican-led congress and follow its new members through a session. new congress, best access, on c-span c-span2, c-span radio and c-span.org. >> today on c-span, "washington journal" is next, live with your phone calls. then live coverage of the u.s. house as they debate requiring federal agencies to assess the economic effects on small businesses of proposed regulations. in about a half-hour, national journal technology correspondent brendan sasso on net neutrality regulations of internet service providers. and the c-span bus tour of

historically black colleges and universities is in hampton virginia. we will talk to hansen university president william harvey. host: it's thursday, february 5 2015. this morning, secretary of a john is in key outcome occurring -- kiev, ukraine. we will cover the national prayer breakfast on the c-span networks. and for a third day, we will attempt forward with the homeland security funding bill. at 9:30 a.m. this morning to the senate armed services committee hearing. some of you just saw that