eastern. they'll begin with short speeches. there are four bills on the agenda including one providing $18 billion for nasa. members will recess again before starting legislative work on those bills. that will happen around 4:30 eastern today. any requested votes will be held after 6:30 today. tomorrow we expect the house to take up the keystone x.l. oil pipeline bill that was passed in the senate last week. and now to live coverage of the u.s. house here on c-span. the speaker pro tempore: the house is in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. loving and gracious god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. help us this day to draw closer to you so that with your spirit and aware of your presence among us we may all face the tasks of this day with grace

and confidence. bless the members of the people's house as they return from their home districts. may these decisive days through which we are living make them genuine enough to maintain their integrity. great enough to be humble. good enough to keep their faith. always regarding public office as the sacred trust. give them the wisdom and the courage to fail not their fellow citizens nor you. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from michigan, mr. kildee.

mr. kildee: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god indivisible, with liberty a justicr l. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. as co-chair of the german-american caucus, i rise to highlight this important juncture in european security strategy, the shared economic opportunities, and future prosperity of both nations. yesterday german chancellor angela merkel, visited the united states for bilateral meetings with the obama administration. while the primary topic was mutual security, the visit also

afforded an opportunity to display the strong ties between our two great countries. this relationship is immediately visible through the thousands of businesses on both sides of the atlantic which provide employment and help support local economics. as two of the world's largest economies opportunities for trade and investment are plentiful. annually hundreds of thousands of tourist from our respective nations travel to experience the landmarks, culture, and elements that define each as a nation. mr. speaker, i know that i speak for many of my colleagues when i say that chancellor merkel's visit was certainly welcomed and we look forward to building upon our relationship. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. kildee: unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. kildee: mr. speaker there

are only 18 days left until the department of homeland security runs out of money and shuts down on february 28. the republican leadership, unfortunately are still wasting time in this body appealing to the extremists within their party rather than addressing these important challenges that our country faces. republicans' extreme anti-immigration d.h.s. funding bill is dead on arrival in the senate as they know. border security experts have referred to the bill as quote ineffective, unserious, dangerous for our nation's security. instead of coming together with democrats in a bipartisan fashion to address the d.h.s. funding issue and ensure the security of american families, we continue to see the house squander time moving even further to the right and appease the most extreme voices. at some point in time, mr. speaker, we have to end the politics and get down to the business of the american people. please, please join with

democrats and republicans together to protect the american people, to fund the department of homeland security immediately, and then we can focus on the middle class economics that can create bigger paychecks for all americans, build new infrastructure, and get back to the work of the american people. thank you mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today because this house has an important job to finish. one that involves providing some certainty for our family farmers and property owners at all income levels. mr. costello: it's the conservation easement legislation that will make the incentive permanent. it was sponsored in pass sessions by over 300 members of this house and many members in the senate. the conservation easement incentive has enabled property owners across the country to voluntary -- voluntarily he

preserve their land. in some case the availability of the tax credit means the difference between keeping a family farm or selling it. in my time as township supervisor in chester county, one of my top priorities was preserving farmland and natural resources. it requires the collaboration and financial wherewithal of the landowner. the conservation easement legislation that we seek to make permanent will enable more of that to happen. organizations in my district like the burks county conservancy, the brandywine conservancy and others have been very helpful in making montgomery county a great place to live. families cannot make long-term decisions about what is probably their most important valuable asset with short-term extensions. so let's fin you shall our job, mr. speaker -- so let's finish our job, mr. speaker. and make it permanent. the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker our country's economic forecast continues to improve. which is a good thing. but we do risk leaving far too many people behind as we come out of recession. mr. kennedy: that is an issue for us all. stem education science, technology engineering, and math met matics is a critical vehicle to make sure all americans have access to the economic gains that will power our country for the next generation. mr. speaker, over the next 10 years, stem jobs will grow at double the rate of nonstem jobs. at all levels of education. stem careers earn about 11% higher wages compared to the counterparts in other jobs. this is an enormous opportunity but to date our efforts around stem education have left huge segments of our population behind. hispanics and african-americans

combined only occupy about 13% of all stem jobs. while women make up nearly half the work force overall, only 26% of stem jobs are held by women. in 2013, there were 11 states where not a single african-american student took the computer science advanced placement test and eight states where no hispanic students did, and three states where no women did. mr. speaker, this is a challenge for us all. with this in mind i rise today to introduce the stem gateways act, along with representative tonko and senator gillibrand, to make sure that access to the jobs of tomorrow are spread to all americans. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. foxx: thank you mr. speaker. the first month of the 114th

congress has been a busy one as house republicans have gotten right to work tackling the difficult issues facing the nation. we started off the new year by passing two pieces of bipartisan legislation designed to minimize the consequences caused by obamacare. we also approved three bills that will help us on our way to energy independence and increase access to affordable north american oil. the house acted swiftly to defund the president's executive actions on illegal aliens in their entirety, and we also passed legislation that would ensure veterans who may be struggling have access to the mental health care services and support they need. while house republicans have accomplished a great deal in a relatively short time there's still much work to do. we are focused on growing our economy from the ground up not from the top down. to help people back to work -- get people back to work and

restore opportunity for everyone. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. cicilline: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cicilline: mr. speaker every single day our national security personnel worked tirelessly to protect americans from harm. at a time of renewed threats from isis around the world and recent attacks in france, these men and women have done a tremendous job of keeping our country safe. but unless congress acts in 17 days, the department of homeland security will run out of funding. homeland security secretary johnson warned that 0,000 homeland security workers will be furloughed. the rest will be forced to work without pay. is this really how our government should treat its employees on the frontline of our national security system? in an effort to roll back president obama's executive action on immigration, house republicans have attached toxic policy riders to their department of homeland security bill. the republican-controlled senate has rejected this bill

three times. but rather than taking up clean legislation to provide our frontline personnel with the resources they need to protect our country, they instead are attaching all these toxic riders. house republicans continue to play political games with our national security. i call on my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to stop putting politics ahead of the safety of american families and fund the department of homeland security immediately. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. mrs. maloney: mr. speaker, a million jobs were created in the last three months. the deficit is down. the stock market is up. but instead of building on this progress, the republican party is again threatening a partial

government shutdown. this time it's the department of homeland security and we don't have many days left. why? because the anti-immigrant fringe of the majority party disagrees with the president's decision to address our broken immigration system. if they don't get their way, they would stop paying our border patrol agents, stop paying our t.s.a. security screeners at airports, stop paying the coast guard and secret service. the men and women who work to keep us secure would have to worry about how they are going to feed their families instead of protecting our country. this is dangerous to our security and to our economy. i urge my colleagues to let common sense prevail and pass a clean department of homeland security bill. the american people deserve their security. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlelady's time has expired. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on february 9, 2015 at 1:15 p.m. appointment, united states senate caucus on international narcotics control, signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house an additional communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on february 10, 2015, at

11:39 a.m. appointment washington's farewell address. signed, sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-st. of rule 1 -- 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until approximately 4:30

>> there as also 108 women in congress including the first african-american republican in the house. and the first woman veteran in the senate. keep track of the members of congress using congressional chronicle on c-span.org. the page has lots of useful information there, including voting results and statistics about each session of congress.

new congress, best access on c-span c-span2, c-span radio, and c-span.org. the senate arment services committee this morning held a hearing on snuret threats facing the u.s. two former undersecretaries of defense testified, they answered questions about iran's nuclear program combating isis, the conflict in ukraine and afghanistan operations. the beginning of the hearing, the committee voted in favor of president obama's defense secretary nominee, ashton carter. that vote was 26-0 with the nomination now moving on to the full senate.

>> since a quorum is now present, i ask the committee to consider the nomination of dr. ashton v. carter to be secretary of defense and if a roll call is requested, we would be glad to have a roll call. if not is there a motion -- is there anyone who would like a roll call vote? you want a roll call vote? >> i don't know if we need it. >> we don't need it. >> i'd like to be recorded as voting aye. >> the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. inhofe, mr. sessions.

mr. wicker. miss by yot. mrs. fisher. >> aye by proxy. >> mr. cotton. mr. round. mrs. earns. mr. sullivan. >> no instructions. >> mr. lee. >> mr. graham. >> aye by proxy. mr. cruz, aye by approximate which. mr. reid. aye. >> mr. nelson. mr. castle. mr. manson. miss shaheen. mrs. gillibrand. mr. blumenthal. mr. donnelly. mr. ono. mr. cane. >> aye by proxy. >> mr. king. mr. heinrich. mr. chairman. >> aye.

>> 25 ayes, one no instruction. >> then the motion will be reported favorably of dr. carter's nomination to the senate to the floor of the senate and hopefully we can get a vote perhaps even as early as tomorrow. >> do you want to keep it open? >> we'll leave it opened for senator sullivan to make his wishes known for a while. i'm sure this committee meets today to receive testimony on our nation's defense budget and priorities from the bipartisan national defense panel. this group of former military leaders, members of congress and pentagon officials who served under republican and democratic presidents released their unanimous recommendations in a report on our nation's defense strategy last year. we have with us today two

distinguished members of the national defense panel, eric adelman and michele flournoy, each served under defense on policy and among experts on both sides of the aisle. we are grateful to you to appear before us today. also like to thank the panel's co-chairman, dr. william perfecty, and general -- perry and general abozay. and staff for their work. the national defense panel's bipartisan and consensus report is a compelling statement of the daunting strategy reality -- strategic realities america faces in the 21st century. the rules based international order that has further global prosperity and security is not self-sustaining, and as challenges to that order multiply around the world, there is no substitute for robust american engagement to ensure its preservation. though america's many effective tools of global influence, including diplomacy and economic

engagement, the panel reminds us that all of these are critical -- critically intertwined with and dependent upon the perceived strengths, presence, and commitment of u.s. armed forces. yet through a ginavings self-inflicted wounds and dangerous geopolitical and technological trends, america's military strength, quote strategic foundation undergurding our global leadership as the report terms it, is eroding. $487 billion in cuts to our national defense under the budget control act and billions more under sequestration constitute a strategy -- serious strategic misstep the report warns. these steep cuts have sharply reduced military readiness, led to dangerous investment shortfalls, and present and future capabilities, and prompted our allies and adversaries alike to question our commitment and resolve. these cuts are not the product of any strategy assessment of the threats we face at a time of

global upheaval. china's rapid military modernization is tilting the balance of power in the asia pacific. russia's aggression threatens europe's regional security. iran and north korea continue the pursuit and development of tactical weapons. and finally islamist extremists are destabilizing large swaths of the middle east and north africa while plotting attacks against the united states and our ally. in addition to regional threats structural trends like the difficult fusion of certain advance military technologies pose new operations challenges to america's armed forces. in a security environment of the future, the panel's report predicts, quote, conflicts are likely to unfold more rapidly battlefields will be more lethal, operational sanctuary for u.s. forces will be scarce and often fleeting. asymmetric conflict will be the

norm and the panel echoed secretary hagel who has said in such an era, american dominance on the seas and skies and in space can no longer be taken for granted. the panel's report recommends the budget control act's immediate repeal and a return to at least the funding base line proposed in secretary gates' fiscal year 2012 defense budget. that budget the panel concluded represents the last time the department was permitted to engage in the standard process of analyzing threats estimating needs, and proposing a resource baseline that would permit it to carry out the national military strategy. if we had followed the budget path laid out by secretary gates, which he believed was the minimum to keep the country safe, the fiscal year 2016 budget before the department of defense excluding war funding

would be $611 billion. that's $77 billion more than the president's fiscal year 2016 budget request and 1 $$112 billion more under the budget caps of the b.c.a. it's also worth remembering that secretary gates suggested this minimum level before russia's invasion of ukraine posed a renewed threat to european security before the rise of isis in the further spread of violent extremism across north africa and the middle east. before china's coercive behavior in the east and south china seas had become dangerously commonplace. it is unacceptable to continue the -- to ask our men and women in the military to put their lives at risk around the world while we cut back on their trange and equipment. therefore the overriding priority of this committee and congress must be to return to a strategy driven budget, and i

look forward to the testimony of our witnesses today as to what that budget would look like. senator reed. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i also want to welcome our witnesses, mr. ambassador, madam secretary, thank you for your service both in and out of government. thank you very much. over the years and especially since the initiation of hostilities in 2001, the quadrennial defense review like any strategy has had to contend with the challenge of an unpredictable and constantly shifting nature of the world and threats that we face. as military leaders pointed out we have seldom predicted with great accuracy where or when the next crisis might occur. however the department of defense's requirement to conduct security and defense analysis and planning means that assumptions must be made, objective threat assessments done, and guidance provided to our military that prioritize our national security interests. each q.d.r., regardless of the administration, has had to make strategy or resource tradeoffs.

the work of the current national defense panel in its review of the 2014 q.d.r., provide an independent consideration of the department's assessment of the security environment its defense strategy and priorities, and identification of the capabilities necessary to manage our strategy risk. in essence, the panel found that the 2014 quadrennial defense review and defense strategy makes a reasonable strategy assessment. -- strategic assessment. for example, the panel largely echos the q.d.r.'s assessment and highlights the challenges the nation face was emphasis on china, russia, and the ukraine, proliferation in north korea and iran, insurgency in iraq, civil war in syria, and instability throughout the middle east and africa. the panel also acknowledges that the q.d.r. caused the right capabilities and capacities to address the many challenges we face and into the future. however, the panel notes those capabilities and capacities

clearly exceed budget resources available and therefore undermines the strategy. a point very accurately made by the chairman. it is no surprise, therefore, that the panel's overarching find egg an recommendation is the budget control act endangers the national security and calls for its repeal. the panel also argues for increasing defense funding to 2012 levels, reining in personnel costs and more budget predictibility. in addition to the risk of sequestration, i would be interested to hear the witnesses' assessment to other risks to our national security as well as risks to our military and families. finally, mr. chairman, i note that after nearly 20 years of q.d.r.'s and recurring questions about its value last year's defense national authorization act modifies requirement for this review now called the defense strategy revue. these changes include the development of a national defense strategy that addresses our security interest across the near mid, and farm terms and

focuses an streamlines the elements of a strategy congress considers essential to a comprehensive defense review. i would be interested to note the witness' views on these changes and the prospect from what timely, relevant, and useful national defense process. thank you, mr. chairman. >> welcome the witnesses. secretary flournoy. >> if i may i'm going to let ambassador edelman go first. >> mr. chairman, senator reed, thank you for giving my colleague, secretary flournoy, and me, an opportunity to come before you to talk about the work of the national defense panel to review the quadrennial defense review. the two of us have prepared statement that we submitted and hope it will be printed for the record. >> without objection, both in the record. >> will i just make some general introductory comments and turn the floor over to michele. when we began our work as a

panel in august of 2013, one of our co-chairmen, general john abizaid, said as we started our clib budget reconciliations that he believed the -- as we started our clib budget reconciliations, the country -- deliberations, the country was running risk. and all of us consented to that judgment at the time. as you pointed out in your opening statement, mr. chairman, that was before president putin had invaded and annexed crimea and destabilized eastern ukraine. before the collapse of the iraqi security forces and seizure of mosul and anbar province by isil and its approach to baghdad. so as we went through our deliberations, i think the panel became more and more convinced that the accumulating strategy risk that general -- strategic risk that general abizaid was describing at our outset was

accumulating at a faster and faster pace. as you have heard as a committee from previous witnesses at other hearings, secretary shultz, my former boss, secretary kissinger, secretary albright, the united states probably faces the most volatile and complex security environment that we faced as a nation in a very long time, if ever. and it struck us as a panel that given those growing challenges to stay on the path of the budget control act caps and sequestration made no sense. i had the experience of having been on the previous independent panel to review the 2010 q.d.r., and in that report looking at the budget trajectory, cuts already being taken out of defense in 2010, the growing cost of keeping service men and

women in the field over time, and the growing health care and other retirement costs that were built into the budget we predicted that the nation was facing a train wreck on defense and that was before the budget control act passed and before the department had to cope with sequestration. one of the things that i think we were very focused on and i want to draw some attention to is the charge that secretary hagel gave us as a panel at the outset of our deliberations. he said that as we discussed future capabilities, because many of these challenges that we as a panel were talking about, the rise of china and its very rapid growth in military power,

the long struggle, i think that we face with islamic extremism, the rise potentially of new nuclear powers like north korea perhaps iran, all of these things are challenges that as president eisenhower said were for the long haul. we have to think now about how we are going to deal with these challenges 20 years out. that in fact is also one of the mandates of the q.d.r. process itself. it's supposed to be a 20-year out look at the nation's defense needs. so secretary hagel raised the issue with us the concern that is the program of record, the program we are going to need 20 years down the road? are we going to be starting now to produce the weapons that 20 years from now will be -- we'll be needing? many of us, i think were mindful of the fact that over the last decade we have been essentially eating the seed corn that was laid down in the

carter-reagan defense buildup of the late 1970's and early 1980's. we need to be thinking now of what capabilities we can provide for service men and women who are going to be called upon in the future. so i wanted to mention that specific areas that has a panel in keeping secretary hagel's charge that we concluded we ought to be looking at down the road for the future. i hope, mr. chairman, and senator reed, that you and the members of the committee will be bearing some of those things in mind as you consider the program, budget review over the next few years. i'll tick them off. armed intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance space, because ever our critical dependence on it. cyberspace. maintenance of air superiority. joint and coalition demand and control because of the partnerships we have and the fact we'll be fighting with other people. long range strike. and electric and directed energy weapons.

these are areas that we felt had not been given sufficient attention by the department and need a further look in the future. why don't i stop there and be happy for -- turn if over to michele. -- turn it over to michele. > identified' like to say how pleased and honored i am to join ambassador edelman here today to discuss the panel with you. this hearing could not come at a more critical time for all the reasons you have described. the international security environment is more complex and volatile, and we have seen, i would emphasize, it's going to get more challengeing in the future. it's a time when continued u.s. leadership and engagement globally to protect our national interest, to sustain the rules based in international order on which stability and prosperity depend, to lead the international community, to address the most pressing challenges that you outlined, u.s. leadership could not be at

more of a premium right now. it's also time that requires investment to ensure that we retain a strong and agile military to shape the interinternational environment, to defer and defeat aggression when we must to reassure allies and partners, and to ensure that this president and future presidents have the options that they need for an increasingly dangerous world. and yet we see a period where defense budget cuts and sequestration are undermining the department's ability to maintain a robust and ready force torques retain the best and brightest people, and to invest in the capabilities that are going to be necessary to keep our technological edge and our military superiority in a more challenging future. so in this context i just want to foot stomp and emphasize four points. first is our number one appeal to this committee and to the congress more broadly is to work

to repeal the b.c.a. and end sequestration. this is absolutely imperative. we cannot restore readiness and invest in our technology edge -- technological edge unless we do so. sequestration set budgets too low, it denies the secretary of defense the ability to protect resources for the highest priorities. it puts d.o.d. in a constant state of budget uncertainty that prevents more strategy -- strategic planning and investment for the fuhr. deficit reduction and getting our fiscal house in order are essential to u.s. national security but sequestration is the wrong way to go about it. so we recommend restoring defense fending to 2012 levels as the chairman mentioned, and funding the president's budget request is the first step in that direction. second, we would urge the congress to take immediate steps to restore readiness. the service chiefs have

testified before this committee as to growing readiness problems. only half of the marine corps' home station units are at acceptable readiness levels. less than half of the combat coded units in the air force are fully ready for their missions. navy deployments have been canceled and only a third of the navy's contingency force is ready to deploy within the required 30 days. the list goes on. these readiness impacts are real. and it was recommended that the congress should make an immediate and special appropriation above and beyond the current budget levels to correct these readiness shortfalls. third, as ambassador edelman emphasized, the m.d.p. calls for protecting investment and future capabilities. that will be critical to maintaining u.s. freedom of action and our military superiority in the coming decades. our technological edge has long been an advantage but it is not a given.

in a world in which technology is proliferating much cutting edge technology is commercial and off the shell, d.o.d. has to have a smart and determined investment strategy to maintain its edge. i would personally applaud the department's efforts like the offset strategy, the defense innovation initiative, we have to have the investment dollars to pursue those initiatives. and ambassador edelman has laid out a number of the key areas that the m.d.p. recommended should be a focus. lastly i would add it also argues that we need to pursue an aggressive reform agenda inside d.o.d. we can and should reduce the costs of doing business. we know compensation reform and applauded the word of the compensation committee. many of these issues need to be addressed. some of them need to be fundamentally reframed. i'll give you an example. health care, for example, rather than debating whether we should reduce benefits and increase

co-pays, we need to be debating how do we get better health outcomes for service members and their families, and reduce costs by applying better business practices? the m.d.p. emphasizes the need for further reforms, for another brack -- brac round and right sizing the civilian work force, contractor career, and so forth so that we can have the work force we need for the future. let me just conclude by saying, i think this report lays out an agenda -- very clear agenda for action that has strong bipartisan and civil military support across the panel. nevertheless there's some heavy lifts involved in what we recommend, but the risks of not pursuing this course are simply unacceptable. i would look to this committee and applaud your leadership in

this area, working with your colleagues, to try to convince them that the time to act on these recommendations is now. thank you. >> thank both the witnesses. i would point out to my colleagues that both witnesses have worked for both republican and democrat administrations, holding positions of responsibility in both. so there certainly is a tote aol nonpartisanship in -- certainly is a total nonpartisanship in the reports and that in my view makes you more credible because of your many years of outstanding and dedicated service. my colleagues, i won't take very much time except to point out that one of the problems that we are trying to highlight on this committee is, as you just mentioned, miss flournoy, on acquisition reform. we simply can't afford these cost overruns of billions of dollars and canceled and delays

programs. it harms our credibility. it's going to be one of the highest priorities of this committee to try and address that issue. it's been tried many times in the past. so i'm not confident as to the degree of success, but we have to work on it. i just -- i only have one additional question. why did you use secretary gates' fiscal year 2012 budget levels as a baseline for your recommendations? >> mr. chairman, as i mentioned in the 2010 panel we spoke to secretary gates about what he thought the department needed to recapitalize after 10 years of war. and he told us that he believed he needed about 1 1/2% to 2 1/2% real growth in the budget to fight it in order to do that.

i think 20910 panel believed that that was a minimum and that it might actually be higher, but when we met as a panel and tried to wrestle with this, we had a smaller panel this time only 10 members and limited staff we concluded that recurring to secretary gates' top line made sense because it was the last time the department had been trying to define its needs on the basis of something approaching a strategy as opposed to being given arbitrary numbers by either o.m.b. or because of the budget control act caps. there were differences of view among us on the panel as to what -- how high the top line ought to go, but i think there was consensus that the gates level, that sofert 1 1/2% to 2 1/2% real growth from the f.y. 2011 and f.y. 2012 levels was the

minimum and all of us could agree on that. >> unless we do something such as you are recommending, the nation's security is at risk. >> i would say so. i think all the members of the panel believe that. >> yes, sir. i think we talked about the force being at substantial risk in the near term. if sequestration was not lifted and higher budget levels not restored. >> thank you. senator reed. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you, ambassador and madam secretary, for your thoughtful testimony today and also for the work of your colleagues on this report. you were obviously tasked with focusing on the needs and responsibilities of the department of defense, one of the rallies we all recognize is that military forces don't operate alone. and they are part of a spectrum

of national security efforts. if there's not a sufficient state department presence and capacity building and local communities, then our military efforts could dissipate quickly when we change or shift responsibility. so can i assume -- i won't assume i'll ask. when we talk about repealing the b.c.a., we also have to be conscious, state department, homeland security department, every agency of the government that essentially protects the security of the united states could even go further than that, is that fair? >> senator reed, i think that's certainly fair. although we in our panel really were more focused on the department specifically, in the 2010 panel we actually had a chapter about the need for a better whole of government effort. really very much along the lines you're discussing. because you're right, just

solving d.o.d.'s problem is crucial, and i would say a necessary condition for almost everything else. but it's not sufficient because we have other i.n.s. trumets of national power that we don't want to see withering on the vine without adequate funding. >> your comment. >> i would agree. in just about every operation we conduct, every problem we try to solve, there's got to be an integrated balanced interagency approach. one instrument is well funded and the others are on life support if that doesn't work so well. i think our intention was to talk about the instruments of national security more broadly. >> let me shift to another topic that you talked about in your report which is increasingly critical, that's cyberoperations. from afar, looking at some of the recent operations, the russians and crimea, that cyberseems to be the first act of any sort of military

operation today. and the line between a cyberincident and a military operation is getting less and less distinct. your comments generally about the efforts we should take with respect to cyber d.o.d. and others. this touches the whole spectrum. everything in cyber. >> senator reed, i'm at something of a disadvantage because i have trouble booting up my own computer. like many people of my age, very reliant on my younger sons to get me out of trouble. but the reality is, we rely -- our military forces rely extensively on cyber. not only encrypted systems, but the open net. and that's a huge problem for us whenever we are involved in an operation of any kind. and i think we are all painfully aware of the vulnerabilities that we face.

we do cite cyberas one of the capabilities that needs further -- cyber as one of the capabilities that needs further attention and work. you put your finger on one problem i don't think we have resolved as a government. as i said, d.o.d. relies on the open internet. yet it doesn't really have the responsibility for defending it. it's got the responsibility for defending dot mil. this is one area where the whole of government has to be involved, particularly for d.o.d. >> madam secretary. >> i would just add i think it's a very important area of emphasis and there are many dimensions to the challenge. one is building the human capital and expertise needed within the government and access to it outside of government. figuring out how we are going to get it organized beyond d.o.d. across of government different

-- given different agencies have different priorities. how we work with the private sector. and frankly the legislative framework that deals with questions of liability and others. otherwise i would enable the kind of public-private cooperation that's needed to be effective in this area. >> thank you for your great work. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ambassador, when you're my age you'll be depending on your grandchildren's advice not just your children. in the 20 years i have been on this committee, we talked about our -- you and i talked about this, the fact that we have the oldest nuclear arsenal in the world. most of our warheads are 30, 40 years old. and our delivery system you look at the triade b-352 50 years old, and the icbm's and nuclear submarines.

we have talked about this for a long period of time and i'm looking now at the new situation, the new threat that's out there, newt threat that you have talked about, both of you, as well as our panel that we had last week that was -- that talked about this for quite some time. kissinger, albright, and shultz. now, in light of the new threat should more attention being given to this than we have in the past? i noticed when you used the word -- you ticked off five of the areas that have not been given proper attention, this wasn't one of those areas. do you think it should be? >> senator inhofe, i was as undersecretary member of the nuclear weapons council and followed the issues closely and was very, very concerned throughout my tenure about the state of our aging nuclear force.

ehaven't bailt new nuclear weapon since 1988. we haven't tested one since 1991. there are lots of ways we maintain the safety and surety of the stockpile. but as time goes on and particularly not only as the inevitable corrosion and degradation of components goes on, but also the loss of human capital because we are not able to get the best and brightest minds in the field the way we used to be able to do, i think it's a matter of really increasing concern. we are unfortunately, i think living through a period where the risks of an increasingly proliferated world are growing. we already have north korea testing -- having tested nuclear weapons. iran is moving very close to being a nuclear threshold state. hopefully they'll be in agreement that will constrain that. but if there isn't, or if iran

maintains a near breakout capacity there's a real prospect we may get other states in the region who decide to develop their own nuclear capabilities. in the meantime, you've got a growing nuclear stockpiles in pakistan india china's -- the chinese inventory is also growing in terms of weapons although albeit more slowly. and russia's modernizing its nuclear force. i do worry. i applaud the administration for the very good work it's done and the b-61 modernization effort, but i do think there's much more that needs to be done in this area. >> ambassador, that gets into what i was going to talk about, i have been concerned about iran ever since our unclassified intelligence came out in teven talking about when they were going to have the capabilities

being 2015, which is where we are right now. i'm concerned about the maligned activities. there's been several punled reports talking about sue -- published reports, talking about sudan, come interesting iran, sudan, gaza, yemen bahrain, iraq syria, and lebanon. i don't think we can assume that our concern should be strictly with iran. this is my concern that i have had for a long time of the we are supposed to be and historically have been the nuclear umbrella. our umbrella has holes in it. we have serious problems. when you look at countries like saudi arabia and turkey and others, if they see what our capabilities aren't, then you know -- i would assume they are going to be involved and we are going to have another arms race coming. does that concern the two of you? >> i think our strategic nuclear

forces have been one of our huge strategic apparent advantages as a nation since 1945. and i think we cannot afford to let that advantage go by the wayside. extended deterrence of our allies in asia europe, and now increasingly in the middle east has always been a very difficult proposition. it was a difficult proposition when we had a much larger stockpile and inventory of nuclear weapons to make our willingness to use those weapons in defense of our allies. that was a very difficult proposition to convince people of. it's still going to be a difficult proposition to convince people about. but it will be much harder to do, as you say, senator inhofe if the appearance is we are not paying sufficient attention to the stockpile and to the modernization of our forces. >> my time has expired, just as i did for the panel of

kissinger, albright, and so on i would like to have you for the record submit something talking about the fact that for the 20 years that we were -- i was involved in this committee before, we had the policy of major -- being able to fight two wars or two major theater conflicts, and that policy seemingly changing now and your analysis of the new policy, for the record. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator sullivan, you wish to be recorded as voting aye for ash tonton carter to be secretary of defense? >> yes, mr. chairman. >> senator gillibrand. >> thank you for your testimony today. it's very instructive and something that this committee is focused on. i want to continue the conversation about your recommendations with regard to cyber. obviously the 2014 quadrennial defense rye view reports that cyberthreats come from a diverse range of countries,s ors,

individuals, and are posing significant risks to the u.s. national interests. some threats seek to undercut the department of defense's near and long-term military effectiveness by gaining unauthorized access to the department of defense and industry networks and infrastructure on a routine basis. further, our potential adversaries are actively probing critical infrastructure, whether chemical plants, nuclear plants any type of important infrastructure, and our partner countries which could inflict significant damage to the global economy as well as exaser pate instability in the security environment. what are your specific recommendations with regard to increasing cybercapability? specifically, how do we compete with the private sector to get the brightest minds, best engineers, best mathematicians to want to serve as cyberwarriors? to enhance our cyberdefense? have you thought about ways to not only re-- recruit and retain

the best and brightest in these fields but also to perhaps develop resources throughout national guard and other sources. >> as panel, senator, we did not go into that level of detail. we noted the importance of the area importance of investing in both defensive and offensive capabilities. urged the department to move forward with modernization and improving cooperation with the private sector. so i'll give you my personal views on your question. i think attracting talant someone of the biggest -- talent someone of the biggest challenges. there are a couple ways to go at it. one is to use different incentives and pay schedules for cyberexspers than the normal g.s. schedule. second is to develop contract relationships and surge capacity with the private sector, and a third is as you mentioned actually leveraging some of the

strength of our guard and reserves. there are a lot of these folks who have this expertise in the commerce sector who are patriots and who -- commercial sector who are patriots and might want to contribute to our national defense but they are not going to leave silicon valley to join full-time. finding a way to leverage them on the weekends and for their annual training and to be available to be mobilized in a national emergency, i think we need to be thinking creatively about those kinds of arrangements. a couple of the services have some pilot programs you may be aware ever experimenting with that construct. but the human exam dimension is probably the long intent here. >> senator gillibrand, the only thing i would add. i am aware of some efforts in the private sector to do something which i think is a -- in this context a great idea, help train some of our wounded warriors to become cyberwarriors. there are a lot of our wounded

warriors who would love to get back into the field, but because of their injuries cannot. this is a way for them to continue the fight. with a little bit of training. >> would you recommend, for example, our cyberdefenders, cyberfighters to not have -- say basic training, you might be the best person behind the computer but not behind the gun so train specifically for their requirements. but that would be a first for the military. they have not done that previously. >> my understanding of at least one of the pilots that's using a reserve unit, one of the things they have done is exempt people from the p.t. requirements, from cugget their hair, wearing uniform. really let them come as they are, bringing their expertise to the table without having to meet the traditional requirements. >> in your opening remarks you mentioned five areas technology areas where you felt we needed to develop more weapons expertise. does your report expand on that or do you just list them? >> we don't go into great

detail, senator gillibrand. we basically highlight them asaires where we clearly think there needs to be more attention and there hasn't been sufficient attention directed energy weapons, for one. but there's, as you said, a list of them. we give them about a paragraph treatment in each one, not in any detail. >> i'd love for the record further development to the extent you have it. thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator sessions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank both of you for your leadership and your wisdom that you are sharing with us. we do have a problem with defense spending. it's causing me great concern as a member of the budget committee for a couple years. i have been digging into those numbers. i have felt all along that the -- one area of our budget that needs to be examined with most

care for spending more money is the defense department. we have to justify that. the defense department has to tell us what they are going to spend the money on and how much it is, but we don't have a lot of money. matter of we don't have enough money to fund this goth. and the deficit will continue to rise even though we had a slowing of the annual deficit, they're going to start rising again, according to c.b.o., and they project that by 2019, interest on the debt will exceed the entire defense budget. this is a grim thing. ambassador adelman do you think that you d -- you suggest the defense department needs more money. do you think that increase above the b.c.a. funding should be matched by the same level of nondefense discretionary spending? >> the panel did not take a

position on that so just as a representative of the panel, i want to make sure it's clear that what i'm about to say is my personal opinion and not representing, i suspect, either my colleague or other members of the panel. i think the issue in defense is absolutely crucial. i think overall federal spending needs to be under better control. i think the biggest problem, though is frankly, not the discretionary part of the budget, it's the nondiscretionary spart. the c.b.o. long-range budget forecast made that clear for some time. that's the real driver of the long-term debt. and reprograms. >> is your answer yes or no? >> my answer is that the defense budget needs to go up and you know, i don't think necessarily nondiscretionary or rather discretionary nondefense spending needs to go up. >> well, look. the president is insisting that

it does and his budget increases defense about $34 billion this year over the b.c.a. level and he increases nondefense discretionary by the same. senator mccain, i think, is correct to suggest that the gates plan would add if it were enacted in 2012 and we were following it, it would be $100 million more this year -- $100 billion more this year than b.c.a. levels. other a decade that's over a $1 trillion. and nondefense if it's matched is another $ trillion. the budget of the united states is $4 trillion. this -- so these are huge numbers. all of us, you don't have the stress every day that we do about every other agency and department that comes to us and wants more money. i'm just saying that's the difficult time we are in. >> senator can i add one more

thought? i think that sequestration needs to be lift aid cross the board so that secretaries are able to manage priorities for the government. but i don't think you can solve the nation's budget problems on the back of discretionary spending. the big moving muscles are tax reform and entitlement reform. so that's where i think we need to focus. >> under the budget control act beginning 2017 for the rest of what, seven years of the budget control act, spending would increase at 2.5% a year. so it's -- these are the tough years. we're in the tough years right now. in fact, defense department took a heavy damaging demand to reduce spending so rapidly. i fully understand how hard they've had to work and the difficulties they're working with right now but i don't know that we've got to have these kind of increases in nondefense discretionary. and it shows up, yes, the

growing, the fastest growing part is entitlement. and we all know that. but we can also make a difference with discretionary spending. ambassador adelman you have questioned i think, the negotiations with iran and the nuclear program they have. dr. kissinger was pretty animated really, when he expressed concern over our negotiating posture that basically allows iran, as he understands it, and public reports suggest, could be within months of having a nuclear weapon and our goal has gone from no nuclear program in iran to allow agnew clear program that would leave them within months of a nuclear weapon causing, he says, dr. kissinger other nations in the world, in the region, allow other nations to plan to have nuclear weapons. how do you evaluate that?

>> senator, i'm a little concerned about the trajectory these -- of these negotiations. when you look at the full sweep of them going back to 2003-2004 then it began as the e.u. 3 before it became the p-5 plus one, we started with bhaffs essentially a multilateral negotiation with the objective of preventing iran from developing nuclear weapon capability. we now increasingly, are in a bilateral negotiation between the united states and iran that is aimed at sec re-- aimed as secretary kerry, -- kerry said to limit the breakout or sneakout time that iran has to develop a knew leer weapon to one year. that seems to me to be an enormous retreat. i don't know what the state of the negotiation. is the press reports indicating that iran might be allowed to keep thousands and thousands of

centrifuges without taking them down is very, very concerning to me because i think -- because there's a time limit in the negotiation, that was agreed to in the joint plan of action. it will be time limited, whatever that date is, whether it's 20 years or three years or 10 years, at some point that time limit runs out. all the sanctions are gone, iran is treated as a, quote, normal nation under the m.p.t., despite its serial prevarication and denial of the m.p.t. and then they've got an industrial scale enrichment capability which i think leaves them as a kind of threshold nuclear state. i'm concerned about the way the negotiations have proceeded. >> senator? >> thank you mr. chairman. i want to thank both of our witnesses for their testimony before our committee today and also your outstanding services and the success you've had and the careers you've had with our government.

in your opening statement you both discussed the problems that se test -- sequestration is causing the department, we talked about that and i'm concerned that the department is not doing enough to streamline and reduce costs. in your panel's review of the 2014 q.d.r., you noted additional changes are reared to right the civil yap forces. they said they continue to grow even after active duty forces are shrinking. and they noted that by 2012 the number of contractors working for the d.o.d. had grun to approximately 60 ,000. at a time when the service reduced the number of service members in the military, i have a hard time with the growth of staff sizes. i think you mentioned the staff sizes. for example, the army headquarters staff grew by 60%. to 3,639 in fiscal year 2013

from 2,272 just 10 years earlier. and that doesn't include contractors. because of that, i was shocked but perhaps not surprised when the g.a.o. reported that the d.o.d. had yet to produce a realistic plan for the d.o.d. to reduce d.o.d.'s headquarter's budgets by 2019. can't even come to an agrement on that additionally they found the d.o.d. headquarters couldn't determine how many people they needed what they needed, what positions they would have and what they would do. senators before this committee have heard about the need to fully fund service members in the field. we're concerned about the readiness of force. but when you have a bloat on the other side taking away from the readiness force, you're not utilizing the national guard, not utilizing your reservists to the point that any sensible person would say, i've got people ready, willing, and able to do the job yet i'm hiring high-priced contractors and there's no auditing going on, we

can't get weapons to the front in time. we've got concerns, and if either of you want to address that, i'd appreciate it. it's one thing to say, we need more money we need more money. we understand that. what are you doing with the money we give you? why are you throwing money we give you away, or spending it on needless stuff. we want to make sure we're ready to do what we need to do. >> it's understandable why the civilian work force grew over 15 years of war. but now i think it is time to sort of go back to first principles and try to right size that force, examining exactly how contractors are being used, looking for efficiencies there. and really looking at the sillian organization. there is no overall plan but there are some components that are taking some interesting

approaches that may lead the way for others. there are some that are looking at the concept of delayering, reducing the number of layers, optimizing control to take fat out of organizations. others are looking at streamlining business process and so forth. i think this is an area of focus. one thing i would height for you all though is currently the sec retear of defense does not have the kind of authority that is -- that his predecessors have used to manage drawdowns in this area. secretary perry, for example, at the end of the cold war was given reduction in force authority to right size the civilian work force. he was given meaningful levels of voluntary separation incentive pays to be used to incentivized early retirement. the current secretary doesn't have those authorities and that is a constraint -- it's an opportunity for you to give the secretary some additional tools to right size that civilian work force. >> let me ask you this, does it

not bother you that the department of defense can't identify the types of jobs and people they need for the jobs? >> yes that's something you need to ask of them and we all need to ask of them. >> ambassador? >> just to make a point, to respond to, i think the excellent question you asked but also the earlier question that senator sessions posed to us, which is, we're coming here saying that department of defense needs a lot of money but everybody can cite horror stories about different procurements that have gone bad, different problems in the department of defense and you all as stewards of the taxpayers' money are right to be asking the department how to, you know, how to justify all this. one of the things we do talk about in the report and which my colleague has been very active, far more than i have, is on the entire reform agenda. there's just been a report by the defense business board about trying to reap even more savings out of the department and this

is a priority area and i hope the chairman and the rest of you will have the defense business board up and talk about that report and try to push the department and secretary carter once he's gone to the floor and been confirmed as well on all these things. i know he has them very much on his mind from his previous service. >> thank you very much, my time is up. >> senator? >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you for being here today, i appreciate it very much. ambassador, i appreciate it when you said that we have been eating the seed corn. that comes home for me. but i truly do believe we have been degrading the very source of any future strength and readiness and prosperity that we have. i do agree you stated, we do need to end sequestration. i do believe that. we have to restore readiness and

also reform within the d.o.d. we have to do that. i understand that. but another component beyond looking internally we have to look externally also. any time that the united states is engaging their military forces elsewhere, we do rely on other partners. and i believe we do need to engage other partners in whatever region we're operating in to the fullest extent that we possibly can. and over the last 12 years, military cooperation between the united states and turkey has faltered. i can give specific examples at critical moments back in 2003, my own unit, the 1168th transportation company, the fourth infantry division and many other units were denied access to turkey as a projection platform into iraq. so that's one example.

we couldn't use their turkish port for operation iraqi freedom. and just a few months ago, we saw turkey deny our kurdish allies from heading into syria to break isil's siege of kobani. i believe that led to many deaths for those that were trying to defend kobani very early on we were uncertain whether it was going to fall or not. and turkey has also continuously denied our country the use of an air base, which would be close to use for search and rescue missions for those that might have issues, if they fall behind enemy lines. and just recently we can saw "wall street journal" that went into further detail how turkey had denied us using their areas for ospreys which would be used

in search and rescue missions and providing cover for men and women on the ground. so time and time and time again, turkey has denied use of their facilities, denied utes of their grounds. they're a nato ally. a nato ally. and they are very unapologetic when it come it is deny regular sources we believe is necessary in their region. so what i would like to hear from you is, as we're looking at constrained budgets here a lack of resources and of course reduced readiness we really do need to engage our other partners. specifically turkey. and in your opinion, what impact has turkey's actions or in this case lack of action, how has that affected other coalition partnerships in that region and what can we do to encourage

turkey to take on more ownership of the issues in the middle east. >> senator as much as i would like to turn that question over to my colleague, i think as a former u.s. ambassador to turkey, i probably need to take it on. first of all, all the things you cited are painfully part of my past experience and there's no question that turkey, under prime minister and now president erkduwan has become a difficult ally. there are a lot of reasons for that. turkey is headed domestically on a dangerous trajectory of increasing awe toretarianism and a lot of degree -- authoritarianism and a lot of degradation of democratic practice which i think contributes to some of this. i think it's going to require a

lot of attention from senior u.s. leadership in the next few years to try to management that -- manage that relationship. i agree with you, we need partners when we operate overseas. i will say, in fairness to the turks, a lot of their anger and unhappyness and some of the reason they've denied us access is because their view of what's going on in syria with which they share a very long boarder is that president assad must go and the u.s. is not doing enough to try and promote the departure of president assad. it's their belief, i think there's some merit in it, that you cannot just take on the problem in syria by only taking on isil because as long as assad is there he's generating more recruitment and more support for isil with his assault on the syrian people, use of barrel bombs, clear rein, etc. i think that's a very large part

of the turkish frustration that's led them to deny us use of land, to not cooperate with us on things like that. i'm not saying that's an excuse because i think allies have disagreements, they don't then say, we're not going to help you rescue your downed pilots. so i think that is not an excuse for turkey's behavior in this instance but just an explanation. the broader point though, on allies and partnerships that i think we have to wrestle with, we're at a junction because of where we are in our own budget and because the international border is fraying so badly where we need our allies, our treaty allies in asia and europe, but also our partners who are parts of special relationships who may not be formally allies but clearly are, you know, partnered with us in various efforts in

the northeast, like israel, the kingdom of saudi arabia, the united ashe emirates. in most cases, however, our allies are spending less and less and less on defense themselves. so they have less and less capability for them to draw -- for us to draw on. that's a paradox. i think one, it's a little bit beyond the scope of our panel, but one of the things we need to think about more is actually being much more forthright with our allies about where we want them to spend their money on defense. and developing capabilities that will complement, supplement ours, replace areas where we may have less capability so that there's a better division of labor between us and our allies. i think that's true in both europe and east asia as you see defense spend degree clining in most of those countries. we need to do that so that we don't have them wasting money

and not being able to be there if we need them. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you both for being here. when you look at syria and you look at isis, what would be your recommendation as to the next step for the coalition to take to move isis out of syria? we're making progress in iraq, do you wait in syria until iraq is done or do you begin to take action right now to move them out and does that action also include assad. >> i can answer that, but this is again the panel didn't look at. >> i understand but this is also about global strategy and security. >> i just want to make it clear this is my personal opinion. >> that's all i'm asking. >> doesn't reflect the opinions of others. >> we have your presence here, want to take advantage of it. >> we should have been doing much more, much earlier.

the president has said long ago assad must go. i agree with that. i don't think there's any way this problem can be resolved as long as he's there >> what do you think we do now? >> i think we need the -- the problem in syria is we're relying almost totally on air power. we have not very good intelligence because we have no presence on the ground. and we have to find some kind of surrogate as the person her ga has been in iraq and -- as the peshmerga has been in iraq we have to find a surrogate on the ground in syria with whom we can won. that goes to arming of moderate syrian opposition and getting them into position where they can do something. we would have been much better off had we been doing this going back to 2011 rather than facing this problem now. bad news never gets better, in my experience. >> i would agree that we -- i

wish we would have begun arming of the moderate opposition when they were far stronger and in greater numbers a while back but we are where we are and i think building up a credible surrogate force is key. i think the air campaign could be used in a more robust manner to put more pressure on isil and in some areas on the regime. i mean, the key is eventually you have to put pressure on the assad regime if you expect them to come to the table. if we were to do that and bring it to a culmination point right now, unprnlt, the main benefactor in syria would be isil because they're the strongest force on the ground system of we've got to focus on building up alternatives to isil and more you know, more moderate surrogates before we get to that point. >> let me ask you another question that's more about national security strategy, global strategy.

that is vladimir putin. what do you think his end game is? you can go one after another. and you know what are his plan ends here? >> i don't think that president putin is solely interested in the ukraine. i think he has a broader agenda. i think it's first to destabilize ukraine to the point he can impose regime change in kiev and dominate ukraine and prevent it from associating itself with the european union and moving in the direction of the west. i think he fundamentally rejects the post cold war security order in europe. i think it's taken a while for a lot of our friends in europe to recognize this and i think some of them are still in a bit of denial about it. they still seem to hope that there's some way to negotiate, you know, a limit with him on

ukraine, but i think this is just the beginning. i think after ukraine, he's going to be to be pursuing this in moldova and i think we're likely to see efforts to create problems and drive wedges between the united states and its allies, including its baltic allies. >> would you agree that if nato doesn't live up to its only gailingses, that would be the end of nato? >> absolutely. >> i don't disagree with anything ambassador adelman said but i -- my sense is that putin may not have a clear strategic end game. he's a very tactical thinker. and he is sitting on top of a former great power that is unquestionably in decline. financially, it's plagued by

corruption and poor governance. but i think he will lash out along the way trying to re-establish his sphere of influence. >> do you think he takes a chance wherever he sees weakness? >> i do. that's why it's so important we follow through on the initiatives for nato, on our posture, bolstering our posture underwriting article 5 and you know mitigating circumstance own belief is that we should be doing more to help the ukrainians. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman. again i want to thank the panelists, appreciate your great service to our country and the joint statement, very helpful when we get those kind of joint statements. we have been discussing a lot of the challenges certainly, that we have as a country, in terms of national security. we also have a lot of strengths. and one of the -- to me the ultimate strength that we have

is men and women in uniform who continue to volunteer, raise their right hand, post-9/11, so they know what the risks are, to serve our country. and you know, i've had the great honor, i get to spend a lot of time with our troops i'm sure that was a great part of both of your jobs, and just in the last two weekends, i was at the national training center a couple of weekends ago with thousands of young alaskan soldiers training out there. and this past weekend i was with smaller group of marine reservists. this time with the troops, for me, raises a very interesting question i'd like the two of you to maybe comment on. you know, what we hear from our civilian leaders a lot president included, is that we consistently hear that we're a

war-weary nation. there's a subtle element oo-- to that enge, that it's used as an excuse in some ways that we're not going to be taking any kind of action because we're weary. but when you spend time with the troops and they've sacrificed a lot in the last 12 year well, all know that, but one of the concerns that they raise, at least with me, and these are just anecdotal but i'm throwing them out there, is they want to deploy. they joined the mill tear to serve their country. they don't want to be sitting around system of i want you to help us think through this conventional wisdom that somehow we're a war-weary nation, we can't take on global commitments, when the truth is, less than 1% of americans have actually been doing the fighting and the ones i'm associated with certainly seem to be ready not necessarily to fight but certainly ready to deploy. how can we think through this?

i think it's this issue that we're weary has become conventional wisdom in such a way that nobody seems to challenge it. when you talk to be the to the -- talk to the people who are actually really at the pointy tip of the spear, god love them they seem ready to go. >> first of all, senator, it's a great question. i would agree that our men and women in uniform are one of the greatest strengths we have as a nation. they're remarkable. i think that when -- when the american people -- when it's explained to the american people what the nature of the threat is, why we have to meet it, what it means for the nation, what are the risks of not going after it, as the president did recently with regard to isil, i think the american people rally and they may shed whatever weariness they have and support a cause when it's well

articulated and explained and the sacrifice or the risk seems commensurate with the importance of the interests. and so, i don't think we are generally war weary. i think, yes we've spent -- had a lot of blood and treasure that we've spent over they last 15 years but i think when, you know, and that is something that weighs heavily on everyone, as it should. but i think again when there's -- the interests are clear, the objectives are clear, the mission is clear, and it's well explained and people are mobilized, i think they are very willing to follow that strong instinct that you described of, we have a megs, we need to get it done. that's a challenge for everyone in a leadership, public leadership position to be making that case when it's necessary. >> you know, general marshall, i think, once said that, he

thought it was difficult, if not impossible, for the united states to fight a war for more than four years. and i think what that reflects is that americans tend to want to see -- that they tend to want to see a decisive outcome to a conflict. i think inconclusive wars and long difficult fights sometimes can be a bit exhausting to the public and particularly if, as my colleague suggested, they're not being explained properly to the american public. i agree with everything you said, senator sullivan, about the incredible comparative damage we have with our people. it was always incredibly inspiring to go to iraq and afghanistan and see our young folks out there, they are truly incredible doing incredible things. i would frequently when i talked to folks, morely enlisted, say, do you think people back home know what you're doing out here? and the answer i would get is,

no, they think all we do is step on i.e.d.'s out here. they have no clue what we're doing. i think it's important to explain exactly what the takes -- stake as my colleague just said. i would also note one other thing. americans are war weary until they're not. if you look at the poll data about how the public felt after the videotapes of the pebe headings this summer came out, it was very different set of numbers than what you'd seen previously. because americans you know, feel these things very deeply and see them as a seen of disrespect to the nation which they don't appreciate. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator king. >> thank you, mr. chairman. just to put in perspective, the numbers we were talking about at the beginning, if we hat the geats budget of 2012, this year the budget would be around $612

billion, 3.4% of g.d.p. instead under the sequester level, we're at $492, 2.8%, about the lowest level of g.d.p. since world war ii. it's also -- it is the lowest level of federal spending, lowest percentage of federal spending for defense since world war ii. 4%, which is a kind of post world war ii average would be almost $100 million more. we are definitely at a very low point in terms of funding of defense at a time of escalating challenge on multiple fronts. so i just -- putting it in percentage of g.d.p. is a sort of good way to look at it because it puts it in historical perspective. a question for both of you. ambassador you mentioned about arming the ukrainians. and that seems to be a

developing consensus here in washington that that's something we ought to do. and i understand that. i understand the precedent of the sudatan land and had that been enforced in 1939 we might have avoided world war ii. however, i also understand the precedent of the guns of august and stumbling into a catastrophic world war and we're playing chess with a russian here. if you play chess with a russian, you better think two and three moves ahead. my concern is, a, russia has a historic paranoia about encreaturement from the west and b, putin probably wouldn't manage a -- wouldn't mind a manageable war in ukraine to take people's minds off the problems. margaret thatcher's apursuant to the rule rating before the

talklands war was 2% it escalated two weeks later. persuade me the escalation by arming the ukrainians wouldn't let to a matching escalation and in fact an increase. we don't live in a static world. we can't assume that the ukrainian -- we arm the ukrainians, pewsen -- putin says, this is tough, i'm going home. he's not responsive to bodies in bags or tightening sanctions. give me your thoughts. >> a cup of things, and i know my colleague will want to speak to this, because she with some other colleagues, has been a signatory to a very good paper on this subject with the brookings institution and the chicago council on foreign affairs has put out. your question is a good one, senator king. it has to be answered, i would say, at multiple levels. first, it is true that it's, you

know, in some sense, president putin has what we used to call in the cold war escalation dominance in ukraine. the stakes are higher for him. the region is closer. mideast got more chips, exactly. having said that he's also signatory -- his country is signatory, to a number of agreements that make it clear that countries have a right to belong to whatever alliance or multilateraling ornyization like the e.u. they would -- organization like the e.u. they -- >> do you seriously believe putin cares about agreements? >> no, but we should. the point is, he doesn't have a legitimate way to protest that we are helping a legitimate government defend itself against his aggression. i think we have to think about it in terms of the moral obligation to do that.

when people want to defend themselves we have an obligation, i think, to try and help them if we can. i think secondly, we need to raise the costs for him of what he's doing. i think he is perhaps a little more sensitive to some of these things than you are suggesting. the body bags coming home, the protesting russian mothers the capital flight, the amount of money that's been expended defending the ruble. these are real costs and they're costs that are hitting his base of support, the oligarches. they are suffering from this. so he has to resfond this in some way. i think it's also important to remember that while there are potentially costs to action, there's very serious costs to inaction. >> there are risks either way. >> and the cost to inaction could be i would suggest, the catastrophic miscalculation. we need to make him understand that if we are willing to provide this kind of assistance to a country with whom we have no treaty, legal obligation,

that he ought to think twice then about doing something with a nato member state like latvia, as mr. donnelly asked me about earlier, with whom we do have a legal treaty obligation. it's the importance of underscoring our commitment to defend our nato allies in europe that really is at stake here i think. and if we don't do this, the risk that he will miscalculate in a place like latvia or estonia, i think, will go up dramatically. that's something in terms of regret that we will feel very seriously later on. >> my father used to say, there lies the body of john gray, who died defending his right of way. >> i would just say one of the things we learned since the collapse of the cease fire is putin is going to continue to escalate because he wants to keep destabilizing ukraine and

eventually cause the regime to change. he's on anest callaer to path any -- an es -- an escalatory path anyway. so the question is, can we provide the ukrainians with the weapons they need to impose the level of cost on the separatists and russian backers that might make him think twice. and particularly counter battery radars that could locate where artillery and rocket fire is coming that's what's responsible for 70% of the casualties in the ukraine. and ways to stop up-armored vehicles from taking further territory. he's demonstrated he's on an escalatory path. the question is, whether there's anything we can do to help ukraine impose costs to make him stop and come to the negotiation seriously. i think it's worth seeing what

happens on wednesday in minsk and seeing if by some miracle an atpwhreement is forged. but barring that, i think it's very important that we help the ukrainians defend themselves and impose greaters cost on on the separatists and the russians for their aggression. >> thank you, very helpful. >> i want to thank both of you for being here. secretary, i wanted to ask you about afghanistan. last june you were quoted in the "new york times" about the administration's timeline for withdrawal from afghanistan. one of the things you said was, if it was a timeline with a strong statement, that said, hey, this is our plan, but no plan survives contact with reality and of course we are going to adjust based on conditions on the ground, then no problem. in reference to their withdrawal plan. are the afghans on the path we

planned for, are they not is the ensurnltcy as we expected is it worse, all those things have to be factored in. but what i'm hearing from the white house is come hell or high water this is what we're going to do. i wonder what you think about that and what you think about afghanistan. many of us had the opportunity to visit afghanistan and this weekend we had the opportunity to sit down with president ghani and hear his perspective to really understand their plan right now as it stands. he seems very concerned that we not reduce our forces in 2015 in particular and then many of us are very concerned that by the end of 2016 under the curn plan it will really be 1,000 people based in kabul so i wanted to get your perspective on afghanistan and what you think we should be doing. >> that's a great question, thank you, senator, for asking. i think at this point we need

to change the frame of discussion on afghanistan. rather than, you know, debating the fine points of the final phases of the drawdown and the end of u.s. combat role and so forth, we need to stop and say, ok we need to look forward. we have an afghan government that is trying to, has a good chance of pulling it together and going forward as a democratically elected coalition government. we have an a.s.f. continuing to develop its capabilities that is in the fight, is taking risks trying to hold their ground. but we also see continued challenge from insurgencies that remains able to contest a lot of areas and we see continued activity from al qaeda moving -- moving back and forth across the border. now is the time to stop debating if we can change the drawdown time lidge and we need to say,

looking forward, what kind of postures does the united states need both intelligence and military in the region to protect ourselves against future terrorist threats and prevent afghanistan or the border region from becoming a safe haven once again for al qaeda and associated groups. with that fresh sheet of paper look at what's the intelligence posture we need, what's the military posture we need to support that and continue to help the afghan national forces develop. i think that shift in the conversation is very, very important. my sense is that it's starting to happen inside, certainly inside the intelligence community, but hopefully that's a conversation we need to have over the next year. >> could you give, you know, thinking about our constituent the importance of really looking forward there and frankly in terms of our own interest, the importance of afghanistan and the intelligence that we might need from afghanistan for protecting our own interests.

>> this is an area where, you know, we need to continue to be able to have a sense of what the remnants of al qaeda that remain there, the taliban supporters, the hakani network, we need to still have eyes and ears. it's not something you can do from kabul alone or from bagram alone. that intelligence posture will require some supporting military posture. it will be far less than what we've had in previous years. it is a small, continued investment, relatively speaking to try to achieve -- to support the afghanistan -- afghan government in continuing on the path of progress and continuing to, you know, to hold their country and not allow the insurgency to regain any kind of foothold in terms of governing or leading the country.

>> i also wanted to follow up briefly with the size of the naval fleet, including the attack submarines. as i understand it, we're -- with sequester, we're on a path to reduce our fleet size to 260 ships or less overall. and hog worked on the q.d.r., the navy's current fleet seize is around 285 and as i look at the attack submarine fleet size, this is something that we have even greater need for now especially as we want to have a presence in the asia-pacific region. so i wanted to get your assessment of, as we go forward where we are. it looks like a dramatic decline if we continue on sequester. the importance of the attack submarine fleet. and this investment and why it's important for us. >> i think overall the fleet is on a path to becoming too small for what we will need in the future. i agree with you that the

undersea warfare is an area of american advantage that we want to do everything in our power to keep. i think that will require continued investment in the attack submarine fleet but it's also going to require investment in new technologies such as unmanned undersea vehicles and how we network manned submarines and unmanned systems to get -- to leverage that capability to have much greater impact. so i think this is an area very ripe for some new thinking and development of both leveraging of new technologies and developing new concepts. but your core premise about the importance of the attack submarine fleet is abimportant advantage area we want to maintain. >> if i can just add, we did not have the kind of staffing that would have enabled us to do a real, you know, fine grain analysis of this but we did conclude, as you have suggested in your question, as my colleague just suggested, that we're on the path toward a fleet

that's much too small and we ought to -- we tried to bracket the problem for you and your colleagues by saying, somewhere between the number that secretary gates requested in the f.y. 2012 budget, which i think was 320 something and the number that secretary perry identified in the bottom-up review, which was in the 340's was the place where we ought to be looking to try to get. >> thank you. >> senator shaheen. >> thank you mr. chairman, thank you for holding this series of strategic look at what our defense capability should be going forward. i want to thank both of our panelists for being here and for your long service to this country and follow up first, i should apologize for missing your statements in the earlier -- and the earlier questions i was at a briefing on iran and

those negotiations but i wanted to follow up on senator ayotte's question i'm not sure if she asked very directly if in your assessment should we be drawing down troops, the remaining troops in afghanistan as rapidly as we are this year? or do you think that sends the wrong message to both the afghans who are trying to make a new start with a new president and address their internal issues as well as the taliban and the other enemies who are fighting them in afghanistan? >> my sense is that the delay in the government formation process that we've seen post-elections in afghanistan should put some more time on the clock in terms of the drawdown and we need to re-examine that. but most fundamentally what i was trying to say before is that we need to re-examine the pace and scope of the drawdown in light of what we're going to

need in the future. i don't believe a zero posture in afghanistan is going to serve our interests in the long term given the continued terrorism threats that we face given the continued importance of our support to the development of the ansf. so figuring out, instead of looking back and drawing down, looking forward and fig youring out, what are we going to need in the next five years? it'll be more modest than it's been certainly but not zero. having that inform the pace and scope of the final stage of the drawdown is very important. >> ambassador, do you agree? >> you've asked a very good question and i am very concerned that we are going to go down too low. i mean, i think it's a source of great regress, i think, to most of us, that we left iraq without any residual presence. and the consequences, i think, are, you know, staring us in the face with a rise of isil,

collapse of the iraqi security forces. i worry that we may be putting ourselveses on the same path in afghanistan and i hope we won't do that. >> well, thank you, both. on -- with respect to europe and what's happening in ewe train, how important is the effort to beef up nato, to encourage the european countries to actually follow through on their commitment to provide 2% of g.d.p. for support for nato and to what extent do you think actually doing that, actually taking some of these steps with nato to put more visible operations on the borders of eastern europe will be helpful in deterring russia from future aggression. >> i think it's absolutely critical.

there is a clear plan to bolster our posture, our exercise activity, our cooperation, our pre-positioning with our nato allies particularly the frontline states, baltic, poland, so forth, and i think doing that consistently, rely bly -- reliably, visibly, is important to bolstering deternings and reassuring our allies. i also think that getting more of our allies to meet the 2% of g.d.p. defense spending targeted is essential. as is engaging them as partners in developing capabilities for the future. i mean, we talk about an offset strategy, innovation ageneral dark we need to have that on a transatlantic basis as well. great opportunities for pooling resources, sharing, having a clearer division of labor and so forth. >> i know you both were in munich this past weekend.

to what extent did you hear nato members -- nato member couldn't countries who were there talking about their appreciation, that this is important for them as well if at all? >> there was actually, i thought, not very much of that. i heard a lot of discussion about how there is no military solution to the problem in ukraine. and that is, i think demonstrably false. if we do nothing, there will be a military solution in ukraine, the one imposed by vladimir putin. i think the importance of all the things and i agree with everything that my colleague said about the importance of nato reassurance effort and all of that, in terms of deterrence, i think we also need to remember it's an important part of diplomacy. i carry around with me a quotation from george canon, this is a lecture he gave in 1946 how much it contributes to the general politeness and

effectiveness of diplomacy when you have a quiet armed force in the background. i think we tend to lose track to have that. what's now going on, and i hope maybe there'll be some success to it on wednesday, but we should be clear about what's happening. the europeans are discussing this and calling it minsk plus. but it's really ukraine minus. it reaffirms the principles of the minsk agreement in september but makes adjustment for the continued reality by the sap rattists. we should have no illusions about what's happening here. it's the reason why i think, i, and i'm not going to speak for mir colleague, why i believe we need to arm the ukrainian government to raise the cost of president pew ten. senator king raised this raised rightly the question of how do we respond to further escalation by president putin? one thing i think is absolutely

important to bear in mind which is, if we do this, we have to do this seriously. we cannot arm the ukrainian government the way we've been arming the syrian moderate on session for the last three years because if we do that, we will end up with all the effect of provocation of -- effective provocation of president putin with none of the benefit of deterrence or military benefit for ukraine. >> thank you both. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to be noted as voting in person for dr. carter. >> without objection. >> thank you. thank you both for your testimony and your service. secretary flournoy, i do appreciate you noting that there's a shift in the conversation regarding what we need to do in afghanistan and certainly in the intelligence community that the shift is happening. i think that moves us forward as opposed to talking about what we

should have done, etc. i also would like to thank both of you for stressing the importance of maintaining our sea power and your concerns about our decreasing size of our fleet. dr. carter was asked at his confirmation, and i'd like to paraphrase the question he was asked, he was asked, how do we respond to the threats in the middle east and in africa, ukraine, and still be committed to the rebalance to the asia pacific. i would like to ask both of you the same question but first, why you believe that the rebalance is important to our national security. >> well, let me start, since i can be blamed for part of that. part of that initiative. you know when you look long-term at what region of the world will have the greatest impact on u.s. economic prosperity and i think our security asia pacific is undeniably sort of the most important and so it speaks to,

you know, even though we have to deal with the crises in the middle east, we have to deal with the russian aggression and europing over the arc of the long-term, we want to be ensuring we're adequately investing in asia, in the foundations of continued economic growth, in the maintenance of the rules based international order that's been underwriting stability there in our alliances, in our partnerships so i think it's very important that the rebalance continue not only militarily shifting more of our assets there and becoming -- investing more with our partnerships and alliances there. but also in economic terms. ic this is why the transpacific partnership -- i think this is why the transpacific partnership is such an important commitment to the region, to cigna -- to signal that the u.s. will remain a critical economic partner as well as security partner going forward.

>> mr. ambassador? >> the region, obviously is growing in wealth and importance in the world and obviously america's future is very much tied up. we've always been an atlantic and a pacific nation but the impact of the pacific is much greater now and will be in the future for some time to come. i think it's for that reason that all the members of the panel agree that the general direction the president announced in the defense strategic guidance in january of 2012 was the right direction. i think what we expressed in the report is some concern of whether at current budget levels this will be sustainable and that's why we talked about the importance of growing both naval and air capability, because this is a theater where largely we're going to be operating because of the distance and geography over water and air. so i think the need is clear.

i think it's important that we move ahead in the rebalance. i'm concerned that what we've done already is fairly limited on the military side, it's -- and i'm not saying that we shouldn't do it but it's basically, you know, 2,500 marines rotationally deployed to darwin, home port in singapore, rebalances of a shrinking fleet. i think we need to do more and it's one of the reasons i think we believe we've got to lift the b.c.a. caps and sequestration. >> thank you. mr. ambassador, you noted in response to one of the questions earlier asked that other nations are decreasing the amount of resources they're putting into the military. would you say that that's where japan is also?

>> underer that prime menster japan has obviously done a bit to increase its defense capabilities. i don't think they've done enough and we need to make sure that the money they spent, japan spends about 1% of its g.d.p. on defense, which is, given the size of their economy a considerable amount of money. i think what we need to help our allies in japan is working with them, as i said earlier in response to one of the questions, to focus on the capabilities we think they can provide that will really be addtive and help you know, complement what we're doing. and that's what i think we ought to be doing with japan. i think the prime minister, having done a lot to change direction in japan, in a more positive direction. >> do you, mr. chairman, may i just ask the secretary to respond to that too? >> i would agree that i think

japan is moving in the right direction. i think it is -- the prime minister is seeking to have an internal discussion to allow the japanese military to play a more fulsome role as a full partner in our lives, i think. the depth of the alliance relationship is really unprecedented now and we are deeply engaged in looking at the region developing common understandings of the environment, the threats we see the capabilities that are needed how we'll invest together and so forth. i actually think the alliance is on a very strong footing and moving in the drithe direction -- moving in the right direction. the question is the internal debate in japan about the proper role of the male tear and what the japanese people are comfortable with moving forward. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman, and

thank you to the witnesses. i also want to be noticed, i was a proxy yes for ash carter but i'm a proud yes now that i'm hearing from my foreign relations meetsing. thank you for your testimony especially your strong testimony with respect to the foolishness of the sequester in today's global environment. big picture strategic question, since you're both good strategic thinkers. i know questions have been asked earlier about afghanistan. we're grappling with and we'll have hearing on afghanistan later in the week. should our activities be based on a calendar, based on conditions on the ground, those questions have been asked already. but from a strategic standpoint, talk about what failure in afghanistan would mean, if we were to pull out precipitously, for example and then the gains that we've achieved are lost. what would that mean to u.s. credibility, what would it mean to the people of afghanistan, what would it mean in the region from a security standpoint? >> i can start. i think if history's any guide, it could be very dangerous for

the afghan government and afghan society. you'll recall that when the soviets ended their aid to the afghan government, the government collapsed. i think if the u.s. were to have -- and the international community will have no follow-on mission in nato, then international assistance would quickly dry up and you could see sort of accelerated decline of the afghan government's hold over territory and the country. so i think it would be very, very dangerous. on the opportunity side, i think with continued modest but consistent international support, i think the afghan government will have an opportunity to hold the key urban centers, the ring road, the strategic territory inside afghanistan and keep governing without being -- without having the government and the overall

control of the country being threatened by continued suth. given that this -- u.s. is. given that this -- insurgent. given that this -- insurgency. given that this region remains home to elements that still harbor very dire intentions, dangerous intentions against the united states, it's someplace we have to keep an eye on and keep investing in to make sure those threats are kept at bay. so i think the stakes are very high. i also think it would be very damaging for u.s. credibility to put so much into getting afghanistan to the point where it is today and then to pull the carpet out from underneath their feet. i think it would also be very danieling in terms of civil military -- damaging in terms of civil military relations. given the degree of sacrifice that our men and women have been asked to make, to create the possibility for afghanistan to succeed and then to walk away from that before we complete the job i think would be very, very damaging.

>> quickly, i have one more question. >> i agree the reputational risk homeland risk because it will become ungoverned space again, it will reduce our strategic lefpk raj on pakistan and we should not lose sight of the large number of nuclear weapons that pakistan presides over. >> one other question, the big picture strategy i was a mayor worry being my police force and i was a governor worrying about economic development. but you guys have been doing national security for your whole careers. i want to hear your thoughts on this. we often hear questions in these hearings about where's the strategy, and i'm kind of sympathetic to those questions. as i look kind of quickly at what we've been up to, we had a national security strategy, like it or not, the truman doctrine from 1946 until the soviet union collapsed. i think we then went into kind of an ad hocs i much period. that may not be a bad thing -- ad hocism period. that may not be a bad thing. 9/11 began, our policy was the war on terror. that's not a big enough

national security policy for a nation as great as the u.s. as magnanimous as the u.s. so i think we're probably now recognizing the ongoing battle with terror, still looking for a bratter -- broader definition what have is a big picture national strategy. are we back to sort of ad hocism or as folks who have done this for a lifetime professionally, what would you suggest to us, the big picture on national security strategy should be? >> to me? this is the $64,000 question. and i think that it is something we've got to rise above the crisis of the day and get back to having a strategic framework, a sense of american purpose in the world that can garner bipartisan support. i personally believe that one of the key elements of it is to defend the international rules-based order that we put into place architected after

the world war ii, that has been the basis for stability in so many regions, that has been the basis for economic growth and our security. we have a lot riding on that and it's being challenged in asia, with the rise of china that is questioning that order and challenging and trying to unilaterally change the status quo. it's being challenged in the middle east, as boundaries of nation states start to fray and you have the shia conflict, the rise of extremist -- shi'a conflict, the rise of extremists. and now europe, so i think sustaining that rules-based international order is something that's got to be at the heart of any strategic framework we develop. >> mr. chair can i ask the ambassador to answer that question as well? >> i agree with everything that my colleague said.

so that makes it a little bit easier. a few years ago there was an article in "the journal of international security" that had the provocative title of "strategy is an illusion." and i teach a course in american grand strategy at johns hopkins and my students at the end of it some of them say, well, it was easy to have a strategy when you had a bipolar world and one adversary, now it's just so complicated, it's too hard and we said in our opening statement that we're dealing with a volatile and complex security environment and therefore you might say well, it's too hard to do. my view is that as hard as it may be marrying objectives to ways and means is just the essence of good governance. if you don't try to do it, it just becomes an excuse for, you know going taking any road that will lead you where you think you might want to go.

but you won't have a road map. so i think it's a necessity. i think we have to do it. i think there's a lot of merit in what secretary kissinger has suggested, that we need to -- we're faced by regional, primarily regional challengers now, not a global peer competitor. and we need to develop regional strategies but strategies that are interconnected with an overarching global vision and i think that's the beginning of wisdom on that subject. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i do recall a thing called a reagan doctrine which was, in the words of margaret thatcher, won the cold war without firing a shot. but maybe there's some of white house have different views of history. senator, did you have an additional question? >> thank you mr. chairman. i just have a quick follow-up question. it relates to some of the broader issues that we're struggling with here. i'd like your views on just

some -- your thoughts on what's going to be -- looks like an upcoming debate in the congress on the authorization, on the use of military force. and you mentioned a fresh start looking forward. how would you advise members of congress to look at that, whether it's years troops, geographic scope there's a lot that can go into something like that, it's going to be important. i'd just appreciate your views on that. thank you, mr. chairman. >> first of all, i would say i think it's important to have the discussion the debate about the aumf will be a good surrogate for what should our strategy be with regard to counterterrorism and with regard to the middle east. i think that as you have that discussion it's very important to remember something that was said everyier, which is, we're very -- earlier, which is, we're very bad at predicting

exactly how conflicts are going to unfold, how enemies are going to act, how things are going to morph and change. and so being overly restrictive, you know, saying cat gorically no boots on the ground -- categorically no boots on the ground or don't do this, being overly restrictive i think could become a problem over time. that said, i think it's very, very important to recognize that the aumf that we have from 2001, you know, a lot of realities have moved beyond that. and we do need to update it and recognize that there are groups who have distanced themselves from al qaeda but nevertheless now pose a similar threat to us and we need to have an authorization to deal with them. but again i would just caution against being overly predicktive or specific in re-- predictive or specific in restrictions because we don't

exactly now how the threat will evolve, how our response will need to evolve. >> i agree with that. i agree with everything that michelle just said. i would just add that the other element here is, i know that there's a lot of interest in some kind of timeline. we frequently talk about this. i think that to do that is to set up potentially a difficult debate later on down the road. once -- things don't always work out in war. there are mistakes and you have problems. you have to let the people who are fighting the war fight the war. and i think you also don't want to signal lack of resolve to the other side and tell them how long they have to wait you out. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> i thank you, the witnesses. >> mr. chairman. can i ask another question before we close? >> the senator from new hampshire. >> thank you. i wanted to follow up on the

question about strategy. because there have been a number of high-profile articles in the last few months about the lessons learned in afghanistan and iraq and there's been the d.o.d. commissioned report from the rand corporation about those lessons learned that have suggested that we have to also take a look at our decision making structures and think about how we can better make some of those decisions. i wonder if i could get each of you to comment on whether you think that's an accurate analysis of some of the challenges that we face and what we should do better as we're thinking about how to make these decisions in the future. >> i think it's really important to try to pause and catalog what lessons we should be learning. there's kind of a desire to get all of this in the rear-view mirror and just move on.

but it's very, very important to understand what we should take away from this and capture some of the best practices that were developed on the ground. so i think it's an important exercise. i do think that the decision making element, particularly at the interagency level is something that bears study. it's something that actually is being looked at going forward because i think you can look at different models, different ways in which they've operated, different results over time in history. you can draw some conclusions about what works better and what doesn't. similarly i think in the field, some of the innovations for fusing intelligence and operation and inter-- having all of the interagency players in one operation center, you know sharing authorities information and conducting

truly joint whole of government operations, that's something we don't want to lose the next time we may have to face an operational challenge. so i think it's really important line of inquiry. >> i have to confess to a certain degree of skepticism about reforming the interagency process. it's a little bit like the weather. people are always talking about it and then it doesn't ever change. the national security act of 1947 is an incredibly flexible -- has created an incredibly flexible system. reality is that it's flexible enough that each president that we've had has developed a system that suits their management style best. and -- for better or for worse. and our system is so presidential-sent rick in terms of national security decision

making that i think, unless you want to really tifpker with the constitution, -- tinker with the constitution, i'm not sure that anything else that you do is going to be more than moving kind of boxes around on a wiring diagram. so i think we -- it's certainly worth looking at lessons learned and there are always better or worse ways to do it. but i'm struck by the fact that the relationship between process and outcome is not always clear and direct. if you read through, for instance, the transcripts of the executive committee of the national security council during the cuban missile crisis and grade it on process, you'd give it an f. because there are no agendas, they're not talking from common papers they're not doing anything that they teach you to do at the kennedydy school of government for instance, you know. but president kennedy came, you know, roughly to the right decision obviously somehow and i think that just is testimony

to what i was saying. this is a system that really ultimately revolves around the president and he or she i think should not necessarily be constrained by efforts to tinker with the machinery. >> thank you both. thank you, mr. chairman. >> your testimony's been very helpful. we began our conversations about your work on a commission and now we have branched out and covered a lot of very important areas that i think needs to be an important part of the discussion and dialogue that we have on both sides of the aisle and both ends of pennsylvania avenue. i crbletted -- you crbletted a great deal to our knowledge and our -- contributed a great deal to our knowledge and thought process and i thank you for it. >> i simply want to express the same feeling appreciation for your efforts not just today

but for many, many years. thank you very much. >> thank you. this hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015]

>> the house of representatives comes back into session in just over 10 minutes from now at 4:30 eastern. members will debate four bills, including an $18 billion spending bill for nasa.

another bill directs the transportation security administration to create plans to deal with security threats. and coming up tomorrow, the house begins consideration of the senate-passed legislation to approve the keystone x.l. pipeline pipeline. >> the political landscape has changed with the 114th congress. not only are there 43 new republicans and 15 new democrats in the house and 12 new republicans and one new democrat in the senate, there's also 108 women in congress including the first african-american republican in the house. and the first woman veteran in the senate. keep track of the members of congress using congressional "chronicle" on cspan.org. the congressional "chronicle" page has lots of useful information there, including voting results and statistics about each session of congress. c-span c-span2, c-span radio and cspan.org.

here's some of our featured programs for this president's day weekend on the c-span networks -- >> find our complete television

sket at cspan.org and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400. you can email us at comments@cspan.org or send us a tweet at cj span#comments. >> as we mentioned, the house is back shortly at 4:30 eastern to debate a few bills. until then, from this morning's "washington journal," the conversation about u.s. strategy for cyberwarfare. the u.s. should engage in a offensive cyberattacks. the five by five writer from rollcall joins us. tim starks, what do we mean when we say going on the offense when it comes to cyber security and cyberattacks? guest: it's a very good question. the line between offense and defense insider security is very narrow.

obviously, defending her networks makes it harder for people to intrude on them, but there are people who say part of the defense is offense. you know, you need to make it if someone attacks her networks, you can attack them back. it is a deterrent, if you will. there is no question the u.s. has conducted cyber offense, you know, they would say in the name of cyber defense. you look at the attack on north korea probably as an example of that. after the sony break-in. but it's difficult to define what cyber offense is. host: and under what scenario with the u.s. engage in this? guest: the defense department has asserted its right to, basically go on cyber offense

when trying to defend the nation , our allies, and interests. that is an official defense department report from late 2011, for instance. that would be one area where they would go on offense name of defense. host: what countries have demonstrated they are a threat in this arena? guest: you have to start with united states. but as far as a threat to us, china has demonstrated some advanced capabilities on cyber. they have not conducted anything that might resemble warfare, but they have stolen military secrets from the united states. that is moving more toward offense then mere security and espionage. russia has demonstrated a real cyber capability, if you look at

the war in georgia. there was a demonstrated capability to go on that kind of offense. and another country that can do a good job of that if they want to its israel -- is israel. if you look at the effort between the united states and israel to create the worm that when after the iranian nuclear capabilities, that is another example. and there might be some terrorist organizations interested in developing that. but those are the big players on the national scene, the nationstates that have real severe ability to conduct attacks. and it is easier to attack the private sector than the u.s. government. host: what are the current rules of engagement? are there any? and as the united states follow them? and do other countries have any sort of rules of engagement? guest: if there are any rules

it is hard to discern them. it can be difficult for anyone to suss out what they might be because some of these delve into the classified sector. when i talk to people, they tell me there are not any obvious rules of the road on this. it is a very murky area. and it's something that they been working to develop for a long time. it's cyber command under different departments and a joint effort with the national security agency. they were recent calls in congress after the recent attack on sony to develop a formal policy on cyber offense, to develop more formal capabilities. but it is a very murky area. host: and where it is all about stand? what does congress want to do? what is the administration

doing? is the united states prepared for cyberattacks? guest: even though there is this new or call for something to happen on formal cerebral -- cyber offense rules, it is still in the developmental stage. i was writing about cyber security back in 2009 or so, and a couple of years later i started asking about the offense site command people were saying, we are still trying to figure it out. that is still rearm, they are still trying to figure it out. -- still where we are. they are still trying to figure it out. there was a 2012 defense authorization bill basically saying we give you our blessing to conduct cyber offense, but in a very vague way, not a specific way. as far as the u.s. overall defending itself, it is probably more events than any nation if

we are talking about the government. but it is till relatively easy by the nature -- it is still relatively easy by the nature of cyber attack to conduct an attack on the u.s. government. we were leaking secrets to china on accident for a very long time because our defenses were not very good. we are probably still leaking some of those secrets in u.s. government agencies. and certainly, the private sector is very vulnerable as well. host: if the u.s. were to have engaged in offense when it comes to cyber, what agency would be doing that? guest: we would almost certainly be -- it would almost certainly be the defense department, some combination of the u.s. cyber command of the national security agency would be leading that kind of effort. it's possible that there would be other agencies involved, but those would be the main ones to look at. host: the "washington post" is

reporting this morning that there will be a new agency to sniff out threats in cyberspace. the sony pictures hack spurred the u.s. to set up rapid source of intelligence on attacks. this announcement will be made later today and it will be an executive order put out by the president will stop what do you know about this -- by the president. what you know about this new agency after what role will it play? guest: it looks like it will be a separate agency within the cell -- the intelligence community that collects all of the threat data and puts it in one place. it's the kind of thing back when the entities who were -- back when the entity was starting to

be formed, people were asking about why can't the office of the director of intelligence do this? i think you will probably hear some similar questions. why do we need a separate agency to do this? we have the department of homeland security, the national security agency. why can't one of those agencies handle the? but the obama administration thinks many to be a separate effort. host: back to the topic of going on offense and asking our viewers whether or not they think we should be engaging in offense when it comes to cyber attack and going to turn to our viewers here is just a minute and have them was on to this and get their take on it. what is happening next on this front? is there legislation

percolating? is the administration planning something? who will make the next move? guest: that will be an interesting question. there has been at times a little bit of tension between the administration wanting to do this on its own without any kind of congressional interference and congress wanting to get involved in running the rules, but also not wanting to get overly prescriptive. i think with north korea, the sony attack, there was increasing interest in actually congress doing something. you saw the chairman of the homeland security committee saying we need to strengthen our capabilities to do this. i've not seen any formal written legislation to do that yet but that does not mean we will not see it from chairman mccall

perhaps. or a defense authorization bill perhaps. i wouldn't be surprised to see something like that this year. at the same time, i would not be surprised to see some pushback from the administration saying let us figure this out. we've been working on this for a while and we are still trying to develop the rules on our end. give us a little space. >> the house is coming back in now to debate four bills. tomorrow the house begins consideration of the senate version of legislation to approve the keystone x.l. pipeline. it will bring canadian crude oil in the u.s. as we wait for the house response from capitol hill, lawmakers continue after the white house today confirmed the death of a 26-year-old american aide worker who had been held hostage by the terrorist group isis. representative sheila jackson lee tweeted -- her

contributions will live on and her commitment to creating peaceful communities will continue to imspeier all she touched. congressman stutzman sent a tweet saying, i'm so saddened to hear about kalea mueller, a model american. and representative tonko, thoughts and prayers are with her family, friends and countless live she is touched through her years of selfless service. also senator john mccain, chairman of the senate armed services committee spoke on the senate floor today along with jeff flake who represents kayla mueller's home state of california. you can see both of those senate floor speeches just after 9:00 eastern tonight on c-span2. or any time at cspan.org. again, the house of representatives coming into session today for debate on four bills.

>> again, we're expecting the house to come in for debate on a few bills. what's happening after the house goes out down the, -- tonight, we'll have hearing from today from the senate health education labor and pensions committee on vaccine preventable diseases, focusing on the measles and the measle outbreak that's happening in the u.s.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 the chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. record votes on postponed questions will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 810.

the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 810, a bill to authorize the programs for the national err naughtics and -- national err naughtics and space administration and -- aeronautics and space administration and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from mississippi, mr. palazzo, and the gentlewoman from maryland, ms. edwards, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from mississippi. mr. palazzo: thank you mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as may consume. i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. palazzo: thank you mr. speaker. this is truly a bipartisan bill. the house should be proud of the work the committee has cone and continues to do.

-- has done and continues to do, to be inclusive of members on both sides of the aisle. in a time of partisanship on capitol hill, both republicans and democrats came together last year to craft legislation that moves beyond congressional districts and parochial interests. this pill -- this bill provides clear and consistent guidance to nasa. the authorization levels are responsible and consistent with the consolidated and further appropriations act of 2015. it also continues looking to nasa to provide a strategic road map to guide exploration development in the future. space subcommittee ranking member donna edwards and i worked long days to put this legislation together last year. while ms. edwards and i don't always agree, we are united in our unwavering support for nasa and space exploration during this crucial time in our nation's history. we are committed to once more launching american astronauts on american rockets from american soil. i know many of our colleagues agree that american leadership

in space is both a matter of national pride but also of national security. yet over the last decade, the human exploration program at nasa has been plagued with instability from constantly changing requirements, budgets, and missions. we cannot continue changing our program of record every time there's a new president. we must be consistent in our commitment to human exploration. as identified by numerous reports and committees nasa needs congress to provide consistency of purpose that commitment is reflected in today's bipartisan bill. i'm confident that it will continue into the future. the bill before us today requires the agency to develop a human exploration road map and provides a framework to build an executeable plan for future exploration efforts. nasa must use this plan as an opportunity to utilize assets from all the mission directorates to find the most efficient and effective ways to

build technologies and capabilities within constraining budgets. both the space launch system and o'ryan crew vehicle are reaffirmed in this bill. consistent with the nasa authorization act of 2010, which laid out very clear guidelines and direction for the development of these systems. this bill authorized ample funding for the commercial crew program to ensure safe and on-time development of domestic act act -- domestic access to the international space station. there are also oversight provisions to ensure transparency in the development of these systems. this agreement represents an understanding that both our commercial crew partner and those developing s.l.a. and o'ryon have a crucial -- oh ryon have a crucial -- orion have a crucial role to play. nasa must develop a concrete plan for the future of exploration if we have any hope of ensuring america's leadership in space. this bill tasks the scientists and engineers at nasa rather

than the administration, to develop such a plan. as a study from last year from the national academies of science points out, a return to surface operations on the moon would make significant contributions to strategy ultimately aimed at landing people on mars. i hope that the road map nasa produces in response to this bill will also incorporate the valued guidance if the national academies as well as the nasa advisory council, the aerospace safety advisory panel and the many other groups that advise nasa. our bill is not perfect but it represents a serious bipartisan commitment to space exploration at a critical time in our nation's space exploration history. as a good steward of taxpayer dollars, i will continue to raise questions and concerns over nasa's budget. for instance, since 2007, nasa earth science budget grew almost 75%, while nasa's exploration

budget remains stagnant. even with these historic increases i'm worried that the additional responsibles being thrust on nasa by noaa and usgs will consume nasa's already challenged budget even more. the administration continues to advocate for an ever-changing and poorly justified asteroid mission which was universally criticized by all of nasa's advisory groups. one study from the national academies called a portion of the mission a dead-end technology. in these budget constrained times, nasa must be frugal with its precious exploration resources and focus on core developments such as the s.l.s. and orion co-provide the -- to provide the foundation for deep space missions in the future. i also have interest in strengthening -- strengthening provisions dealing with cumbersome requirements. i hope those can be addressed as we work with the senate. american leadership in speas

depends on our ability to put people and sound policy ahead of politics. this is what we have tried to do with this house bill. this bill has been tested debated and passed multiple times over the past year. it has passed this esubcommittee, full subcommittee -- full committee, and house once already. i urge our friends in the senate to move forward with us by adopting our commonsense compromise and passing the house bill. our nation's space program needs this legislation. space exploration has always had its challenges but the united states has always risen to the occasion. this country was built by people who dreamed big and do the hard things. i believe the decisions we make today will determine whether the u.s. maintains its leadership in space tomorrow. in the future, as in the past, i hope we will be able to focus mission priorities and goals to ensure our best chances of success. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves.

the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from maryland. ms. edwards: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. this bipartisan bill, and i want to thank the gentleman from mississippi because it has been truly a pleasure to try to work on something where we're not working for perfection but we are looking to find agreement and to do the best thing possible that supports the goals of nasa and all of the space industry but also so that we get something done in this congress. i could not have found a more cooperative and helpful working relationship than that i have with mr. palazzo. i also want to thank the chairman of the full committee, lamar smith an ranking member, eddie bernice johnson, both of texas, for supporting a process that leads us to the point we are today. this borne bill we're considering is largely identical to a bill that passed the house

last year h.r. 4412. it passed with overwhelming support by a vote of 401-2. unfortunately, time ran out during the last congress before the senate was able to take final action to re-authorize nasa. so here we are. h.r. 810 authorizes appropriations for one year consistent with the funding levels enacted for fiscal year 2015. other than relevant date changes, the bill remains unchanged from last year's bipartisan house-passed h r. 4412 and retains the important and timely policy direction that nasa needs now to ensure stability and to sustain maximum progress on its program. mr. chairman, building on the foundation set in h.r. 810 i and my colleagues on the science, space and technology committee will be able to begin work on a multiyear nasa authorization once h.r. 810 is

enacted into law. so we set the process in place. and why is this bipartisan bill important and why am i urging my colleagues in the house to vote yes on this bill should it come to a vote? mr. speaker, the developments in our nation's civil space program never cease to amaze us. never cease to inspear countless individuals not only in the united states but across the globe. nasa as a multimission agency makes these awe inspiring contributions not only in human exploration but across the disciplines of space and earth tines in the -- science in the development of innovative technology and space flight operations and biomedical research and economics -- err naughtics. -- and aeronautics. they are working on the james webb space telescope, the next major observatory to follow the hubble space telescope. they are using data collected

from space to identify new planets orbiting stars other than our sun, to unin-- to increase our understanding of mars and other planets in our solar system, to uncover crit ka -- critical information about our home planet earth, and its climate and study space welcome. these will lead to new discoveries and deepen our scientific knowledge and much of nasa's work also benefit ours society in terms of new technologies and applied research that can improve the quality of life of all our citizens. nasa is taking critical steps in building the systems that will take us into deep space. nasa is also overseeing contracts to commercial companies for commercial space vehicles that will take nasa astronauts safely to and from the international space station, thereby relieving our sole reliance on russian partners for access to low earth orbit.

we remain committed to a crew program that makes most efficient use of taxpayer dollars and as nasa and commercial partners embark on these projects, this bill puts the highest priority for nasa's commercial crew program on ensuring the safety of our astronauts. nasa is continuing to lead the highly successful space station partnership expand the i.s.s. for research and gather critical biomedical information. the i.s.s. is the only orbiting laboratory on which we can prepare for further human exploration in outer space. the upcoming study of astronaut scott kelly who will begin a year stint on i.s.s. and his twin brother mark who was an astronaut who will serve as a control subject is important in that regard. we need to examine measures to monitor scott's health and the health of the nasa family of astronauts both in space and on

the ground to gain a long-term perspective on the effects of space flight. . nasa will require constantsy of purpose and policy direction. in order for our nation's space and aeronautics program to succeed, this bipartisan bill provides that constantsy. h.r. 810 sets the long-term course of sending humans to the surface of mars and directs nasa to provide a human exploration road map outlining the capabilities and milestones needed to achieve that goal. recognizing two of the primary systems needed to accomplish the goal the space launch system s.l.s., and cappsual, this directs the achievement as the highest priority of nasa's human exploration program. further, h.r. 810 also ensures that nasa maintains a strong aeronautics research portfolio ranging from fundamental

research through integrated systems and it reaffirms the importance of nasa's education activities. nasa's successful stem education program brings the expertise of its researchers and engineers to bear on stem activities at science technology engineering and math. this bill encourages the administration to continue in that vain. in addition, the bill includes -- vein. in addition, the bill includes provisions to increase education on near earth asteroids so we can better understand the options of mitigating the risks that they pose. in closing, nasa's the crown jewel of our federal government. its workers are an important component in our work force and the workers through the industry are important to us as well. nasa's space and aeronautics program help maintain our competitiveness, they serve as a catalyst for innovation and economic growth, and inspire the next generation to dream big and garner the skills to

turn those dreams into action. nasa and our space program have a long history of bipartisan support, that continues today. nasa needs our constantsy of purpose and policy direction now. in this one-year bill puts us on the track to do just that. and we'll build on that baseline as we work toward a multiyear authorization over the coming year and i look forward to doing that with my colleagues on the committee, and particularly with my colleague from mississippi. at this point i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from mississippi. >> mr. speaker, i yield four minutes to the gentleman from texas, the chairman of the full committee on science space and technology. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for four minutes. mr. smith: let me thank the chairman of the space subcommittee for yielding me time and i also want to thank him and donna edwards, eddie bernice johnson and mo brooks for sponsoring this bipartisan

legislation. nasa has accomplished some of the most inspiring space initial tuves in the history of human kind. this bill h.r. 810, the nasa authorization act of 2015, helps ensure that the united states will continue its proud tradition of being a world leader in space exploration. for more than 50 years, the u.s. has led the world in space exploration. the u.s. was the first nation to put a human on the moon. and nasa's space mission was the first human-made object to enter interstellar space. our astronauts are national heroes. alan shepard, john glenn, neil armstrong, buzz aled are inand sali ride are household names. and today's astronauts motivate students to study science technology, engineering and mathematics and to reach for the stars. space exploration is an investment in our nation's future sometimes our long-term future. this bill expresses bipartisan confidence in america's space

initiatives. the bill is nearly had identical to the one that passed the house last year by a vote of 401-2. it is consistent with current funding levels found in the consolidated and further continuing appropriations act for 2015. it contains provisions for the development of american rockets, it will take cargo and people to low-earth orbit and beyond. it supports the james webb space telescope which will identify and characterize new planets in our galaxy and help researchers look back in time to see how the universe began. it directs nasa to continue to focus resources on the detection of near-earth asteroids that may threaten the earth and its inhabitants. it instructs nasa to design and send a robotic mission to jupiter's moon to see if any form of life exists in the waters under its icy surface. it directs nasa to work with the national academies to put together a strategy for finding more had planets.

the bill also requires nasa to development a human exploration road map, similar to the recommendation made in last year's national academy of science's report. this road map will provide a long-term plan for future human space exploration. finally, this bill is an example of how well congress can work together to accomplish an objective that benefits the entire nation. i again want to thank mr. palazzo chairman of the space subcommittee, and ms. edwards, ranking member, for finding common ground on this bill. i also want to thank the rank member of the full committee -- ranking member of the full committee and representative brooks from alabama for supportinging this bill as well. -- those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. ing this bill as well. i urge my colleagues to vote yes and help ensure the united states maintains its leadership in space. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from maryland is recognized. ms. edwards: mr. speaker i'd like to recognize the gentlewoman, the ranking member

of the science, space and technology committee, ms. johnson, for as much time as she might consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for as much time as she needs. ms. johnson: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i rise in support of h.r. 810, the nasa authorization act of 2015. nasa is a critical engine of discovery, science innovation and inspiration. during the last congress, our committee leadership and members of both sides came together to work through a compromise, the nasa authorization act. it was for a one-year bill. but it provided important policy direction to the agency at the time when we in congress wanted nasa to build on its progress and keep its focus on the priorities established through successive authorization acts. that bipartisan bill passed the

house last year by an overwhelming 401-2 margin. the bill, h.r. 810 which is also a one-year re-authorization takes that same policy language and updates the authorization of appropriations to be consistent with the funding levels enacted in fiscal year 2015. the bill also provides necessary dates changed where relevant. and while this is not a perfect bill especially in terms its short duration and lack of meaningful outyear fundinging guidance, it includes many -- funding guidance, it includes many policy provisions that will help guide the future of nasa at a critical time for our space program. h.r. 810 emphasizes nasa's role as a multimission agency with programs in aeronautics, science, exploration and human space flight. it also establishes the clear long-term goal of sending

humans to the surface of mars and directs nasa to prepare human exploration road map of what is needed to get there. the bill also provides policy direction on a host of other priorities activities, including space and -- activities including space and earth science, aeronautics, space technology, as well as good gentrkticon curving -- curbi cost growth and strengthening program management, among others. consistent with the recommendations of the columbia accident investigation board, h.r. 810 directs that safety to be the highest priority. in the commercial human space flight program to transport our astronauts to the international space station. nasa's doing all that it can to make effective progress on its programs thanks to its passionate and dedicated civil servant work force and extended contractor and academic

communities. we want to sustain nasa's progress on critical programs. including the space launch system and the orion, by providing consistency and constancy of purpose and direction. this bill enables such ability while providing our committee the time needed to develop a comprehensive multiyear re-authorization of nasa. once h.r. 810 is enacted into law, i want to recognize the efforts of the committee leadership including our chairman, lamar smith, and most especially our subcommittee chairman, steve palazzo and congresswoman the ranking member chairman, donna edwards, for their dedication and willingness to work together with me to achieve this bipartisan bill. h.r. 810, the nasa authorization act of 2015, we need a strong nasa, with an

inspiring agenda for our children and grandchildren. and we need to fund it at that level. a level commensurate with the task we've given them to achieve. and i urge my colleagues to vote yes on h.r. 810, the nasa authorization act of 2015. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from mississippi. mr. palazzo: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. hultgren. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois for three minutes. mr. hultgren: thank you mr. speaker. i would like to thank the distinguished chairman, chairman smith, chairman of the science committee, the gentleman from mississippi, and also the gentlewoman from maryland, for their leadership on this important issue and for getting this bill to the floor. human space exploration and discovery sciences are so ingrained in the american way of life that they have become emblematic of america's role as

an exceptional nation. it's in our d.n.a. as americans to push the boundaries and frontiers of knowledge. when we continue to develop the technologies and expertise to do this, there is no way to measure the potential benefit and spinoffs that we will reap. that is why i rise today to support h.r. 810. this legislation was authorized programs within the national aeronautics and space administration, keeping in place our commitment for space exploration and prioritizing work on the space launch system orion and a commercial cruise system, so we can carry our own astronauts to and from the space station. this legislation makes it clear that mars is the focal point and our next step. if the administration prioritizes their activities properly, it is realistic to have a manned mars fly-by mission in 2021. this legislation will require further examination of this mission, which i think would

finally help spur nasa into the next era. perhaps more importantly this is the kind of mission that would get children to start dreaming about being an astronaut again. for the last few years, nasa and our space work force have been unsure of the next mission and are struggling to stay afloat. without a bold, long-term commitment to nasa's core mission, our work force has been scrambling to find short-term goals to keep programs alive. we need to be doing more than this. if we want our nation to realize the full capabilities we have in space. this legislation had is a step in the right direction and that is why i urge my colleagues to support it. thank you again to the sponsors and thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from maryland. ms. edwards: mr. speaker, i have no further speakers. i continue to reserve. i think mr. palazzo has additional speakers.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from mississippi. mr. palazzo: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. rohrabacher. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from california for three minutes. mr. rohrabacher: i rise in strong support of h.r. 10. . -- of 810, the i would like to compliment chairman palazzo and ranking member edwards for a job well done. it has been tough and now we are getting behind the product of all of that labor thrfment was a great deal of work and negotiations on these provisions over the past year and the outcome of that work is in this legislation, which embodies the bipartisan leadership both here at the subcommittee and committee level and bipartisan support in this house of our

nation's civil space programs. i would like to note that significant differences of opinion remain on many of the provisions of this bill. but i won't go to any of them now. i might have worried some of my colleagues on that. but despite those differences, we share a set of common goals for nasa. the objective is america must return to international preeminence in human space flight. this is true for both access to low-earth orbit which we are trusting our commercial partners and far-reaching exploration missions to the moon and beyond. our discussions and disagreements will continue but we will continue to work together to achieve america's shared goals. h.r. 810 brings us closer to launching americans into space on american rockets from american soil and brings us

closer to the next steps of reaching outer plan et cetera and technology developments that can make an unachievable goal an achievable one and provide resources that help humanity and space. and moves us one step closer into pioneering leading to settlements in space and brings us closer to the stars. for these reasons i ask my colleagues to join me in support of this important legislation and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from maryland. ms. edwards: i'm prepared to close. i don't know if the gentleman has additional speakers. mr. palazzo: we have a few more speakers. ms. edwards: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from mississippi.

mr. palazzo: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas mr. babin. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas for three minutes. mr. babin: thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank the gentleman from from mississippi and the gentlewoman from texas. mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of h.r. 810. the nasa authorization act of 2015. this bipartisan legislation is an important step forward in our efforts to build a stronger and more focused nasa. let's face it. nasa is the only federal agency that has human space flight as its mission. however, in recent years, nasa has bramped into areas that divert attention and funding from its critical mission. this bill before us begins to

bring human space flight back into focus as nasa's key mission. it provides strong funding for vehicle development that will enable nasa to reach the moon and beyond putting us on a clear path towards deeper exploration into our solar system. having met with top officials at the johnson space center in my district just this past week, i can attest that they are very excited about this new focus. i'm aware of nasa's challenges and i'm excited about the opportunities ahead and some of the successes that we have had over the past few months. our bill supports nasa's orion spacecraft and expands america's access to the international space station and it funds a robust commercial crew program to launch american astronauts on american rockets. i urge my colleagues to join and

support of this bipartisan bill. and i thank you, mr. chairman, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from maryland continues to reserve. mr. palazzo: i have no additional speakers and i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from mississippi -- the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from maryland. ms. edwards: thank you very much. i want to thank all of my colleagues, as i said, on the committee, for the hard work that's been put into this bipartisan authorization. it is not perfect by any means. there are plenty of things that between now and the time that we see this to the president's desk for his signature that we will continue to have input on and i look forward to working with my colleagues on the committee and our colleagues in the senate to make sure that we get to the end

point. as i've said and ranking member johnson has said we look forward to working on a bipartisan multi-year authorization. we have demonstrated to ourselves and to the american public that we have the ability to get this done. in closing, i want to thank the committee staff alan, pam and dick, for all of their work and my personal staff, ann nelson, as well as the staff on the other side because it really did take an awful lot of staff work and member work to see this to the finish line. i look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues. and with that, i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from mississippi. mr. palazzo: as i close, i would like to acknowledge the hard work and bipartisan efforts of

science committee, full committee ranking member, representative johnson and donna edwards. and like ms. edwards, i acknowledge the work of my personal staff, patrick and ann nelson as well as the majority staff, tom alison and christian and minority staff, pam and alan. finally, i ask that a letter exchanged between the committee on science, space and technology and the committee on transportation and infrastructure about this bill be included in the record. i urge support for h.r. 8107 and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill house resolution h.r. 810. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair 2/3

being in the affirmative the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 719. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 719 a bill to require the t.s.a. to conform to existing federal law and regulations regarding criminal investigator positions, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule the gentleman from new york, mr. katko, and the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. rice, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. katko: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days within which to revise and extend tear remarks and include any extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. katko: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. katko: i rise in strong

support of h.r. 719, the t.s.a. office of inspection accountability act of 2015. i introduced this bipartisan bill to target millions of dollars of potential waste within the t.s.a. office of inspection as identified by the homeland security inspector general. t.s.a. is charged with investigating misconduct of t.s.a. employees and conducting investigations and covert testing of t.s.a. operations to ensure our transportation systems are well protected. however, according to a critical inspect or general report issued in 2013. t.s.a. does not sufficiently track whether each of its criminal investigators in the office of inspection in fact spend the majority of time spend actual criminal investigations as required by law. instead, these t.s.a. investigators primarily monitor the results of criminal

investigations conducted by other agencies. administrative cases of employee misconduct and carry out inspections, covert tasks and internal reviews. these investigators may may be premium law enforcement pay specialized training, vehicles, firearms and other benefits, even though they do not meet the minimum legal requirements for receiving such pay and benefits. h.r. 719 aims to correct this problem by requiring the inspector general to certify that t.s.a. criminal investigators meet the legal threshold for receiving premium pay and benefits which could save as much as $17 million in taxpayer dollars over five years. mr. speaker like any entity, the vast majority of t.s.a. employees do an exemplary job. it is a critical component of this continuing ability to have

these people perform at a high level to have internal oversight. the importance of investigating misconduct of t.s.a. employees cannot be overstated. last week there was an investigation conducted by i.c.e. that led to the indictment of a t.s.a. employee on child porn charges. in this recent example, it was i.c.e. that performed the investigation, not t.s.a. and much ensure that the investigators are spending the majority of time on criminal investigations or risk wasting significant taxpayer resources, resources that could be used to improve the integrity of the t.s.a.'s work force. i thank the original co-sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from south carolina mr. sanford, for his commonsense bill. the senate did not take action

on it. let's send this bill back to the senate and onto the president for his signature. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on h.r. 719 and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from new york. ms. rice: i rise in strong support of h.r. 719. and yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. rice: as ranking member of the subcommittee on transportation, security, i have a responsibility to ensure that the transportation security administration operates effectively and efficiently. part of this responsibility includes working to ensure that not a single taxpayer dollar is wasted so that resources are properly expended to protect our nation's airports and the traveling public. regrettably we have learned from the department of homeland security that the t.s.a.'s office of inspection is not

operating efficiently. taxpayer dollars have been wasted in a manner that may be undermining the effectiveness of internal investigations and inspections within the t.s.a. according to a report issued in september of 2013, some employees in the office of inspection were designated criminal investigators and have received the premium pay and early retirement benefits commensurate with that position, despite the fact that they perform little to no investigative duties. apparently the office of inspection knowingly made these improper designations and conferred better pay and benefits to employees who did not do the work to get such compensation. if no changes are made the inspector general says it will result in the wasting of $17.5 million over five years. we want to put an end to this

wasteful practice. this bill would require t.s.a. to certify all persons designated as criminal investigators are working on criminal investigations at least 50% of their time. if the t.s.a. wants to provide the employee with enhanced pay and benefits, they should have to certify that the employee is performing the duties of a criminal investigator. that is common sense. this measure would not affect individuals in that office who hold the criminal investigator title and would not impede efforts to thwart terror plots and other criminal enterprises that threaten our national security. again, this legislation is common sense and reflebts a commitment to good government. the house unanimously approved identical legislation in the last congress and i urge my colleagues to do the same with this bill. this is an opportunity for bipartisan action to solve a problem and demonstrate the strength of our commitment to eliminate wasteful spending. with that, i reserve.

. >> mr. speaker, i have no more speakers. if the gentlewoman from new york has no more speakers, i'm prepared to close once the gentlewoman does. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. ray rice mr. speaker i yield myself -- miss rice: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. in closing, i would like to commend chairman katko as well as the gentleman from south carolina, representative sanford, for their work on this legislation. if enacted, h.r. 719 will bring greater accountability to t.s.a.'s office of inspection and ensure taxpayer dollars are being used efficiently and that past abuses are not being repeated. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. >> mr. speaker, i yield as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

>> thank you. mr. speaker, i would like to thank homeland security chairman mccaul and ranking member thompson for their support of this bill. mr. katko: as well as the ranking member of the subcommittee on transportation security the gentlelady from new york, miss rice. mr. speaker the american people have entrusted us with conducting oversight of the agencies like t.s.a. to root out instances of waste. h.r. 719 will hold t.s.a. accountable and save precious tax dollars being ensuring that the inspector general's findings are addressed. i urge my colleagues to support the bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill, h.r. 719. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the

table. mr. katko: mr. speaker, i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 further proceedings on this question will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. katko: mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 720, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: -- the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman mean to call up the bill as introduced? mr. katko: yes. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 720, a bill to improve intergovernmental planning for and communication

during security incidents at domestic airports and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from new york, mr. katko, and the gentlewoman fr ner rice, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from n york. mr. katko: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. katko: thank you. mr. speaker i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. katko: thank you mr. speaker. i rise in support of h.r. 720, the her ardow hernandez -- gerardo hernandez airport security act of 2015. this is a bipartisan measure i introduced to enhance preparedness at our nation's airports for responding to active shooters and other security incidents. the legislation was championed last congress by my predecessor, the former chairman of the transportation security subcommittee, mr.

hudson in response to the tragic shooting at los angeles international airport in november of 2013. the shooting at l.a.x. took the life of transportation security officer hernandez and wounded two other t.s.a. officers and one passenger. the event highlighted vulnerabilities in airport preparedness included in the areas of incident command, communication with travelers, communication between t.s.a. and law enforcement, and evacuation measures. h.r. 720 would apply lessons learned and help close gaps in preparedness at other u.s. airports around the country. mr. speaker, the time to act is now. everyone within the airport community from law enforcement and emergency medical personnel, to airport and airline personnel, to t.s.a. officials and the traveling public must know how to respond to an active shooter or other threat inside the airport. if not we risk repeating the

communication and coordination challenges among responding agencies that were well documented in the aftermath of the l.a.x. shooting. there's no excuse for such inaction. many airports have taken their own steps following the shooting to strengthen preparedness and response plans and they should be apluded for that. h.r. 7 -- applauded for that. this would require t.s.a. to verify that airports maintain plans for evacuating travelers, conducting joint exercises within the airport community, establishing a unified command post during security incidents and testing radio equipment. the bill would also make t.s.a. a clearing house for security incident response and communications best of practices. a key recommendation from the airport community. as well as require the agency to certify to congress that all screening personnel have participated in active shooter training. h.r. 720 explicitly does not

authorize any new spending to implement these commonsense measures. t.s.a. continues to achieve millions of dollars in cost savings with risk-based programs such as t.s.a. precheck. and i believe the agency must continually prioritize its resources to address real threats to the traveling public. this bipartisan bill was developed with public and private sector input following multiple subcommittee hearings, site visits, meetings and after -action reviews conducted by both the t.s.a. and los angeles world airports. i would like to thank chairman mccaul and ranking mbe thomp rnmber rice, congressman hudson and other bipartisan co-sponsors of the billor joining me in introducing this legislation. and for their strong support in getting this legislation to the floor today. i urge my colleagues to support the bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from new york.

miss rice: mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of h.r. 720, the gerardo hernandez airport security act of 2015, and yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. miss rice: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the bill before us today is named in honor of officer gerardo hernandez, a transportation security agency officer who was tragically shot and killed in the line of duty on november 1 twirt, at los angeles international airport. officer hernandez was the first t.s.a. employee ever to be killed in the line of duty and this bill that bears his name seeks to better prepare our nation's airports to respond to such security incidents in hopes that we can prevent another t.s.a. officer, airport employee or passenger from suffering the same fate. that morning in november, 2013, man entered l.a.x. with a rifle, a bag full of ammunition and the intent to target t.s.a. officers. after killing officer hernandez at the t.s.a. checkpoint, the man proceeded into the secure area of the terminal where he

shot and wounded two more t.s.a. officers and a civilian. those two t.s.a. officers heroically continued to help passengers escape to safety while the shooter made it as far as the food court at the end of the terminal before he was shot and wounded by l.a.x. police officers. the men and women of the los angeles world airport police department and all emergency responders who arrived on the scene that morning acted bravely and swiftly, preventing further loss of life, despite tremendous communications challenges. it is with those men and women and all emergency responders in mind that i rise to support this bill, because this incident exposed serious deficiencies in planning preparedness and communication that must be corrected for the safety of emergency responders and all who use and work in our airports. mr. speaker, h.r. 720 would implement commonsense security measures to ensure that our nation's airports have in place individualized strategies for responding to a security incident such as an active shooter scenario or an active terrorism.

this bill also specifically requires t.s.a. to provide information to airports on best practices for responding to a security incident at checkpoints, provide transportation security officers with practical training for responding to active shooter scenarios, and conduct a nationwide assessment of the interoperable communications capabilities of the law enforcement fire and medical personnel responsible for responding to an active shooter event at an airport. these requirements are informed by postincident reviews conducted by t.s.a. and l.a.x., as well as hearings and oversight work conducted by the committee on homeland security subcommittee on transportation security. prior to my time here in congress, i understand that the subcommittee on transportation security also visited l.a.x. to see firsthand how the tragedy unfolded and hear from t.s.a. airport officials and the american federation of government employees about how the response to a similar incident can be improved going

forward. i hope that we can continue that productive dialogue with l.a.x. in our other airports and work together to better prepare for such violence in the airport environment. we will never forget what happened at l.a.x. on november 1, 2013, nor can we afford to forget the lessons to be learned from that tragic day. the threats to our nation's airports are ceaseless and constantly evolving. there could be another attack on any given day at any given airport. we must assume that it will happen, we must be more prepared, we must do better, we owe it to officer hernandez and his family. that is why i rise today in support of h.r. 720, and i urge all of my colleagues to pass this important bill. with that mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. katko: thank you mr. speaker. i reserve the balance of my time. and look forward to the comments from the gentlewoman from california, ms. waters. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance

of his time. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from new york. miss rice: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the ranking member on the u.s. house committee on financial services, whose district encompasses los angeles international airport, the gentlewoman from california, ms. waters. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. for three minutes. ms. waters: thank you very much. i thank the gentlewoman for the time. i rise to support h.r. 720, the gerardo hernandez airport security act of 2015. i would like to thank congressman john katko, the chairman of the subcommittee on transportation security, of the house committee on homeland security, for re-introducing this bill. i was proud to join him as an original co-sponsor. i would like to thank homeland security chairman michael mccaul, ranking member thompson and our subcommittee ranking member had kathleen rice, for supporting this bill and bringing it to the floor for a vote.

this bipartisan bill was originally introduced last year in response to the horrific november 1, 2013 shooting incident at los angeles international airport in my congressional district. the bill is named in honor of gerardo hernandez, the transportation security officer who was killed in the line of duty on the tragic day. as we debate this bill, we offer our deepest condolences to the family of gerardo hernandez and we honor all of the t.s.o. police officers and other first responders who risk their lives to stabilize the situation and protect the public during that terrible incident. following the l.a.x. shooting incident, congress conducted several hearings on the incident, including a field hearing in my district on march had 28, 2014 -- march 28, 2014.

these hearings revealed serious security lapses which interfered with response efforts, including emergency phones and panic buttons that did not work properly. problems in coordination between various police and fire departments and incompatible radio systems, these security failures are unacceptable. the gerardo hernandez airport security act requires the department of homeland security to conduct outreach to airports, to verify that they have working plans to respond to security incidents, including active shooter incidents, acts of terrorism, incidents that target passenger screening checkpoints like the one where officer hernandez was killed. it is imperative that major airports like l.a.x. have state of the art emergency response systems. the safety and security of our nation's airports and of all of the workers and travelers who pass through them is of

paramount importance. i urge my colleagues to support this bill and send it to the president's desk. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california yields back. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from new york. ms. rice: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i'm prepared to close. we have no more speakers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york reserves. does the gentleman from new york reserve? mr. katko: i have no more speakers, if the gentlewoman from new york has no further speakers. i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. rice: i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker, in closing, i would like to thank subcommittee chairman katko for the bipartisan inclusive and constructive way in which he has conducted the subcommittee's response to this incident.

i'm proud to join ranking member thompson and chairman mccaul as an original co-sponsor of h.r. 720. this is bipartisan legislation that was unanimously passed by the house last congress and i urge my colleagues to do the same with this bill. i strongly believe with our votes today we will not only honor the life of officer hernandez but we have the opportunity to save lives. at the end of the day, saving those lives is the best way we can honor officer hernandez and his family. with that, i urge my colleagues to pass this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yeelsdz back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. katko: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the tragic event that unfolded at l.a.x. shows that much needs

to be done. there are many ways just like open shopping malls. given this reality, airport communities must respond swiftly to any major security incident that threatens the safety of the traveling public. remembering officer hernandez, i urge my colleagues to pass this important legislation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 720. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative -- mr. katko: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted.

a sufficient number having arisen, the the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 203 an act to direct the secretary of veterans affairs to provide for the conduct of annual evaluations of mental health care and suicide prevention programs to require a pilot program on low repayment for psychiatrists who agree to serve in the department of veterans affairs and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a, rule 1 the chair declares the house in recess unt --

mr. netanyahu coming to washington. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome jerry connolly, democrat who sits on the foreign relations committee.

this issue of ukraine, do you believe that the united should be helping out the ukrainians and sending weapons. why you -- why? guest: the ukrainians clearly need defense, and i think the u.s. should be providing equipment and training to the ukrainian military to fend off an illegal incursion that is rather extensive on their sovereign territory. not doing that from my point of view, it sends a clear message to that amir -- two vladimir putin that he can change the borders of post-world war ii europe that had been set for 60 years f with impunity, and that is a dangerous message to send to a kgb thug. host: as you know, angela merkel

disagrees and she was urging the president not to make this decision. i want to show you her reaction and then get yours. [video clip] >> the question of certain measures has actually been dealt with. the president has not yet made a decision. what is important for me is that we stand very closely together. the question on renewed dramatic effort -- renewed diplomatic effort, we keep each other informed and are in close touch, and no one wishes more for success than the two of us that sandy are side-by-side. host: -- than the two of us standing here side-by-side. host: congressman, what you make of her response? guest: i certainly respect angela merkel and i think we need to be cognizant of and respect the views of our allies. but i will point out that in the post-world war ii era the

europeans have often been very reluctant to deal with real threat in our midst. it took u.s. leadership on kosovo. it took u.s. leadership to end serbian aggression in the continent. it was not european leg. and thank goodness we did. it ended the conflict by a firm read solve -- firm resolve by the united states, bringing along our nato partners, and we were able to end the conflict. showing weakness in the face of really, naked aggression -- in this case, russia -- i think is an unwise course. with all due respect, i think angela merkel is wrong. if you can do it diplomatically, that of course, is the desired option. but i believe that part of diplomacy needs to have a military element as a backup that we will strengthen

defensive posture incapability of ukraine, and that is something that couldn't has to calculate. right now, he doesn't. and right now, frankly, angela merkel is signaling to him he need not worry about it. i think he should worry about it. host: on wednesday in europe, putin will be meeting with angela merkel and france's leader as well as others to try to broker some sort of peace deal. you don't think that can happen unless the military option is on the table. guest: i think it is highly unlikely to happen, and quite friendly, the behavior of the last year and a half proved that. in the face of tough sanctions in the face of a collapse of oil prices, and in the face of a really serious blow to his economy, it has not deterred him at all. in fact, fighting has flared up in the eastern ukraine. and he has illegally annexed crimea. what is it he's going to

understand it seems to me -- what is it he's going to understand? it seems to me part of what is missing from the equation is power. the diplomacy not backed up by the military threat of the ukrainian military, i think, is a mistake. host: president obama said he will wait for a diplomatic solution. does he look weak to vladimir putin? guest: i don't know how he looks to vladimir putin. i guess, probably everybody looks weak to vladimir putin. we have to figure out what vladimir putin respects and understand, and that his assertion and power. that is what he understands. senator gray had that wonderful expression, "always be bold" and

that is what we need to be in the face of russian aggression right now. host: i want to get your reaction to the president's press conference yesterday. he was asked about a redline. take a look. [video clip] >> we have been providing assistance to the ukrainian generals as part of a long-standing relationship between nato and ukraine. our goal has not been for ukraine to be equipped to carry on our offensive operations, but simply to defend itself. and president poroshenko has been very clear. he's not interested in escalating violence. he's interested in having his country path tanneries -- his country's boundaries respected by his neighbor. there will not be in a specific point in which i say, oh clearly lethal defensive weapons would be appropriate here. it is an ongoing analysis of

what we can do to dissuade russia from encroaching further and further on ukrainian territory. our hope is that it's done through diplomatic means. host: congressman? guest: well, with due respect to the president, i think the failure by the western alliance to respond to the illegal annexation, blinged illegal annexation of the crimea -- blatant illegal annexation of the crimea, which resembled something of our past -- you know, it looked a lot like the phony sudeten lands push in a different era. it should have been responded to. that was my redline. and it still is. we can never acknowledge the illegal annexation of crimea. it is the sovereign territory of the ukraine and changing those boundaries cannot be done at the

barrel at the gun. if we acquiesce to that, then we are quibbling over the price in eastern ukraine. what moral standing have you got to object to "here, but no further"? i think ours should have been a much more forceful response. and i favor and across the board more forceful response, healthy ukrainians in a much more aggressive way -- help the ukrainians in a much more aggressive way. certainly, the goal is to restore sovereign territory and remake those borders and get the russians to respect that. but how will you do that? moral persuasion alone is not going to frankly, bring you the restyle -- the desired results with someone like vladimir putin. host: we are talking to democrat

gerry connolly who sits on the foreign affairs committee. we are discussing whether or not to send lethal aid ukraine. the "washington times" this morning with a story, the pentagon is prepping to send troops to ukraine. and the u.s. government has committed three her $20 million for assistance to ukraine, of which -- $320 million for assistance ukraine. how much will it cost? guest: i don't think we know yet. what we need to find out is what you need is. there are russian tanks russet the border, ending the fiction that this is dissatisfied -- there are russian tanks crossing the border, ending the fiction that this is dissatisfied ukrainian. certainly, let's send antistate

methods -- antitank weapons to the ukrainian military. there has to be a response to this reckless military incursion and the ridiculous fiction that they are not involved. they have to pay a price for that. part of that price has to be, i think of on the battlefield. and the only way they fair price is if the ukrainians are equipped and trained to respond to the threat on their own territory. host: ok, let's get the calls in. matt is from new hampshire independent. caller: good morning, congressman colony -- congressman connolly. guest: good morning. how is the snow up there? caller: very deep. i enjoy you because you are not partisan. you do not throw parts of the other side. my first comment is very simple. i don't have a problem

supporting ukraine. i'm a problem with my disability not being funded. you want to fund ukraine, fun my disability. i know you have spoken at on this matter and i greatly appreciate that. nato has a responsibility. european nato partners are not funding their share of nato. guest: that's right. caller: if the republicans want to send weapons, and you, and me, want to send weapons, let's pay for it. the republicans passed things they don't get paid for. the democrats passed things, they have to be paid for. can we put their feet to the fire for this? and can we get disability reasons dated? because if i have to take -- reinstated? last year, i am seriously going to hurt. guest: you are on social security disability? caller: yes, and earned disability.

i was hurt when i was 42 years old and industrial reaction. i took electricity that it would take to fry someone in the electric care -- chair. a very frightening experience. i just don't want to see a cut. i took a cut from what i would have learned from retirement. when you become disabled under 65, you automatically take a cut in benefits. my supplemental insurance that goes along with my medicare cost me an additional $140 a month because i am not 65. host: i will have the congressman weigh-in. guest: i think your story is very important to remember. some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have

highlighted the abuse of the social security row graham and certainly, we want to weed out abuse, people cheating the system fared we have to understand it is for people like you therefore people who no longer can work through no fault of their own, because of industrial accidents, or other problems on the job. i had a great grandfather who was killed and my grandfather and his mother and his siblings they gave a storefront to my great-grandmother. she was allowed to run a little store, a storefront store. it was a company property. that is how she may do and took care of her family. there was no program for people

like her. that is my social security disability was created. people on it deserve to qualify for it and it is helping them to read productive lives after something terrible, such as what happened to you, has happened there i absolutely -- absolutely agree, reform is fine but let's not use it as an excuse. i want to emphasize the issue is not the narrow one of let's send weapons to the ukrainian military. the issue is how best do we resolve and restore peace and stability of borders in europe with respect to the ukraine? part of that piece is, i believe, providing the ukrainian military with necessary training to deter the military threat from russia, to regain control over their sovereign territory.

it is not a narrow issue of sending weapons or not. it is a broader context including the diplomatic initiative, which we support. i hope it succeeds. but i am sick after all -- i am skeptical it will. host: republican, your next. caller: good morning. a quick question for you. it is slightly two-part. in reference to the constant points we make about how the russians are into the ukraine and taking their lives and things like that, to piggyback on the, from new hampshire how is it that annually, the huge call in america -- the thing that gets me is the fact that

they give them money annually, interested in the future presence but best of america not acknowledge the fact -- an essential threat to i think americans, really, if you think about it their request congressman? -- about it. host: congressman? guest: every country has contradictions and problems and obviously the united face has issues. -- the united states has issues. obviously, there are problems, including our alliance with israel. i would not characterize israeli behavior as apartheid.

there are important internal issues in israel that will have to be addressed, especially longer-term, given demographic trends. that is why the administration has pursued, and may be reluctantly, the netanyahu ever met has agreed to a a solution. that is a complicated and difficult and challenging set of issues we hope will be resolved so there is more of a resolution of some of the issues the caller identified. >> will you attend the joint session where netanyahu will be speaking? guest: i do not know whether i will do that or not. netanyahu has spoken to congress before and he is always welcome as a friend and ally. but i think he made a terrible

mistake in accepting this invitation at this time on those terms. it is clearly designed vice speaker boehner, shamefully so, as a thumb in the eye of the president. that is a terrible breach and protocol but more importantly, it drives a wedge where none existed before, on a partisan basis, with a key ally on a key set of foreign issues. that is very unwelcome. and i think we would all be better served if a different set of circumstances were found to have this. caller: good morning. my comment is about the ukraine and how we stick our toes into all kinds of waters. i think we should aggressively

pursue a confrontation with russia. i think we need to get the borders squared away in the ukraine and i do believe we need to get boots on the ground and equipment to them. i think we should also be able to pay for it area -- it. host: do you see providing ukraine as the first step? caller: yes. guest: i do not think we want to see conflict with russia, but i think you need to learn from our history. while aggression was going on in europe and the 30's, the united states was profoundly isolationist, no matter what happened. even the sinking of u.s. ships by german boats prior to the declaration of war was not enough to person -- precipitate us into a response.

had we responded early to make an aggression, it would have set some limits and clear stakes for hitler and his end of thugs. now here we are in europe and we are seeing aggression, the deliberate learning and encouragement of borders. we are seeing military action by the russian military, feigning to be crossing the border from russia because they're not always wearing russian military unit once. we have to end that fiction and set limits and those limits are sovereign boundaries, sovereign borders will be respected by the international community. if we let this go, if we kind of slide on this, there will be a price to be paid, but a much bigger price down the road.

people like putin are very pavlovian. what is reworded and what is punished. all the rhetoric in the world is not punishment. is he getting away with his desire to create a russia, a resurgent expansionist regime that reclaims satellite territory? or not? i want to make sure the answer to that -- and is he will not only be rewarded for that, but punished severely or that. part of that punish meant -- punishment has to be military calculation. not the only part of the answer him about part of it. i think we are nowhere near that discussion. host: would you go there if it would mean preventing a price to pay? guest: i believe what i'm supporting would preclude the need for that.

that is what i'm trying to make sure we do not get into. i am saying, we can avoid that confrontation by a clear unambiguous statement of support for ukrainians and a statement to wound that he will clearly understand. >> ok. minnesota, independent caller. you are next area -- next. caller: i was listening to this conversation because i was from eastern slovakia a year ago. it is not the best and i very strongly believe the only way we can resolve this situation, sort of like president carter did when he wanted to invade poland, -- i believe that angela merkel

and i respect her very much, stakes german. we need to have very strong political situation, diplomatic situation. and yes, poland right next door that we can put more troops and that will show we really need in the business. guest: i agree with the caller. i think that is kind of the bottom-line. we have to show putin that we mean business. at the cost for him outweigh any conceivable benefit. right now, he has paid very little, other than some economic rice and, frankly, the plummeting oil price per barrel of oil is hurting him a lot more than sanctions.

we need to up the cost factor so he recalibrate the overall cost of this. >> let's go to cindy next, a republican caller. democrat of virginia. >> good morning. how are you? i agree there should be a military that cut in the ukraine, but i wonder, do you also inc. there should be a military threat, heavier sanctions, when the u.s. is doing what isis and iran? it appears obama prefers diplomacy over military threats appeasement over negotiations. on a personal note, i was deeply offended that during the benghazi and, you were extremely live by walking out during the testimony of a family member. regarding netanyahu -- >> excuse me, i want to respond to that peer that is absolutely a lie.

it was fabricated by a republican staff at the time. there was an all-day hearing. the family of benghazi victims were supposed to testify first. all of us were there in our chairs respected -- respectfully to hear the testimony. arbitrarily, he changed the order of a hearing and put a different panel on. there was no notification of when we would hear on the other panels and he knew that and he did it deliver early so he could then manufacture what this woman just repeated. it is a lie, not worthy of our committee or frankly congress as an institution. and you know, obvious the the lady calling listens layson much to fox news. but that is pure propaganda it is not true, and it is a lie. >> started out talking about isis and the president could

send out some language that would grant him the new authority for isis. would you vote yes? question depends on the language. i am a child of the 60's. i remember how the resolution was abused and missed used to justify a wide war that ultimately had half a million u.s. troops in vietnam. all of us of that generation are i think helpfully skeptical of any resolution authorizing u.s. military force. we want to see the fine print and we want to make sure limits are very clear and so, i do not believe this president has any expansionist intent with respect to military employment. i disagree with the caller using the word appeasement. i do not think there is anything about president obama's policy that would constitute appeasement either in syria or iran. i think he is the first president since the iran hostage

crisis in 1979 to actually sit down with the iranians and engage them with negotiations. the question is, can we bring that where we can declare success, where we have gotten iran to move back from the brink significantly to forswear any desire or ability to develop nuclear weapons, and to join the international community of peaceful nations who agreed to in sections and serious limitations on a nuclear development? i will be the real test. but i do not think negotiating with the iranians have so far actually produce the progress in quite some time. host: on citing isis, what limitations do you see him the authority? guest: i want to make sure we are not authorizing boots on the ground. i want to see that there are clear goals that are attainable.

that is difficult for the president and us. it is easy to say what the president should be doing and what he should have done. i do not think the options are all that clear. trying to help the kurdish military force seems to be a viable option because they actually have capability and we know with equipment, they can push back ices and have had some success in the battlefield. they are a natural ally and it is not uncomplicated because of iraqi politics, for example, but that is one option. obviously, the use of drones and ringing in others in an alliance to push back the military threat and isis will be part of the goal as well. i want to see that you're not want to see, what are the partners in the region?

are they willing to step up and take a large part of the responsibility that we are also engaged in? the jury is out on that question. host: independent in georgetown in massachusetts, you're on the air. caller: thanks for having me on. guest: how much snow do you have on the ground? caller: enough the -- enough what i like to ski. guest: i hear you could ski from your front door. caller: if you are on a hill, i think you could. this whole ukrainian thing is pretty troubling to me. i was able to talk to marry their -- there. guest: marcy from ohio? caller: yes.

archer do -- fraud and people out of their tax money. also, you know, a lot of things happened before the forceful takeover and ps, which we have a term for, it is called a two. it seems like what we do is we use that word for a takeover we agree with, and then we use a nice word like "people's revolution" or something if it is a coup we are on the side with. as we are talking about what is happening in the ukraine and we need to start day one the day after the forceful coup in kiev where they would forcefully remove the elected leader, that is where our days start and and we talked about how's

aggressiveness is kind of going over everything. it is time we stopped pretending and stick to the facts. host: congressman. guest: there are a lot of facts in the ukraine. you cited some of them. it is quite clear to me other facts include the pressure that food and put on the ukrainian government to get them to disavow their intent to join the european union and ultimately probably nato, and he put military pressure on them. the then government you are referring to caved against clear populist support otherwise, and when that government fell, used

that as a pretext to do what you want to do all long, which was to regain control of crimea important naval base for the russian navy. he did that in an extraordinary transparently, blatantly, a legal way. other -- utterly manufactured and fabric dated in a spontaneous show of her -- of support for crimean people. and the clear violation of the sovereign borders of the ukraine , bypassing all international -- to resolve this disc you. now, he is threatening the same on the eastern part of the ukraine. i believe we have no morals any to just to that if we do not start with i'm you. it is not ok and we will not turn a blind eye and will not

recognize it and you will pay an ongoing price until and unless you reverse your illegal annexation of i'm you. host: -- of crimea. host: on our line for democrats. guest: did i hear you are a democrat in kansas? caller: we are trying to stay a little pink here. i really want to make three quick comments about the discussion here. one is on the ukraine. i think nondirect military action from the united dates, we had a young officer on the news saying please do not let -- though i think it was very clear they did not want direct involvement from the west on their behalf there that will escalate things and have more people killed and more of the country ruined, bond, and such. >> i think it is important to stress, no one is saying we should their there are no calls

for direct military involvement in the ukraine. by us or the west. caller: secondly, the third comment is i think israel, they have nuclear weapons and when it comes to negotiations with iran, they should put that on the table and say, ok, what is israel doing? they cannot on their neighbors so it does not make sense for israel to have lethal weapons. everybody else would not want nuclear weapons either, like iran, we have been struggling with that for years and i think it is a waste of time. host: i love congressmen weigh in on those two issues. guest: i think i dealt with the first one. i agree with you, no one wants to see that and that is decisively why i want to preempt that action diplomatically and militarily in helping shore up

the capability of ukrainians to defend their own sovereignty and to send a signal to the russians that their aggression will not be awarded. with respect to iran, i respectfully disagree. i think the interim agreement of the p5pluass1 group has helped and has worked. it is not the ultimate of the nuclear threat, but we have an engagement and the iranians are paying a high price for sanctions and they know it. their population is rested about that. got elected on the promise of economic reform and a return to more economic press -- prosperity. they have to risk the wrath of their electorate.

on the other hand, we want to make sure iranians are not just playing us for time. if we become convinced of that, i think we have to look at other options with respect to how we resolve the nuclear threat from iran. host: watching us from california, a republican caller. caller: good morning. please do not interrupt me, congressmen, like you did to the other republican one in -- woman. guest: i am sorry, i am going to interrupt you. she made a statement that was false and i corrected her. i apologize for that. you cannot make outrageous charges with impunity and expect someone to not respond or politely hear you out when you are impugning the integrity of the person in question. i reserve the right to defend my reputation and my integrity. host: ok, so molly, go ahead. caller: ok, about netanyahu, a

light came from the president when he said we do not enter during an election and another country and netanyahu shouldn't speak because of that. obama sent campaign people into israel to campaign against netanyahu before an election. as far as john boehner inviting him here to's the, nancy pelosi did the same thing and brought him to a session. the live comes very heavily from your side of the aisle. =-- -- lie comes very heavily from your side of the aisle. guest: i do not know how to respond to that vitriol. ok, that is your opinion. the way you phrased it highlights some of the problems we have with dysfunctional politics. when people ask why we can get

more done here in congress, part of the answer is because we are so divided and there are elements of intolerance and hyperbole on both sides that make it very difficult to find common ground. i think that caller in some ways highlight that problem. it is a lie and pelosi is worse than banner and you know, can reasonable people agree that inviting a foreign leader to come address a joint session of congress, which is a big deal, two weeks before an election in his or her country, is probably not the best thing to do especially when you know that foreign leader is coming here with an agenda, touches directly opposite what the president of the united states is trying to

pursue. that is a very in-your-face confrontation on a key and delicate foreign-policy matter and i think it is unwise and imprudent. you can respectfully disagree or disrespectfully disagree, but i think there is a legitimate concern here that most certainly nancy pelosi never engaged in during her tenure as speaker when president bush of the other party was in the white house. she never did that to them. >> california, and independent caller. >> good morning. the california coast. i would like to make two points. the first point is i do not believe we should send any weapons to the kiev of government, western ukraine, until they disavow the neo-nazi which the western media play case down as the far what just a far right. they are militia neo-nazis and are against all speakers. they want him executed. the southwest was taken over by mexico, all people speak

english, so they will kill english speech or -- speakers english speakers will be upset. that is what happened in the ukraine. point number two, in crimea, crimea has always been russian. there was no threat to the russian naval base. the naval base was there that i have relatives in crimea. they were cut off by kia and had no food coming in. they were preparing like hurricane and are very happy there back in russia. what was the death toll in crimea in russia? i think it was less than three. eastern ukraine, 5000 11 airline shot down. crimea is very much like what happened in kokomo. it was an illegal action and changed borders. we have to recognize changing borders. you are a democrat. wilson's uses of self-determination.

one is local control. those are my points. thank you. guest: i understand the points you're making an iphone the will -- fundamentally disagree. that is a rationalization for a naked aggression that i think has no place in the 21st century europe. nor should it. your rationalization that crimea has always been russian, that is not true. there is still a minority in their own country that most certainly does not accept this annexation and with respect to the fact that it is largely russian speaking, that is because it was deliberately repopulated during the stalin era by russians. if you want to use that as a rationalization for why it is ok for russia to forcibly and illegally annexed that

territory, where does that and? -- end? that invites german -- germans to re-examine -- there is no end to the border adjustments by force that can occur in europe by that rationalization and that is why i rejected their this is not the way to resolve the issues. host: on the floor, a democratic caller. good morning to you. caller: don't people realize russia has nukes? it could be unbelievable. don't you remember when russia was at war with afghanistan and we've survived afghanistan's weapons? that did not work out too well either, did it? guest: vladimir putin is many

things, but he is not stupid and irrational. i think he is somebody who respects limits. we have so far not done a very good job of setting limits for him. i return to what i said earlier. the game here is to help raise the cost and lower the benefits from his action so he has to recalibrate how he evaluates outcomes. we want to make the outcome he is seeking an expected outcome and we want to precisely do the opposite of what you fear, we want to make sure that by responding early and forcefully, we do not create a situation escalating and that gets us at all to the nuclear threshold kind of issue. host: you also set on the oversight reform committee, want to get to this story that the obama administration is thinking about creating a new agent the

that would sniff out threats in cyberspace. it would be modeled after the national counterterrorism center that would gather and share it with all the agencies. karzai think we need to have a conference of look about how we respond to cyber security threats. it is not just military and security, but on the domestic side as well and saw the other day a breach by chinese hackers of 80 million customer information database by one of our health insurance -- in the united states. credit information, and other information that could compromise their financial well-being. what are we going to do about this? how will we risk on?

in terms of, i want to make sure it does not require a cyber pearl harbor before we respond. i applaud the administration for looking at away to approach this in a more comprehensive and thorough manner that helps deter, preempt, and respond to cyber security threats, whether it he in the banking sector, the utility sector, the electric grid, all of them are potentially vulnerable and we have to dress them in a forthright manner. this is a great earth step and i look forward to seeing more details. >> the white house counterterrorism adviser will be talking about the new agency today at the wilson center and we will have live coverage of it on the stand to at 12:45 p.m. eastern time. talking more about the agency the white house would like to create, to share intelligence about cyber threats guest: i am a c-span groupie, so

i look forward to watching that. host: we're glad. thanks for being here. guest: appreciate it. >> tomorrow morning's "washington journal," republican congresswoman martha mcsally joins us to talk about president obama's request for authorization of military force. and we'll talk to congresswoman marcy kaptur of ohio about the fight against isis and "washington journal" continues our tour of historically black colleges. "washington journal" is live every morning on c-span at 7:00 a.m. eastern. at the state department briefing today, they were asked about the attack on a kosher dele in paris last month. here's a look.

>> he raised eyebrows by saying that the victims of the shooting at the kosher dele was random. i parently the white house said something similar today. is that really -- does the administration really believe that the victims of this attack were not singled out because they were of a particular faith? >> as you know i remember the victims specifically, they were not all victims of one background or one nationality. so i think what they mean by that is, i don't know that they spoke to the targeting of the grocery store or that specifically but the individuals who were impacted. >> well, i mean, but when the secretary went and paid respects, he was with a member of the jewish community there. >> naturally given that it's the kosher store. >> don't you think the target may be, even if the victims came

from different backgrounds or different religions, different nationalities wasn't the store -- the store itself was the target. was it not? >> that's different than the individuals being. i don't have any more to -- >> we'll let the administration believe it was an attack on the jewish community in paris. >> i don't think we're going to speak on behalf of the french authorities. >> but if a guy goes into a kosher market and starts shooting it up, he's not looking for buddhists, is he? >> again, matt, i think it's relevant that obviously the individuals in there who were shopping and working at the store -- >> who does the administration expect shops at a cosher -- i might. but an attacker, going into a store that is clearly identified as being one of, as identified with one specific faith, i'm not sure i can understand how it is you can't say that this was a targeted -- >> i don't have more for you,

matt. that's an issue for the french government to address. >> already today the house aproved by voice vote the $18 billion nasa spending bill. coming up, the house will be back in debating other bills. today on "washington journal," representative luke messer of indiana was on the program talking about granting president obama the new authority. -- and c-span.org. washington journal continues. host: back at our table, congressman luke messer, republican of indiana. thank you for being here. let's begin with isis. the president could as early as today send up to capitol hill some language that would grant him new authority to fight isis. is that something you could support when it comes to the floor? guest: certainly, i could

support it. i do think it is important we have a debate. it has been 13 guest: the nature of the threat is different than it was at the times immediately following 9/11. obviously we've got rising threat of isil or isis, which something we haven't -- we didn't even talk about 13 years ago. i think it's time we have the debate. i also believe that isil is a serious threat to america. i believe it's the cold war of our time. the president has a lot of work to do to understand the true breadth and depth of the challenges we face. the president needs to articulate to the american people what our strategy is for defeating isis and there's a lot of work to do but i certainly could support it. >> do you think it would get strong support from republicans? >> i believe there are lots of republicans who understand we have to stand up to isil and want to be supportive of military efforts to do so. i think the american people frankly, have been skeptical of

this president's leadership on this issue. he needs to define the nature of the threat. he needs to articulate a strategy for solving -- for defeating isil. it can be done but it's going to take system heavy work and i think very few people on my side of the aisle believe that we can just drop a few bombs here and there and this thing can be solved. it's going to take a real, consistent military effort over time. >> what should be included in the aumf, this language that grants him aumf, this language that grants him the authority to go after isis? should the option of boots on the ground be included? >> i think the president once the president articulates the nature of the threat and articulates the military stratty to defeat them, we need to give the command for the chief the tools it takes to be successful. i think it would be a mistake to limit it to only air streaks,

for example. i mean, what would that mean? you think of when osama bin laden was defeated with special forces well, if we don't craft this correctly could you end up in a situation where a president couldn't call in special forces if that was what was deemed appropriate at the time. but again the president commander in chief, is going to have to make the argument as to why he needs to have that kind of latitude. i certainly could support it once that case is made. >> when do you think it could come to the floor? with when would that debate happen? >> the request may come as soon as today. these are urgent matters. we're in the midst of a battle with isil. we all turn on the television set and see the attacks. i believe once the request is made, you'll see the debate very promptly. >> another percolating issue is what to do about the situation in the ukraine. president obama in a joint news conference yesterday saying he's going to wait and let the diplomatic task play out in hopes that tomorrow in europe,

france's leader, germany's leader vladimir putin, and others can come to some sort of agreement. peaceful solution. >> well, i mean, we all are certainly rooting for a peaceful solution. the problem is when you look at what's happened in the ukraine over the last several months, it's been anything but peaceful. when the president por sean coe came and spoke -- porschenko came and spoke a few months ago herb said we don't need to build a democracy in the ukraine, we need to defend it. i believe we need to take stonger action there. i had an opportunity last summer to be, not in the ukraine but in lithuania and poland. met with leaders in that region of the world. i can tell youer that unambiguous in the fact that russia will not respond to ambiguity. if you want to deal with russia they need to understand strength. i think we have taken steps with

economic sanctions frankly russia has not yet responded to those in any way that's changed their behavior there. i d believe we need to look at providing at least the military equipment that the ukraine would need to defend itself. i know russia claims otherwise. but all this plain sight that they have been helping the russian rebels. >> let's listen to what president obama had to say at the news conference yesterday, his thinking about whether or not to arm the ukraine help them out and defend it and i'll get your reaction. get your reaction. guest:[video clip] >> issue you raise about whether we can be certain the weapons to fall into the wrong hands, the -- do not lead to over aggressive actions that cannot be stained by the ukrainians,

the kinds of reactions does it prompt simply from the russians. those are all issues that have to be considered. the measure by which i make these decisions is, is it more likely to be effective than not? that is what our deliberations will be about. host: congressman? guest: this is a judgment call but to me, the best to make those judgments are the ukrainians on the ground. they would like to have the weapons and i believe we should provide them with them. there are risks associated with this. i am less concerned about what russia's reaction might be. we know what the reaction might be. it will be aggression. we will -- the real thing is

will we support those who deserve to be supported? the rourke -- the ukrainians trying to preserve their democracy and freedom? >> bob is our first phone call a republican. go ahead. you're on the air. go ahead. >> he s. thank you, c-span. i wanted to say crap. host: i guess he lost his train of thought. don in texas, independent caller. caller: how are you this morning? how much would it cost a taxpayer to do this? you see how much it cost tax payers to lose the money. to borrow the money to fight overseas.