>> i think it is the white house's decision. we are here today because this was in our body and our house. none of us supported that activity. i do think what you will see in the coming days is a white house that is committed to pursuing these negotiations. i don't think they are going to let this speech distract them from that. that is the most important thing they have going right now. i think they will move on and let their actions the the response. >> let me just say at the very least the intention, the hope of the prime minister was to force the adminstration to make the case for diplomacy. to raise questions that the white house has to vote itself to explain.

i thought that susan rice did a magnificent job at her aipac speech yesterday laying out with those choices are. it was not made on the house of representatives with every media outlet right there. i think that right now with the secretary of state in geneva that the white house will have to respond in some way that wouldn't have happened had the prime minister not made the speech. >> i want to add to that, if i could. i think the white house needs to keep its eye on the ball. the white house says is an uphill fight to get yes on iran. to let this be a distraction from what is already a tough mission would be unfortunate. i think they will move forward.

this is a prime ministers who has never seen a war that he didn't want our country to fight. they need to finish a tough job. in may not lead to a deal, but if there's a possibility that it can, we need to stay focused and give it a shot. >> you mentioned earlier the prime minister mentioned the holocaust and genocide to congress. this a question for any other jewish members -- what is think of the decision to use that? >> i think it is an overreach, by far. i think he knew that. maybe everybody sees this, but in political theater, what you had today was everything that the state of the union is -- a

packed house, all congressman representatives. he took the place of the president. it was putting him on an equal level on congress. that was wrong. and that was why i didn't attend. >> thank you. >> president obama responded to israeli prime minster netanyahu's speech to covers during the meeting with the new defense secretary, ashton carter. this is 10 minutes. >> this is going to be the first opportunity i have to get an extensive debriefing from secretary carter, who took a trip last week to afghanistan and other parts of the region.

he will be giving me some impressions about how we are planning our drawdown and transition in afghanistan and talk about some other regional issues. one issue we will be discussing is iran. obviously that is a topic of great interest today. let me just make a few comments. i do not have a chance to watch prime minister netanyahu's speech. i was on a videoconference with our european partners with respect to ukraine. i did have a chance to look at the transcript. as far as i can tell, there was nothing new. the prime minister i think appropriately pointed out that the bond between the united states and america is unbreakable. on that point, i thoroughly agree. he also pointed out that iran has been a dangerous regime and continues to engage in activities that are contrary to the interests of the u.s., to israel, and the region. on that, we agree. he also pointed out that iran

has repeatedly threatened israel and engaged in the most venomous of anti-semitic statements. no one can dispute that. but the core issue, which is preventing iran from getting a nuclear weapon, which is far more dangerous and would give its far greater scope in the region -- the prime minister didn't offer any viable alternatives. let's be clear about what exactly the central concern should be, both for the united states and for israel. i have said since before i became president that one of my primary goals in a foreign policy is to prevent iran from getting nuclear weapons.

with the help of congress and our international partners, we constructed a sanctions regime that pressured iran to come to the table to negotiate in a serious fashion. they have now been negotiating over the last year. during that period, iran has in fact frozen its program, rolled back some of its most dangerous highly enriched uranium, and subjected itself to the kinds of verifications and inspections that we have not previously seen. keep in mind that when we shaped that interim deal, mr. netanyahu made almost the precisely same speech about how dangerous that the deal was going to be. and yet over a year later, even israeli intelligence officers and in some cases members of the israeli government, have to acknowledge that in fact it has kept iran from further pursuing its nuclear program.

the deal that we are trying to negotiate that is not yet completed would cut off the different pathways for iran to advance its nuclear capabilities. it would roll back some elements of its program. it would ensure that it did not have what we call "a breakout capacity" that was shorter than a year's time. it would subject iran to the most vigorous inspections that have ever been put in place. the alternative the prime officer offers is no deal. in which case iran will immediately start pursuing its nuclear program, accelerate its nuclear program, without us having any insight into what they are doing. and without constraint. his essential argument is that

if we doubled down on sanctions, iran won't want to do that. well, we have evidence from the past decade that sections alone are not sufficient to prevent iran from pursuing its nuclear ambitions. and if it does not have some sense that sanctions will be removed, it will not have an interest in avoiding the path that it's currently on. the bottom line is this -- we don't yet have a deal. it may be that iran cannot say yes to a good deal. i have repeatedly said that i would rather have no deal than a bad deal. but if we are successful in negotiating, in fact this will be the best deal possible to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. nothing else comes close. sanctions will not do it.

even military action would not be as successful as the deal that we have put forward. i think it is very important not to be distracted by the nature of the iranian regime's ambition when it comes to territory or terrorism -- all issues which we share concerns with israel about and are working with israel on. we know that if in fact they obtain a nuclear weapon, all of those problems would be worse. we are staying august on the central issue. how do we prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon? the path we propose, if successful, by far is the best way to do that. that is demonstrable. prime minister netanyahu has not offered any kind of a viable alternative that would achieve the same verifiable mechanism

that would prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon. i urge the members of congress who are there to express their support for israel's security to express their strong interest in providing the materials israel needs to prevent attacks. i think it is important for members of congress on a bipartisan basis to be unified. these are all things on which this and ministration and iran agrees. when it comes to this nuclear deal, let's wait until there are deals on the table at which point everyone can evaluate.

we don't have to speculate. what i can guarantee is that if it is a deal i signed off on, i will be able to prove that it is the best way for us to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon. for us to pass up on that potential opportunity would be a great mistake. it is not one i intended to make, and i will take that case to every member of congress once we actually have a deal. alright? [chatter of questions] >> now that you had a chance to read the prime minister's remarks, do you feel like a speech gave an appropriate consideration to the upcoming election?

>> all the folks on the call today share my position that we should see if we can get this deal done. it was not a topic of conversation. with respect to the decision of the speaker to offer up the house chamber two weeks before mr. netanyahu's election, that should be directed to them. it is very important for us not to politicize the relationship between israel and the united states. is important to recognize we have a system of government in which foreign policy once through the executive branch and the president, not through other channels. and i think it is important for us to stay focused on the problem at hand. and the specific problem that is being debated right now is not

whether we trust the iranian regime or not, we don't trust them. it is not whether iran engages in destabilizing activities. everybody agrees with that. the central question is -- how can we stop them from getting a nuclear weapon? what we know is that if we are able to get a deal, not only do we caught off all of the various pathways for iran getting a nuclear weapon, but we also know we will have a verification and inspection mechanism where if they cheat and engage in a covert program, we are far more likely to see it in time to do something about it. what i also know is if we don't have a deal, as prime minister netanyahu suggested, if he is right that they are not trustworthy, they intend to

pursue a program, and they cheat -- we'll be far less aware of it until it is potentially too late. what i also know is that he made the same argument before this current interim deal. even as officials in his own government had to acknowledge that iran has, in fact maintained their end of the bargain. what i am focused on is solving this problem. i am not focused on the politics or fear of it. my strong suggestion would be members of congress stay similarly focused. thank you guys. i appreciate it. thanks. >> the supreme court is set to hear oral arguments in a case challenging the federal subsidies for the purchase of health care through the affordable care act.

jess bravin is here to talk about the case and outcome. and then more about the case with mary casey. you can join the conversation with your phone calls and comments. >> starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern wednesday, we will be outside the supreme court for the sights and sounds as justices hear the oral arguments in the case that is a challenge to subsidies under the affordable care act. the arguments will be released friday. we will have reaction from attorneys on both sides of the case, live on c-span3. >> the political landscape has changed with the will have reaction from

114th congress. there are new democrats and republicans, and also new women. keep track of the members of congress using congressional conical -- on a the page has lots of useful information including voting logs and statistics. newcomers, best access. on c-span, c-span2, and c-span.org. >> the u.s. house passed a bill to fund the department of homeland security through the end of the fiscal year. without language to block the president's action on immigration. this debate is 35 minutes. >> the gentleman from idaho is

recognized. se today with a motion that will move us forward to ensure the security of our nation by keeping the department of homeland security funded until the end of the fiscal year. funding for the department of homeland security will expire this week. to allow a shut down of these critical functions would be an abdication of one of our primary duties as member of congress. it is the constitutional duty of this body to provide funding for the federal government. all of the federal government. and this should be without threat of shutdowns or uncertainty of continuing resolutions. the house acted in january to fund d.h.s. for the year. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be if order. the gentleman may continue. mr. simpson: the house acted in january to fund d.h.s. for the year and has exed short-term funding several times. in order to maintain the critical security activities that keep our nation safe.

the senate has now done all it can do given their unique procedural constraints. it is clear that the legislation before us will not exactly what the house wanted is the only path forward to avoid a potentially devastating shutdown and provide stable, continuous funding for the agencies and programs tasked with defending the home turf. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the gentleman may continue. mr. semson: let us remember that the underlying legislation, and this is important, is a great bill. the security of our homeland is one of our highest priorities and this bill provides $39ings 7 billion for that purpose. it will assure we can key fend our nation against threats of terrorism and at that the men and women on our frontline remain well equipped and trained. we are now nearly halfway into the fiscal year and it is

imperative that we get this bill enacted. at the same time, congress must continue the fight -- to fight the president's actions on immigration that i do not support and the american people do not support. we must continue this fight but we must also allow funding for critical security functions to move forward. these two priorities are not mutually exclusive. we can and should do both. for now the president's executive actions has been stopped in court. this is where we must focus our efforts and continue the battle against this unconstitutional overreach. mr. speaker, it is high time to act to provide responsible, adequate funding for the department of homeland security to protect the people who elected us and to defend this great nation. i urge an aye vote and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: i support the motion to proceed and concur and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i am opposed to

the motion to concur and at this time i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from virginia, mr. morgan griffith. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. mr. griffith: thank you, mr. speaker. ladies and gentlemen i have to tell you that the only reason we are here is because of the unique procedural posture that the senate finds itself in. and that unique posture is a perversion of the democratic principles upon which our republic was based. we would not be here if it weren't for the modern filibuster and cloture rule which requires 60 votes to do anything. last week harry reid made it clear that he would not support a going to conference. jefferson was very clear when he set up the procedures for this place. each house makes an independent decision. then you get together in conference and work out your differences. but because of the unique position of the senate's processes, that cannot happen in

these circumstances. we should not reward the senate for their bad behavior. we should reject this motion and force a new discussion on this issue. and so, mr. chairman i submit that if all we are doing is rewarding the senate for having bad rules and bad process, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky virginia tech. mr. massie: two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from florida, mr. desantos -- desantis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized tore two minutes. mr. desantis: i hear we need to let the courts work their will to defend the constitution. as if we don't have an independent obligation to do that. we took the oath that we would support it. we didn't say we would be in congress pass bills, and let the courts support and defend the constitution. here's the problem beyond just that basic insight. if i were representing the department of justice in front of the fifth circuit to get this injunction overturned the first

sentence in my brief would be, that the united states congress has voted knowing this program was in existence to fully fund all operations. court, you should step out of this dispute. it's between the political branches and they have settled it. so it's not just waiting for the courts. and in fact the action today if this bill were to pass i believe it would actually harm the case in the courts. i think it makes it more difficult for those states to make the case that what the president did was unconstitutional. if the one branch whose powers were invaded decided that they were not going to bite back effectively. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: at this time i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from arizona, mr. salmon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for two minutes. mr. salmon: thank you, mr. speaker. i think this is a very, very sad day when we have to make a

hobson's choice of either funding our national security or standing for the constitution. we actually took an oath just a few short weeks ago to defend this constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. that's our role, that's our responsibility. if not now then when? it's never going to be easy. it's never going to be easy. it's never been easy to stand up for freedom. i heard some people say, you republicans, you need to learn how to govern. if it was just about governing, then i think that the american people can just close shop and let the president just run everything. but we actually have a constitution that we have to adhere to. despots all over the world, they govern. they keep the trains running on time. but we stand for something different. we stand for a constitutional republic where we have three co-equal branches. all have an equal say. the founding fathers gave us a tool to deal with the time just

like this. it's called the power of the purse. if we relegate that responsibility and drop kick it to the courts, as mr. desantis just said, they have nothing else to assume, then we just basically folded to the pressure. i believe this is a sad day for america. i believe america deserves better. if we are not going to fight now, when are we going to fight? i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from idaho, mr. simpson. mr. simpson: i yield to mr. dent for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. dent: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in strong support of the privileged resolution and encourage my colleagues to concur in the senate amendments to h.r. 240 in order to pass the fiscal year 2015 department of homeland security appropriations bill. it's time for us to move forward and demonstrate our

tasked with the arduous work of defending our borders protecting our communities and manning the front lines when confronted by natural disasters and acts of terrorism. i had the distinct privilege and pleasure on working on the underlying appropriations bill as a member of the house homeland security appropriations subcommittee and i can ensure my colleagues this is a good bill. it's a darn good bill. it's a bipartisan bill. among the bill's many highlights it would support the largest operational force of the border patrol agents and c.b.p. officers in history. if you -- it fully funds everify. if you're concerned about illegal immigration and interior, vote for this bill. it provides an increase of almost $700 million for immigration and customs enforcement. 34,000 detention beds and an increase of family detention beds by 3,732 beds. again, if you're worried about

illegal immigration, vote for this bill. fully funds fema disaster relief programs and the first responder grant programs that are critical to many state and local departments. it takes important steps toward the implementation of a biometric entry and exit data system, critical to maintaining interior enforcement in this country. the bill helps us thwart cyberattacks and, of course, it helps maintain our coast guard. mr. speaker, it is time for the house to move past the corrosive pattern of self-imposed cliffs and shutdowns and get to the work that american people expect us to address, issues like tax reform trade, transportation and infrastructure, things that are going to help create american jobs and improve our economy. it's time to move forward and stop playing these silly games. these times of -- may i have an additional -- mr. simpson, may i have an additional 30 seconds. mr. simpson: i yield 130ekds. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from pennsylvania has 130ekds. dentdent at these times of global uncertainty and brutal acts of terrorism it is imperative that we maintain -- mr. dent: at these times of global uncertainty and brutal acts of terrorism, it is imperative that we maintain our homeland. i ask my colleagues to support this bill. it's a bill we supported last summer. it would -- with strong overwhelming support on both sides of the aisle. it deserves that same kind of support here today. let's prove the american people we're serious about protecting this homeland and that we have the capacity to govern. these cliffs are disastrous for all of us. time to move on. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. simpson: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlemanry serves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from florida, mr. clawson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for two minutes.

mr. clawson: this is america. everybody matters in america. i grew up with somebody who seemed to have bad luck from day one. where i seem to catch breaks he couldn't get none. and recently mid last year because of a move, he needed to find a job. he went months without funding full-time employment. never got benefits. never got stability that he looked for for him and his wife and i love him very much. when the president made his edict he called me on the phone. he said curt, i don't understand what y'all are doing in washington. i want to know what's going on right now is going to help me get a job or not. and i said, unfortunately you got a lot of new competitors in

the labor force. i say this is america and everybody matters. i say the unemployed folks, the 18 million underemployed and unemployed, they haven't been a part of this conversation like they needed to be. i say that unilateral actions by a leader that doesn't take all stakeholders into account makes those that aren't taken into account not matter. i say we need to have to do this conversation again. this is america. everybody matters. not just those that came over the border illegally but those that have been here looking for jobs for long periods of time. i say we can do better. i say we can have a broader conversation. i say everybody matters. you all know these people that are unemployed. they're in your they're your close friends. they are the people you see every day doing ts that some of us wouldn't want to do. i say those people matter. i say, mr. president, before

you do a cramdown of the law for the benefit of one group of our society, i say all the groups of our society, particularly the unemployed also matter. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. clawson: and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: recognized. mr. massie: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from south carolina, mr. duncan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for one minute. mr. duncan: thank you. thank you, mr. speaker. you know, last week ms. brown from florida she said, why are we here? she got all upset. let me tell you why we're here. the president of the united states violated the constitutional separation of powers. regardless of how you feel about immigration or immigration reform or even amnesty, surely you believe in the united states constitution that you swore an oath to. surely you believe in this institution that we're debating in today. he said 22 times he did not have the power to unilaterally make law or change the law, but

yet that's in fact what he did. that's why this debate is so important today. it really has nothing to do with d.h.s. funding, amnesty or immigration. that's the vehicle we're using, sure but it has everything to do with the united states constitution and that sacred separation of powers says the executive branch executes the laws, we make the law in this chamber we have the only constitutional authority to do that and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from ohio, mr. jordan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for two minutes. mr. jordan: i thank the gentleman for yielding. remember why we're here. 22 times the president said he couldn't do what he turned around and did. something legal scholars have said is unconstitutional. more importantly, something a federal judge said is wrong. six weeks ago we sent a bill to the united states senate to fund d.h.s. at the levels the democrats agreed to. we just said, don't have any money be used for something unconstitutional and the federal judges ruled it wrong.

we can't debate it, amend it. then at the last hour, 11th hour on the last day they bring it up, debate it, amend it and sent it back. without the language stopping the unconstitutional activity and something the only court to rule on has said is wrong. this is unconstitutional. we all know it. this is the wrong way to go. fund d.h.s., don't let this wrong act the president took in november something he couldn't do stand. more importantly or more importantly is the unfair nature of the action. it's unfair to taxpayers that illegal noncitizens are going to be able to get tax refunds. it's unfair to seniors that illegal noncitizens will be able to participate in our social security system. it's unfair to voters as our secretary of state testified that now they will have the documents that will make it potentially much easier for four million to five million people to participate in our election process. and most importantly, mr. speaker, it's unfair to legal immigrants who did it the right way, who followed the law, who

came here, want to be part of this great country, the greatest nation in the world as we just heard from mr. netanyahu talking about how great this country is, it's unfair to legal immigration. legal immigrants. mr. speaker this is unconstitutionally wrong. most importantly, it's unfair. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: as i inquire as to the balance of my time? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky has 11 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. massie: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. simpson: i would now yield three minutes to the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. cole. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for three minutes. mr. cole: i thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i share the outrage of my friends over the president's actions because i don't think there's any question that's why we're here. the president did something that many of us on our side of the aisle most of us, i think, on our side of the aisle believe was unconstitutional

illegal and ill-advised. second i share my friends' anger at the united states senate. you know, i think it is reprehensible not to pick up a bill, act on it, not to go to conference. that's exactly the way we're designed to work. we know that frankly the democratic now minority, thankfully, in the senate has operated that way for four years. i'm not surprised having operated that in the way in the majority they continue to operate that way in the minority. but every now and then you need to take a step back and recognize we're not the only place where these issues get thrashed out and we're not the only players in this drama. indeed, we've been very fortunate on our side in this debate. we've been joined by 26 state attorney generals who hold exactly the same view we do and have taken the president of the united states, the administration to court and have prevailed in the first court case. as my friends have pointed out. in addition, they have won an injunction so that the president cannot do the very things my friends are concerned

about that he wants to do. so we not only have it -- have the court at least to this point on our side, we have it in a venue where you can actually win in the end. we're not likely to be able to do that in the congress given the democratic control of the filibuster in the other body and the presidential veto at the end of the process. in the courts you can actually win. it's a constitutional issue. it ought to be settled constitutionally through a judicial process. since we stopped the president, since we're prevailing in court, it seems to me the logical thing to do is what my friend, mr. dent suggested and look at a bipartisan compromised bill that protects the american people from real and physical harm and danger at the moment that we're sorting out our constitutional and political differences in the appropriate format. that's all this bill is about. it was agreed to in a bipartisan fashion. it was agreed to in a bicameral fashion. the reasons why we were concerned about it or used it have now been addressed by the

courts, so i would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's set aside our differences. they will be resolved in a appropriate way, in the appropriate fashion and in the right forum and let's do the right thing for the american people, pass this legislation and make sure that our fellow citizens stay secure. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. simpson: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from south carolina mr. mulvaney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for one minute. mr. mulvaney: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman from pennsylvania who spoke earlier was absolutely right, people back home want us to do things. so i think the important thing to do now is why we can't do anything and i lay the blame firmly at the feet of the seven democrats in the senate who have said to their voters they thought what the president did was wrong yet, they have voted

time and again to continue the filibuster. that's wrong and those are the people who are preventing the country from moving forward. beyond that to the extent those seven senate democrats continue to want to abuse the rules, it is incumbent upon our conservative republican colleagues in the senate to change the rules. conservative republicans, mr. chairman, who have been very quick to try and tell the house what to do, should now be over there making the case that if the senate democrats are going to use a rule to undermine the constitution, then the rule needs to change. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: mr. speaker i'd like to yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. look last december we were told that the best way to approach, despite some of our thinking on the contrary, was to fund everything but d.h.s.

we were told this is the play. well, some of us were afraid if we did that that we would come to this point and totally cave and would allow at least a congressional statement that we're not going to defund illegal unconstitutional amnesty. i stand with those veterans who believe that they should get health care before people who came illegally, that they should get a hot line to call before those who came illegally. i stand with the seniors that believe they deserve the social security they paid into rather than people that have come illegally and are even going to get tax refunds that they didn't put any taxes in. and i stand with the speaker of the house of representatives, at least where he was last week. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. mr. garrett: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman. the issue before us today is in fact security. as a member of congress from the fifth congressional district of new jersey, my constituents in new jersey like most americans, understand the devastating impact of a lack of security in certain areas. we live in the shadow of the twin towers and understand when security is not a paramount interest of this government. . with that said an equal responsibility of this congress and government is the security as being a nation of laws and abiding by the fundamental law of this country which is the constitution. we can achieve both of those. be a security nation by funding homeland security, which this house has done twice now. and we can also become a nation by following the rule of law and following the constitution which this body has done twice now by

sending full funding of homeland security to the senate. and simply asking them to do what all americans want washington to do today. is to conference on this -- these issues, discuss these issues, and come to a resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. garrett: where the constitution is upheld. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. garrett: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky virginia tech. mr. massie: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for one minute. mr. gosar: i thank my friend. constitutional attorney turley once said since roosevelt we have made the executive branch stronger and stronger and stronger. but they have actually had a dance partner and that's us. that's us, the legislative branch, both the house and senate. when are we going to stand up for the rule of law? how do i go back to arizona where they define the rule of law? where we allow anybody go past go, collect $200, and go to the front of line.

how do we accomplish that without standing up for something? this is that time. this is the time to stand up and not leave everything to the courts. i yield that back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: e gentnes. the gentleman from aho is recognized. mr. simpson: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from reserves. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from kentucky ready to close? mr. massie: mr. speaker, i have more speakers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: at this time i yield one minute to the gentleman from alabama, mr. palmer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama is recognized for one minute. mr. palmer: thank you, mr. speaker. there was a comment about this, this is about governing. it is it's about governing actually. we are not three separate but equal branches of the government. the abuse of the exec testify order has diminished congress and the abuse of the senate

rules has diminished this house. we are now reduced to passing what the senate will allow us to pass. and we are -- and the senate's reduced to passing what the senate will not veto. this is about the constitution. we have three more days in which we can consider legislation that upholds the rule of law, that restores the balance of powers. we should take those three days. ladies and gentlemen this is a day that we will remember for the rest of our lives, that the country is looking to us right now to make a decision whether or not we will uphold our oath of office. i call upon every member of this house to be an oath keeper. i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from idaho, mr. labrador. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from idaho is recognized for two minutes. mr. labrador: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you gentleman from kentucky. this fight today is not about emgration. this fight today is about the -- immigration. this fight today is about the separation of powers.

any person who votes for this deal today is voting to cede some of our power to the executive. any person who votes for this deal today is voting to allow the president to make decisions like this on taxation, on e.p.a., on any other agency that this president decides he has the executive authority to take over the powers of the congress. today we all sat here and i think every republican stood up when netanyahu talked about leadership. when he talked about what it was important for a leader to do, he said we are being told the only alternative to this bad deal, speaking about the deal on iran is war. that is just not true. the alternative to this bad deal is just a better deal. every one ever our republicans stood up when he said that. but today we are being told by

our leadership that the only alternative to this bad deal is a government shutdown. that is not true. the alternative to this bad deal today is a better deal. it is to force the senate to actually go to conference so both the house and senate can speak the will of the american people. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from virginia, mr. brat. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. mr. wrath: -- mr. brat: thank you very much. i think everyone in this body knows what it means to run for office. we each represent 700,000 people. we each take that job very seriously. and so it's a sad day today -- everybody in this body has fought very hard to try to come to agreement. unfortunately members in the other body have not allowed us to do that. the fault lies in the u.s. senate. we have asked and we have trusted our leadership to come up with a strong fight, strong

messaging. whatever we can do to solve this constitutional problem for the last two months. and at the last minute of the day, the senate has delayed and delayed and delayed and so what is really going on is they are not standing up and representing their people at home. we in this body owe it to the american people to represent their views and the senate will not even allow a vote to bring up a debate. i imfloor everyone back at home, in my district and across the country ask your kids, your ninth graders, college kids everybody. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. brat: it's fairly simple. the congress and the senate -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. massie: 15 seconds to the gentleman from virginia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 15 seconds. mr. brat: i think the truth in ethics is easy to see. go to your ninth graders in high school civic class and ask them how these bodies are supposed to

operate and to investigate. i think when our kids go home and investigate and we investigate what's been going on in the last two months, they'll find the answer. that is -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. brat: the senate will not do its job. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from arizona, mr. schweikert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for one minute. mr. schweikert: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you to my friend from kentucky. all right, for my friends on the left you are going to support this unconstitutional expansion of power. when there is a republican president, are you going to sit there and continue to applaud saying yes, we did not support the separation of powers when we had the chance and look the other way? one of my heart breaks here is i believe there were creative things we could have done. we are completely dearth of the willingness to try. this is trying about defending the u.s. constitution that we

all raised our hands, and yet we are going to allow a vote to go forward to walk away from that fight? this should break everyone's heart in this body. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: mr. speaker, may i inquire how much time is remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky controls 3 1/ minutes. mr. massie: at this point i would like to yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from florida, mr. yoho. the speaker pro tempore: gentleman from florida is recognized for one minute. mr. yoho: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to look around this body, what are we asking to you do? we are asking to fund d.h.s. 14u7bd%. we are asking to put safeguards in there so that we don't move with an executive order that's been deemed illegal by a federal judge. that's all we are asking. and we need to have that language in this bill. i don't know anybody here that doesn't want to fund d.h.s. for us to vote for this without that funding -- without that language in there blocking what this president wants to do, and

if we vote for that. we are voting against our constitution. article 1, section 8 is very clear that we have the authority for naturalization. and i say we vote against funding without that safeguard. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield back. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: i yield one minute to the gentleman from georgia, mr. height. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. >> thank you mr. speaker. we are in this mess because of the unconstitutional, unilateral decisions from the president to ignore our constitution and the only thing standing in the way of that progressing is a stay from the courts and as thankful as i am for the courts, the reality is, we must stand up and defend our constitution. mr. heist: it is a constitutional issue, mr. speaker, and we have the responsibility to stand for that cause. this is not a time to watch this body be obstructed from multiple

attempts to make it dysfunctional. it is a constitutional issue. this is a time to stand upon the constitution and i urge this body to do so. with that i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: parliamentary inquiry what order is the closing when there are three speakers and only one opposed? the speaker pro tempore: the chair will recognize members in reverse order. mr. massie: at this point i'd like to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from reserves. the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. simpson: i reserve the balance of my time. we have no other speakers and prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from kentucky will be first to close. mr. massie: may i inquire as to how much time remains? the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from kentucky has 1 1/ minute. mr. massie: in closing, congress and in particular the house of representatives, has the power of the purse. our constitution gives this power to the legislative branch, not the executive branch. this means that the president cannot fund his illegal executive actions on immigration unless we, the house of representatives, let him. if today we agree to just give the president all the taxpayer funds he wants so that he can implement his illegal actions, why should the american people ever trust us again? they'll realize that all our bluster about border security is just that, bluster. they'll realize we don't actually care about the best interests of the american people. and that instead we are just care about going along to get along. even if that means going along with the unconstitutional and illegal actions of the executive branch. today we heard mr. netanyahu say this is the most powerful legislative branch in the world. organization in the world. i would say it is.

except for when the senate decides that it's not. we need to stand up, use the power of the purse exercise our constitutional duty to fund only legal and constitutional activities. i urge my colleagues to vote today in the best interest of the american people. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from new york is recognized. mrs. lowey: i support the motion to recede and concur and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back of the the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. simpson: thank you, mr. speaker. thanks for the spirited debate we have had. i agree with many of the comments made by my colleague from kentucky and the people that have spoken during his time. the problem is i don't see a path to victory with what they are looking at. what they want to do will result in not defunding the president's

actions, because there is no funding in this bill for the president's actions. there is no funding in this bill for the president's actions. everybody knows that, don't we? what it will lead to is a close down of the department of homeland security. and that is not a victory. that is dangerous. you know, there's a difference of opinion between republicans and democrats between the administration and congress, as to the actions that the president made. whether they were constitutional or not. i have actually voted for something in here that -- in this body several years ago that i thought was perfectly legal perfectly constitutional. the court later found out it was unconstitutional told us it was unconstitutional. that's why you have a court. when there are differences of opinion as to what's constitutional and what's not constitutional, a court makes that determination.

it's happened since the founders who wrote our constitution disagreed about what they had written. marbury vs. madison. it was up to the courts to make the determination of what the constitution said. as for voting for this, hurting our case, that is -- it's not our case it's the attorney general's case of the states, that is before the courts currently, if this voting to defund homeland security, that doesn't have any funding for the president's action, hurts our case then i would say that any law that passes congress can't be declared unconstitutional because we all voted for it. that's not reality. again, let the courts do their job. now, it's true that a majority

in this congress and in the senate voted to defund the president's actions. but because of the senate rules it didn't pass. we didn't even get to go to conference because of the senate rules. some people suggest, maybe we ought to change the senate rules. we ought to insist that the senate change their rules. for the for the last four, eight years, i was kind of glad the way the senate rules were. they prevented what i believe a lot of bad stuff from coming over from the senate. so i don't know that i would go that way because, remember, at some point in time in history -- i hope it's not soon -- but at some point in time in history my party is going to be in the minority over there. and it's going to be nice to be able to control some of the agenda. let's remember the underlying bill is a dang good bill --

almost said it -- not quite. is a darn good bill, and we need to pass it and we need to pass it for the security of the american people and for the employees that work at the department of homeland security so those are -- that are considered essential don't have to go to work without way. that's irresponsible. that's us not doing our job. i will fight with anyone and i will stand on their side as long as they can show me a path to potential victory let's get this bill passed. it's a good bill and i would encourage >> the senate armed services committee on the 2016 defense department budget and then hillary clinton is honored by the emily list organization. later, benjamin netanyahu speaks before congress and that is

followed by reaction to the prime minister's remarks from house democrats. the supreme court is set to hear the oral arguments on a case challenging the federal subsidies through the affordable care act. on the next washington journal, jess bravin is here to talk about the case and the potential outcome. then more about the affordable care act and subsidies with mary agnes carey. washington journal is why every morning at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span and you can join the conversation with your phone calls and comments on facebook and twitter. >> president obama's chief economic advisor testifies her for the -- testifies before the joint economic committee on wednesday. you can see it live starting at 2:30 p.m. eastern on c-span3.

we have received more than 2200 entries from 400 schools across the country in this year's c-span student cam video competition. wednesday morning, we will announce the grand prize winner and show the winning documentary. following the announcement, you can see all of winning documentaries at student cam.org. >> new defense secretary ashton carter and general martin dempsey testified before the senate armed services committee tuesday. it examined the budget request for 2016, the impact of sequestration budget cuts and challenges abroad from russia, ukraine and isis. this is two hours and 35 minutes. >> i want to apologize for keeping you waiting, secretary carter and general dempsey. we had a vote and members will be arriving. the committee meets today to

receive testimony on the department of defense's fiscal year 2016 budget request, the associated future defense programs and the picture of u.s. -- the posture of u.s. armed forces. let me start by thanking each of you for your service to our nation and the soldiers, sailors, marines at home and around the globe and to their families. for the past six weeks, this committee has undertaken a serious and rigorous review of the present global challenges we face, as well as a review of united states national security strategy. we have received testimony from some of america's most experienced statesmen and leading strategic thinkers. an alarming assessment has emerged from these national leaders. as former secretary of state dr. kissinger testified on january 29, the united states has not faced a more diverse and complex array of crises since the end of the second world war.

given the dangers we face, it is notable that the president supported the department of defense and requesting a level of defense spending that is roughly $38 billion above the caps imposed by the budget control act in sequestration which mandates nearly $1 trillion in defense cuts over 10 years. in light of recent events, i think this approach was more than justified. with each passing year since it was enacted in 2011, and with the united states slashing its defense spending as a result the world has become more dangerous. i don't think that is purely a coincidence. the president's budget request response to many critical priorities particularly addressing cyber and space vulnerabilities, military readiness shortfalls and essential long-term modernization initiatives. at the same time, the president's request reflects budget driven policy decisions that would reduce some critical military capabilities either

through the early retirement or cancellation of existing systems, deferred development or procurement of new systems or withheld funding for proven requirements. this committee will closely scrutinize these decisions and seek to meet needs where possible. as for meeting our national security requirements, general dempsey's prepared testimony this afternoon states the president's request is "at the lower ragged edge of manageable risk" and leaves "no slack, no margin left for error for strategic surprise." i would go further. i would question whether the defense department's current strategy which was released in january 2012 has not been overtaken by world events which would suggest the need for new strategic guidance and even more defense spending than the president's request. just consider the events of the past year alone.

russia has challenged core principles of the postwar order in europe by invading and annexing the territory of another sovereign nation. a terrorist army that has proclaimed its desire to attack america and its allies and controls territory in the heart of the middle east. iran continues its pursuit for nuclear weapons while expanding its influence across the region. north korea mounted the most brazen cyber attack on our territory. china has stepped up its coercive behavior in asia, backed by its rapid military modernization. the findings of last year's national defense panel cast serious doubt on whether our military can fulfill even the more current strategy acceptable risk. this bipartisan group of military commanders and policymakers stated that the defense spending cuts imposed in sequestration "constitute a serious strategic misstep."

more ominously, the panel concluded that "the united states could find itself in the position where it must either abandon an important national interest or enter a conflict for which it is not fully prepared." based on its findings, the national defense panel recommended unanimously that congress and the president immediately repeal and return at a minimum to the last strategy driven budget proposed by robert gates in 2011. that would mean $611 billion for the discretionary-based budget for the defense department in fiscal year 2016. here too i would note the world has changed significantly since 2011. this recommendation is more likely a floor, not a ceiling of what we should be considering for our own defense. while senator reed and i support the defense panel's recommendations, we recognize

that $611 billion for defense is neither realistic in the current political environment nor it is likely the department could responsibly execute this funding in fiscal year 2016. that is why senator reed and i came together and reviewed an estimate letter that we sent last week to the budget committee to propose an objective that i hope could be a new basis for bipartisan unity. ending sequestration for defense by allocating $577 billion in discretionary-based budget authority for fiscal year 2016. i recognize that there are differences of opinion over broader fiscal questions especially how to approach nondefense discretionary spending, but continuing to live with the unacceptable affect of sequestration is a choice. sequestration is the law, but congress makes the laws.

we can choose to end the debilitating effects of sequestration and we must because it is impossible to meet our constitutional responsibility to provide for national defense. we look forward to the witnesses' testimony today and hope they can cover a broad spectrum of the policy and resource issues the department confronts. i would also ask our witnesses to share their views on the current situations in ukraine, syria and iraq. i want to thank senator reed for his continued bipartisan cooperation which has characterized our relationship for many years, especially on this joint letter to the budget committee. i thank you, senator reed. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me start by welcoming secretary carter, general dempsey and mr. mccord. i appreciate your willingness to be here to talk about the president budget request.

it is $38 billion above the funding caps. also, as the chairman noted, these caps coupled with the imminent threat of sequestration level cuts and the lack of the budgetability necessary for military planning create an urgent and growing strategic problem that we simply must address. in my view, it creates a problem for every federal agency and department. i think sequestration across the board must be ended. on january 28, this committee heard testimony from each of the service chiefs. all of the services are working hard to maintain near-term readiness to meet the fights tonight requirement but also by assuming increased risks in terms of maintenance modernization and infrastructure sustainment. as air force chief of staff general welsh stated, when the bill calls, we will win. sequestration will encourage our

adversaries, worry our allies, limit the operations we can conduct and increase risk for the men and women who fight america's next war. the services are the backbone of our nation's defense and they are under great strain. i'm interested in the witnesses testimony on how the department of defense will continue to manage this problem while a solution is not yet on the horizon. if we do not get a $38 billion the president's request -- senator mccain urge even more. what must be cut? if it cannot be avoided, what else can be cut and what is your timetable? as i stated earlier, the services are focused on near-term readiness and they need to be because they are actively engaged around the world fighting significant challenges to u.s. security interest. in afghanistan, general campbell believes he has the resources and authorities he needs for the

2015 fighting season, but the taliban remains resilient. operations against isis in iraq and syria continues at a pace that seems to be rolling back the territory and the time and space needed. this critical campaign must be unabated if it is going to be successful against a very dangerous enemy. the fight will be harder each and every day, especially as iraqi forces try to enter urban centers like mosul. in europe, the post-cold war international order is under threat from a russia that seeks to dominate ukraine, including by conducting aggressive military actions within and outside its borders. turmoil in yemen and libya provides a safe haven for terrorists and must be watched. china continues to make its neighbors uneasy. all of these threats require

adequate funding and i am interested in your views on how you are prioritizing this funding. in addition to ongoing operations, there are threats of that require immediate investments. the cyber attack on sony by north korea illustrates even a relatively small and weak nation can cause extensive damage to u.s.-based economic charters. the u.s. must work to counter this threat. i also understand efforts are underway to protect our space assets. one that will require substantial funding. in focusing on emerging threats, we cannot disregard the significant funding necessary for the maintenance and modernization of our nuclear enterprise, including the ohio replacement. i'm interested in hearing how the department will balance legacy programs. clearly, the department has many bills to pay and they cannot do it without the help of congress.

military personnel cost consumers a third of the budget. the department has given several proposals to slow the growth. this committee must carefully consider these proposals as well as the recommendations of the military compensation and retirement modernization commission in order to provide the defense department with flexibility in these areas. i understand the department is requesting an additional base realignment and closure in 2017. while brack has been controversial, i do believe we need to consider efforts to allow the defense department to shed what may be as much as 25% in excess infrastructure. it does not necessarily need and use these resources to invest in high priorities. i would appreciate your views. while the focus today is on the defense budget, the pentagon simply cannot meet all these national security challenges without the help of our other departments and agencies including state, justice homeland, the intelligence

community. i would ask as you speak to comment on the interagency necessities that are facing the department. let me commend all the witnesses working hard. let me commend the chairman. i look forward to your testimony. >> secretary carter. >> thank you, mr. chairman, ranking member reed and all the members of the committee. thank you for inviting me to be here today with you and thank you for confirming me as secretary of defense. i'm honored by the trust and confidence of president obama in appointing me and the senate for confirming me. my care and respect for the men and women of the finest fighting force the world has ever known is as boundless as their skill and devotion. i know this committee shares the

same devotion to them and shares responsibly for them and for the defense of our great country. i hope my tenure as secretary of defense will be marked by partnership with you on their behalf. i'm here to present the president's budget for the department of defense for fiscal year 2016. since i have been on the job for exactly two weeks, it is plain i did not have a role in shaping budget, but i studied it carefully. i'm fully prepared to answer your questions about it and to work with you to find common ground where you have concerns. most importantly, i strongly support the president in requesting a defense budget above the artificial caps of the budget control act, above the so-called sequester levels. next year and in the years thereafter, i share the president's desire to find a way forward that upholds the fundamental principles behind the bipartisan budget act of

2013. i support the president's commitment to veto any bill that locks in sequestration. because to do otherwise would be both unsafe and wasteful. before i turn to the budget to explain what i mean by that, allow me to share some observations from my short time on the job, observations that help reinforce my testimony. shortly after i was sworn in i spoke to the people at the department of defense, military, civilian and contractor. i told them i had three commitments as secretary of defense. the first is to them and their families, to their safety, their welfare and their effectiveness and equally to those who came before them and after them. the second commitment is to assist the president as he makes difficult decisions about how to

defend the country and then to carry out those decisions where they involve the use of military force. the third commitment is to the future. to make sure our military remains the very best in an ever-changing world, amidst fast-moving technological and commercial change. as we seek to attract new generations to the mission of national security, because of those commitments, i traveled at the end of my first week on the job to afghanistan to visit our troops and commanders. also, the leaders of afghanistan and some of their military leaders. i wanted to assess the conditions on the ground as we enter a new phase of our long campaign. as we carry out the transition to an enduring presence that will ensure, as the president says, our progress in afghanistan sticks. next, i traveled to kuwait where i met with the amir before convening diplomats and military

leaders from throughout the region. ambassadors from several countries, our commanders. and the commanders of the campaign in iraq and syria against isil. i wanted to hear directly from them about the complex political and military situation in the region and about the best approaches for leveraging u.s. leadership of the broad coalition combating this ugly scourge. this afternoon, i would be pleased to discuss the challenges or any others. the chairman mentioned ukraine in addition to the budget. the point is that in these regions of the world, just as in the asia-pacific and europe and elsewhere, it is america's leadership and america's men and women in uniform who frequently stand between order and disorder. who stand up to malicious and destabilizing actors while standing with those who believe

with us in a more secure, just and prosperous future for all of our children. this congress will determine whether our troops can continue to do so. the administration is proposing to increase the defense budget in line with a projection submitted to congress last year. by halting the decline in defense spending, the president's budget would give us the resources we need to execute our nation's defense strategy. but, and i want to be clear about this, under sequestration which is set to return in 212 days, our nation would be less secure. mr. chairman, as you yourself have reminded congress sequestration threatens our military's readiness, the size of our war fighting forces, the capabilities of our air and naval fleets and ultimately the lives of our men and women in uniform. the joint chiefs have said the

same before this committee and they could not have been more clear in their assessment of the damage sequestration would do to our national security. i want to commend you and thank you, mr. chairman, ranking member reed, for your very thoughtful letter to the leadership of the senate budget committee about the dangers of sequestration. i completely agree with you that the threat of sequestration is "a national security crisis of the first order," as you said. the great tragedy is that this corrosive damage to our national security is not the result of objective factors, logic or reason. it is not that we have some new breakthrough in military technology or some novel strategic insight that somehow provides the same security for a smaller budget. it is not that sequester is forced upon us by economic

emergency or dire recession that makes taking grave security risks necessary. it is surely not the case the world has become more stable. or that america has less to do to keep it safe, allowing us to take a peace dividend. it is not that these cuts solve the nation's overall fiscal challenges because the sad math is they are large and sudden enough to damage defense, but fail to resolve our long-term fiscal issues and the real drivers of the deficit and debt. sequester is not the result of objective factors. sequester is purely the fallout of political gridlock. its purpose was to compel prudent compromise on our long-term fiscal challenges,

compromise that never came. this has been compounded in recent years because the defense department has suffered a double whammy, the worst of both worlds which has coupled my list sequestration with constraints on our ability to reform. we need your help with both. i know that chairman mccain, senator reed and others on this committee are committed to reform as i am. we at the pentagon can and must do better at getting value for the defense dollar. taxpayers have trouble comprehending, let alone supporting the defense budget, when they hear about cost overruns, insufficient accounting and accountability needless overhead and the like. there are significant savings to be found through new reforms across dod. reforms we are committed to pursuing, but sequester cuts do not help us achieve any of them. in fact, the nature of sequester frequently leads to waste. as, for example, when it forces a reduction in contract

production rates driving up costs. at the same time that i'm committed to new and further reforms, i must note that in the past several years, painful but necessary reforms proposed by dod, reforms involving elimination of overhead and unneeded infrastructure, retirement of older infrastructure and reasonable adjustments in compensation have been denied by congress. i need your help with these reforms which have been frustrated at the same time sequester at the same time as we make a new reforms. i will work with congress to resolve concerns and find common ground, but we must have your help. if confronted with sequester level budgets and continued obstacles to reform, i do not believe that we can simply keep making incremental cuts while

maintaining the same general set of objectives that have anchored our defense strategy. we would have to change the shape and not just the size of our military. significantly impacting parts of our defense strategy. we cannot meet sequester with further half measures. as secretary of defense, i will not send our troops into a fight with outdated equipment or ineffective doctrine but everything else is on the table, including parts of our budget that have long been considered inviolet. this may lead to decisions that no americans, including members of congress, want us to make. i'm not afraid to ask the difficult questions but if we are stuck with sequestration budget cuts over the long term our entire nation will have to live with the answers. instead of sequestration, i urge

you to urge your colleagues to embrace the alternative. building the force of the future powerful enough to underwrite our strategy, equipped with new technology, leading in domains like cyber and space. attracting and retaining the best americans to our mission, being lean and efficient throughout our enterprise and showing resolve to friends and potential foes alike. i think we can all agree that the world in 2014 was more complicated than anyone could've predicted. the president's proposed increase in defense spending over last year's budget is responsible and it is prudent. i earnestly hope we can come together behind a long-term budget that provides stability.

i hope we can again unite behind what our great nation should and must do to protect our people and make a better world. i hope we can provide our magnificent men and women of the department of defense who make up the greatest fighting force of the world has ever known with what they need and what they fully deserve. thank you, mr. chairman, and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you and i hope every member of congress is able to hear that message that you have just conveyed. thank you. general dempsey. >> thank you, chairman, ranking member reed. i appreciate the opportunity to provide you an update on armed forces and discuss the defense budget. i asked my written statement be submitted for the record. i will touch on a few points. our military remain strong today. however, with threats proliferating, resources declining and sequestration

months away, our ability to ensure our allies is in question and the other branches -- the advantages over our adversaries are shrinking. this is a major strategic challenge affecting our military and americans leadership in the global world order. we face the reemergence of nationstates with the capability and potentially the intent to constrain us. in space and cyberspace, our adversaries are rapidly leveling a plainfield and we face an increasingly network of nonstate actors who can threaten our national security interests overseas and at home. our strategy against isil integrates my lines of effort -- only two of which are military. isil will require sustainable level of effort overextended period of time to create an environment in which they will be expelled and ultimately defeated. in europe, russia seeks to

decrease in nato and european union influenced in eastern europe and generate disagreement among our allies on the very future of europe. russian leaders have chosen a very dangerous path to achieve their strategic objectives, lighting a fire of ethnicity and nationalism not senior up instantly five years and it may burn out of -- not seen in over 65 years and it may burn out of control. we must counter russian aggression. altogether the global security environment is as uncertain as i have seen it in my 40 years of service. and, we are a point where our national aspirations are at risk of exceeding are available resources. that brings me to the budget. we have heard of the congress loud and clear as over years it is challenged us to become more efficient and to determine the minimum requirements we need to do the nation asks us to do.

in my judgment, this budget represents the responsible capability and capacity in readiness investment. it is what we need to remain at the bottom edge of manageable risk to our national defense as the chairman said. there is no slack, no margin left her error -- for error. funding lower than that in a lack of flex ability -- flexibility in making reforms could and will put us in a situation where our national defense strategy will simply no longer be viable. for the past 25 years, the united states military has secured the global commons. we have deterred adversaries reassured allies and responded to crises and to conflict by maintaining our presence abroad. it has been our strategy to shape the international security environment by our forward presence and building relationships among partners.

in general terms, one third of the force is forward deployed and when third has just returned in one third of is preparing to deploy. of necessity, certain capabilities actually operate with half of our forces deployed and the other half recovering. this puts a significant strain on our men and women in uniform and on their families. sequestration will fundamentally and significantly change the way we deployed the force and shave the security environment. we will be almost 20% smaller but our forward presence will be reduced by more than a third. we will have less influence and we will be less responsive. conflict will take longer to resolve it will be more costly both in terms of dollars and in casualties. in an age where we are less certain about what will happen next but quite certain that it will happen more quickly, we will be further away unless ready then we need to be.

simple he, sequestration will result in a dramatic change in how we protect and how we protect our nation and promote our national interests. mr. chairman, members of this committee, our men and women in uniform are performing around the globe with extraordinary courage, character and professionalism. we owed them and their families clarity and predictability on everything from policy to compensation, health care equipment, and readiness. settling down this uncertainty in our decision-making will make the right people our decisive edge and maintain the military that the american people deserve and expect. i'm grateful for the continued support to our men and women in uniform from this committee and this congress and a look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much. general dempsey, t in for the house armed services committee on february 25, general

testified "i think first and foremost, mr. putin has not accomplished his objectives in ukraine so next is probably more action in ukraine." in your professional military opinion, and you think the general is correct if putin continues operations in ukraine and places like -- because he is not accomplished his objectives? >> in april 2014, president putin referred to a concept he called as noble witches new -- which is new russia which goes across eight oblast of ukraine. he said that is what his intention was to do. to this point, the action seemed to suggest the me they actually may be intent on accomplishing

it. >> does it give you the view that we should be providing defensive weaponry to ukraine? >> we have provided about $100 million in other kinds of aid. we have a program to provide training. >> do you believe we should do provide defensive weaponry to ukraine? i know what you have done. not enough. go ahead. >> i think we should absolutely consider providing aid and it should be in the context of our nato allies because putin's objective is the frenchto fracture nato. >> the shia militia with the iranian guard leader, an heir is attacking takrit, the

hometown of saddam hussein. the majority of that effort are being undertaken by thise shia militia, the same militia we fought against in the surge. the same militiathe same militia that according to estimates, manufactured the ied's that resulted in the death of some thousand or two young americans. are you concerned that iran has basically taken over the fight? according to "the washington journal" this morning we are observing the operation. does that concern you? >> it does. our approach to combating isil

in iraq is to work with the security forces and a multi-sectarian government that takes a multi-sectarian approach to defeating isis. sectarianism is what brought us to the point where we are. i do look at it with concern. we are watching it very closely. the shia militias involved, and the iraqi security forces involved some sunni forces involved. i would note they have sunni tribal leaders in tikrit. they have signaled their support for this offensive. if that is true, that is good news, it would suggest it is not purely a shia on sunni thing

herein -- thing. >> of course, there is the well-documented human rights violations by shia militia on sunnis. as we all know. secretary carter has just returned from afghanistan. an excellent visit from all reports. my understanding is you will be reevaluating the calendar-driven plan for withdrawal from afghanistan. is that true? can you tell us what recommendations you have in mind. by the way, we have been hearing about these recommendations were a year or two now. to have any timeline as to when these decisions may be made because we will have to be withdrawing troops very soon.

can you update us on this? >> i certainly can, that was the second reason i went to afghanistan, primarily to see the people we have their and to let them know we are with them. i accepted the opportunity to see the conditions on the ground and i will share my observations. just to get to the answer to your question, i think the phrase i used when i came to you last was we have a plan and a plan is a plan. a plan is something you adjust over time. i think we can adjust our plan over the next year or two. i did discuss that with the president and i discussed that here in washington.

i don't know -- the decision the president make in that regard or the timetable in which he will make them but i certainly have had the opportunity to acquaint myself with them and one other thing i would like to say is, president donnie gave me a very articulate depiction of conditions and how they change and what the good things have been and what the bad things have been. i just want to tell everybody that the first thing he said to me when he saw me was, would you please go home and tell everyone there especially the troops that i know that almost one million americans have come through here in the last decade to help my country and thousands of them have been killed and wounded and i want you to know thank you.

senator mccain: so it is your opinion that the present plan needs to be revised? secretary carter: i think there will be respects where the president will want to consider conditions. senator mccain: i understand the examples, do you want this tick with the calendar plan or do you want to be revised. secretary carter: i think we have to review the conditions firmly. senator mccain: do you want to add anything you go -- anything? >> no, thank you. >> thank you jen woman for your service, so you have been through afghanistan and iraq and the region and been in communication with foreign leaders. are they aware of the impending

did terry train wreck in the united states and does this create that anxiety and conclusion that we won't have the resources even if we have the resolve? secretary carter: in general, i was polite enough not to raise those questions but in general when i have had those conversations with foreign leaders -- i think it is stressing to me because -- distressing to me because they hear everything we say and they see everything we do and they get a very clear picture of the dangers of sequester. they probably get an outsized picture of our lack of will but this is an good for our friends i can only imagine what our foes are thinking. there's inking, what are these guys doing to themselves. this is why it is not only a

substantive matter but a matter of appearances and deterrence that we get our act together with respect is a western. -- with respect to sequester. >> this goes to the perception of the world of the united states in both capable and resourced to have a strategy to some or their allies. secretary carter: that is exactly right. >> the other side of this coin is we are not in a situation where our allies are stepping up to fill in the gaps. >> amen to that here in you mentioned the europeans, our nato partners made a pledge to take steps that would for most

of them involve increasing defense spending and they need to take that step as we cannot be the only one on our team with military potential in that theater which as you and the chairman have mentioned with respect to the ukraine is a very dangerous one. >> i don't want to eat a dead horse but your enthusiasm to raise the budget was affected by our lack of will to raise hours. carter: that well could be. >> general dempsey, you mentioned there are nine lines of operations. so seven of the lines are funded outside the dod budget? general dempsey: generally the

answer to that is yes. >> so even if we restored some significant funding you would still be without the resources you need to defeat and a grade -- and degrade isil. homeland security and the situation with ebola recently. the treasury department thomas etc.. there is not a nice neat separation between the department of dod and the rest of the department. senator graham: not on this issue, no sir. senator reed: how does this affect our overseas accounts. is there a bill you see the does it affect your ability?

secretary carter: if we are denied what we're asking or in the base budget we have an open budget as you say. there is some slack, that is money being spent for real thing. it is money being spent for i sold and afghanistan and on the horn of africa so oko is committed to the here and now. you cannot rob peter to pay paul. senator reed: another way to approach the problem, how better to manage the strategic risks if we have sick we strip -- sequestration in place.

i have submitted the chairman's risk assessment. what we have been doing is increasing risk over the past three or four years. what i would tell you now is if we don't get funded at the 16 level or get the reforms inside of the budget because it is $4.4 billion this year but a cruise to $40 billion. if we don't get that strategy will have to change. if you ask me how i managed the current strategy it is unmanageable. senator reed: thank you. >> secretary carter you heard the answered you agree with it? senator carter: i do. >> i miss the opening statement that i think it is worthwhile getting on the record again.

looking at the clapper statement over the last half-century of intelligence, i have not experienced a time when we were beset by more crisis. he repeated that and just last week had general stuart saying essentially the same thing and i assume that you agree with those statements. senator carter: i do and we started in this business there was one problem and that was the soviet union. i remember enough not to be too histology at the world is so much more obligated. senator inhofe: hearing prime minister netanyahu's morning and that drove it home. how it was just two superpowers and they knew what we had and they knew what we had and they were predictable and we were predictable. mutually assured destruction

meant something but doesn't anymore. the other thing to mention is you of heard what general welsh and general stamford all testified and they talked about if sequestration is commuted. you said something more significant but you said even with the fiscal year 16 budget the army, navy and marine corps will not reach their readiness goals until 2020 and the air force until 2023. is that accurate? so what you're saying is even with the budget without sequestration that threat is there. senator carter: what is going on there is digging ourselves out of the whole of sequester in the past. particularly the 2013 budget and the year in which the shutdown occurred. the thing about readiness is it

is easy to have it fall off than it takes time to build it back. and what you're saying accurately as we lost a lot of readiness through the turmoil of the last few years, even if we are given the opportunity to start building back, it is in the nature of training that it takes a while to get the readiness back. senator inhofe: secretary carter, you were over there and this is the first time you have come before this committee in this capacity. when you are over there and you apparently had some good quality time with the president, it was observed by general dempsey that we do not operate in a vacuum. we are saying that the whole world knows. anything you want to add to your relationship with president donnie that would -- president

ghani that would be beneficial to have the whole world know? secretary carter: yes, one thing is that he is a partner in a way that we have been looking for and without whom the sacrifice that we made over these last 10 years cannot be successful. he understands what we have tried to do for him he know it has been a great and if it to his country and not just to protect our country, which it has, and is why we went there in the first place, to protect herself from the breeding ground of 9/11 attacks. i think everybody who dissipated ought to know that around the world in our coalition, we have

somebody who really gets a sacrifice that we all made on behalf of afghanistan and is committed to making the progress we have made their stick. senator inhofe: i appreciate that very senator reed talked about our limited resources and i wasn't sure you understood. there are people out there, in the ukraine, could be georgia or anyplace, do they recognize that we do not have the resources we have historically had or are not able to do what we have historically done? secretary carter: they hear us saying that and they hear us debating that. this is something i try to say and i'm sure that you all try to say, yes we are having internal debates and so forth and we do not like what is going on here, but don't underestimate the will

and power of the united states. i hope people understand that as well. we still have the greatest fighting force the world has ever seen. senator inhofe: i understand we are aiming toward people looking at us and yes we do, but even here at home when you admit that with the current budget without sequestration our risk level will increase. secretary carter: the risk is measured in the readiness that needs to be restored. senator inhofe: general dempsey should congress pass a uamf without restrictions? general dempsey: i am the military guy and i think the measure congress pass will allow us to meet what was decided.

i think it becomes a decision between you and your colleagues. secretary carter: exactly the same answer. >> thank you gentlemen for your service and testimony. senator hirono: there are challenges in terms of available resources. i know from our january meeting that stability in the asia-pacific region is critical to our national security even as there is instability in so many parts of the world. you mentioned today once again that one of the priorities is to continue our commitment to the rebalance of the asia-pacific. i do want to highlight one related issue that i would like

to continue to discuss with you and that is, there are plans in place to shift a number of military personnel to include naval vessels aircraft, air force tankers, back to the continental u.s. by 2020. i am concerned about how moving these scientists's significant capabilities away will look to our allies and our adversaries. i would like to continue this discussion with you as we go forward. this is a question relating to energy security. in april 2014, there was a dod directive to all of our service entities.

so, this was a new energy directive to enhance capabilities well improving energy securities and mitigating cost because we all knowledge to dod's largest user of energy in our country. can you tell us where the dod stands with regard to implementing this directive which goes to 2024 and how is it supported in the president's budget? secretary carter: thank you senator. on the first point i agree with you entirely. the asia-pacific rebalance is a critical part of our strategy going forward. we cannot forget as we are embroiled in the conflict with iso-which we must win, it is a big world out there. we have challenges throughout

the world and the agent -- asia-pacific is where half of the world's economy resides. with respect to energy, the energy landscape is trade -- changing a lot and the funds -- the dod is as you say the largest user of energy in the federal government by far. and therefore has a real stake in where we go with respect to energy. and a role to play in getting us there. and i signify two ways in which we do that. one is r&d in areas that are particularly important to defense where because of our particular needs we may be the a doctor of technology.

that is a long-standing role in this day and age in the internet as well. the other way we play a role is in the country's overall energy strategy. obviously secretary mooney is responsible but we try to make sure what we are doing is a line with them. and overall our energy situation has improved tremendously in the last couple years and our opportunities have widened. and that has been good for defense as we are a huge user of fuel. when we get oil prices come down we benefit. senator hirono: thank you for your continued commitment. general dempsey, there was a recent rand survey or that said

60% of women reported unwanted contact to military authorities indicated a experienced at least one form of retaliation. a significant portion of retaliation came from coworkers and not the command structure. this is a difficult situation and i would like to know what your thoughts are on this retaliation and how it can be curtailed within the service. general dempsey: there were 12 metrics we established to track progress through reading the professional force from this stain. 10 of them trended positively and two negatively. one of them was the retribution issue. thankfully a companion piece was the vast majority of respondents and by the way we had an unusual number of respondents express faith in the chain of command.

so the issue was here on here -- peer on peer retribution. the secretary convenes a meeting every two weeks -- we had one yesterday and that is the topic. we are looking to get after that but we actually are encouraged we been able to turn the trendline on 10 out of 12. senator hirono: there will be continuing interest on many members of this committee how you fare year-to-year. density boy as there should be. -- general dempsey: as there should be. we don't mind that one bit. >> i want to ask first about the big picture and then i would like to drill a little on afghanistan. last week clapper spoke to us

and said among other things, unpredictable is the new normal. i think it's is what you and hopper were talking about when you said it used to be the exact threats and now it is one big threat. general clapper also said this, he noticed that last year there were more deaths and state-sponsored killings and more people displaced from their homes and a higher rate of instability than we have seen in decades. that is director clapper. only a few days for secretary of state kerry told the house foreign affairs committee that we are actually living in a period of less daily threats to americans and less violent deaths today than in the last century.

secretary carter, are we living in a area of less daily threats to americans? secretary carter: i have not seen that or what the contents of that was, but i would say two things. to get back to what director clapper said about an uncertain world and one in which things new and friend threats are constantly emerging i agree with that completely and i just don't know what secretary kerry said in that particular instance or what the context for it was. we certainly have context around the world. it is a good thing that we have combated terrorism as vigorously

as we have since 2001. we made a lot of changes changes in intelligence and the artman of defense so we have upped -- in the department of defense, so we have upped our game considerably. opponents and terrorist continue to be pretty ingenious. senator wicker: in terms of the level of threat, it is hard square the two statements coming from two members of the same administration. either we are living in a time of entire stability or we are in a period of less threats to americans hearing -- americans. it causes me concerned that secretary kerry would feel this way while at the same time

trying to negotiate a nuclear deal with this terrorist nation. general dempsey, if the secretary of state is correct perhaps we don't even have to avoid sequestration if we are living in a period of less threats to americans and the people of the world than normally. perhaps we could stick with sequestration if that is the case, wouldn't you agree you go -- agree? general dempsey: i would say i'm a if one of the ways the military contributes to this argument is by being forward deployed so we can shape and influence the future -- you may have heard me say in the past, the last thing we want to do is play a home game. if you sequester us we will be playing a home game. senator wicker: you know where i stand on sequestration. general dempsey: i do.

senator wicker: i'm doing everything i can and i appreciate your testimony that threats are proliferating. it seems to me that is what is obvious. it does concern me when the secretary of state completely misses the point as demonstrated by the juxtaposition of director clapper's statement. now, secretary carter, on the first page of your testimony thank you for commending our troops. you say and afghanistan, our soldiers and marines are helping submit progress made toward a more stable, secure and prosperous future. i want to salute you are saying we made progress. it seems to me if there are people listening to the network news or the talking heads who would conclude that things have gone to hell in afghanistan.

as was pointed out in response to senator inhofe's question, president ghani and his leadership are in a partnership and appreciate our presence there. things are headed in the right direction. and the blood and sacrifice that has got us to where we are. you say they are working to ensure that afghanistan never again becomes a safe haven or attacks on our homeland or partners and allies. i think six years ago you might have been able to say that about iraq. i wonder what lessons we have learned from iraq and what assurances you can give that with the plan the administration has, with the president's plan to draw down the troops in afghanistan we won't lose the progress we have made that you talked about. we will