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 cement the progress

toward a more secure, stable and prosperous future in afghanistan and toss that all away as we have elsewhere. secretary carter: thank you and we do have the opportunity to cement it. as he said in iraq and afghanistan, they are very different situations in two ways. the first is that as president ghani clearly indicated to me but he has said this a buckley -- publicly, he wants us there. we have a willing partner. we have a bilateral -- bilateral security agreement that we did not have in iraq. the second thing is we have a partner in president ghani and you mentioned dr. of dula -- dr. abdudllah, they are working together and i saw both of them

together and i watched the relationship and they have agreed to work together in a multi-sectarian way which is exactly what did not happen in iraq. the devolution to sectarianism. that is what led to the opportunity that the cruel force of isil led to the situation we are now in. now we have an opportunity and i rocked to get cemented. >> there is a terrorist network that stretches from afghanistan to of jury a and we have to keep treasure on it -- pressure on it. afghanistan is and will remain an anchor point.

senator blumenthal. senator blumenthal: i want to she -- switch to an area were you have mistreated a lot of caring. to your command where men have -- who have served under you and afterward, when they become veterans. i think both of you have shown indeed -- mr. secretary in your prior life when you worked as undersecretary and the general dempsey, i was privileged to watch you perform at a recent event sponsored the woodruff foundation. i know how active you are in support of our troops and wounded warriors. i want to focus on the connections between the dod and

the v.a.. we're seen it from the perspective of the v.a. and i'm struck by the need for better information. the health electronics records has been a point of contention, but so has the drug formulary issue. there are a variety of issues with her needs to be better coordination. that is a washington word. coordination collaboration, but you know -- can you see ways that we can improve the flow of information and the help that veterans get particularly our veterans who suffer post-traumatic stress. both chairman mccain and i have aggressive the suicide

prevention bill that we cosponsored and recently passed, but that is just a down payment and i wonder what more we can do in that area. secretary carter: i can and thank you for that. we did discuss it and accordingly i have been there to try to see where things stand. i have a great partner in the secretary of veterans affairs and i talked to him. to the soldier sailor, airman and marine, they should not have to worry that the two cabinet departments are responsible. they should not have to care about that we should make it knit together. and the program formulary issues which have to do with pharmacies and what they call drugs -- so

yes, we do need to stay closely knitted and we will. i wanted to particularly note your work on pts, simply because that is one of these things that we have learned through the sad experience of the last decade or so, the theory of things that can also be treated. you have been the one champion, and i thank you for that, making sure that veterans who came along before there was this awareness and before there were these treatments are given the benefits of this awareness and the benefits of this treatment. i have looked into that as you and i talked and we can talk about it privately, but i understand exactly the need your pointing me to, and i think i see a way to address that for

our older veterans. senator blumenthal: i appreciate those comments and you are right that the diagnosis of ptws began in the 1980's that troops were suffering from it way before then. so part of the challenge is not only to care for them but as you mentioned there are treatments but in many ways pts is still a mystery. they have to be at the v.a. facility infra west haven connecticut under the aegis of yale-new haven. they are doing some great work, but with rubber support, and i hope -- proper support, and i hope it will come from the department of defense but so much more can be done with effective treatment. let me just include, by going to some of the germans --

procurement issues that i think are important. going back to your prior experience in the department of defense may not have been predicted, is in effect a vote of confidence, i don't want to speak too strongly but it looks as though that procurement program is proceeding well, mi correct -- am i correct? >> we have stability in that program compared to five years and that is one of the reasons a ramp up in production is a good thing. senator wicker: i am very pleased to see that both the virginia class and the ohio replacements are moving ahead on a very good pace. secretary carter: that is true

and necessary. senator ernst: i want to thank all of you and what you do for the country and secretary carter i want to thank you so quickly into your comfort they -- confirmation of following through and meeting to hear their perspective on support and including me in the meeting. i appreciate your commitment to review the air force's decision and i appreciate your willingness to do that. i wanted to follow-up on the issue of ukraine on a different topic and that is the issue of u.s. intelligence sharing. there were reports recently in the wall street journal that really troubled me about what we are doing to help the ukrainians

terms of defense and the information we can share to minimize their casualties. and in that article basically what it said is images are being significantly degraded to avoid poking russia and what it was doing in terms of ukrainian officials they said it really hampered the ability of their forces to counter separatists and they are actually approaching other countries like canada because of the u.s. intelligence gap. if we are not going to give them arms to defend themselves, because we have not done that yet and i see from general density and you as well that this is something you are very open to. at least we can share information because they're obviously dying by the thousands

and defending their own territory. can you help me understand this issue and can we share intelligence with them so they can defend themselves? secretary carter: i can help you in a limited way because that is not an issue that i or the chairman are involved in, it is an intelligence thing. it has to do with the sharing arrangement we have with ukraine. there are other considerations they take into account when making that determination. i think the larger point, there are things we can do to help the ukrainians help themselves. the main effort is a political and economic one, sanctions and so forth. on the military side there are ways we can help the ukrainians to help themselves and we are as you say, working through them but i cannot speak for the intelligence community on that.

general dempsey: it has nothing to do that we are worried about angering russia. i can assure you that the secretary and i are committed to find ways to help the ukraine defend its sovereign territory and reduce casualties. there is a disproportionate number of casualties on the ukraine side. both the europeans and us should be active in helping. kellie: -- ayotte: if you're fighting an enemy and were not getting intelligence in real-time, a 24 hour delay is like a lifetime in a wartime setting. so i guess the real-time intelligence for me -- there has to be a way to protect our sources and methods, but not 24

hours later in an intelligence context is a lifetime. i hope we can get real-time intelligence so they can defend themselves and they have suffered too many casualties and anything we can do -- we have some responsibility given that we were under the budapest memorandum, too and this is outright aggression of one nation upon another. i appreciate that. i want to ask about isil's activity beyond iraq and syria. we are hearing a lot about isis activity in libya. can you help me understand what we see isil doing, beyond the great challenges we face establishing caliphate's along iraq and syria and where else we

will see their presence and what we are going to do about it. secretary carter: i will say something and the chairman may want to add. we are seeing it throughout north africa, we are seeing it in the gulf area. i had a lengthy conversation to get back to the previous conversation we had on afghanistan about resident connie and us -- president ghani and us showing up in afghanistan. you can see the europe individuals who are joining up and i give you the perspective i learned by talking to our folks in the meeting i held inchoate last week when i learned about it which is, one, isis is attractive to younger members of movements -- of older movements where the leadership has gotten older and maybe they have gotten

stayed and the younger guys who have more steam or are more diluted, -- deluded are attracted to this more radical thing. the second thing is this is social media fueled terrorism group in a way that we have not seen yet. so people who are distant from any battlefields or distant from any radicalism are suddenly becoming enticed through social media. in terms of what we do about it -- this is why i wanted able to come from all over the region and indeed the case of special operations command, from all over the world, we need to be prepared in terms of protecting our own people.

i think it is also the diplomatic and nondefense people that have this knowledge and responsibility but something we need to come that in the information domain as well. that will be challenging because if bin laden were the internet terrorist, these guys are the social media terrorists. i think that we will see people running up that flag or saying they are attracted to that movement all over the world. by the way, this is the last thing i will say, that is why it is important to inflict defeat on isil. we have to take the steam out of these guys. they are not invincible and we have to make that clear. general dempsey: the only thing i have senator tom a in addition -- senator, in addition to what

the secretary said, it is radical and in a position where government has collapsed broadly and they are struggling in social media. we really are taking and continuing to refine a trans regional sustainable approach to this. it stretches from afghanistan all the way over to iraq. senator mccain: senator manchin and following senator manchin at the request secretary carter he would like to take a 15 minute rake in the committee will stand in recess for 15 minutes following senator manchin's western. senator manchin: thank you and

there is not a person in my state does not work all that you do. -- does not support all that you do. but they still ask questions like why do you spend so much on military and why do you spend as much as the next eight countries put together. i know procurement -- we are not the best in procurement and we are not the best in developing weapons. i think we are all in tune with all of this. i know how sequestering is. you talk about flexibility looks ability by itself will not do that. secretary carter, you and i had a nice conversation and i think secretary hagel talking about budgets and reducing them by 20%, but it all comes down to --

knowing where we are. i talked about contracts and the effectiveness of our national guard and i even asked a question tell me about the reserve and the guard, why do we have duplication? there is so much going on, are we allowing you to do everything you need to do to run a cost-effective military for our country? people in west virginia are willing to spend taxes and invest taxes into this country but they want to make sure they are getting a pretty good hang for their buck. -- bang for their buck. so how do we help you? we need to have an audit. we've been talking about that. making sure we are able to get that to market to do what we are supposed to do and get it there as quick as possible. secretary if you wanted to start with that in general. secretary carter: i think your

constituents are very logical. there saying i am willing to pay for defense but i want to make sure every dollar is spent well. we need to pair our requests with the funds we need to defend our country with the assurance we are using it well. and we know we are not always using every dollar of the defense budget well and that is why i think senator mccain, chairman reed and this entire committee has been urging a movement toward reform. one that i very much support and would like to partner with you on because i think the taxpayer -- find it easier to support what we are trying to do to defend ourselves if they also see us vigorously getting the best value for every tax dollar.

you mentioned audit. an audit is key. we have a plan for audit readiness for the department. you and i have discussed that. the secretary is in charge of that effort but i am committed to its success. general dempsey: every time we hear about reduction of force is always on the front line and the people who were on the front line fighting. when you look at the size of the staff it is just overwhelming that the size of the staff keeps growing and we always talk about the reduction of forces we need out front, what can we do to help you get control of that? to reduce that stat proportionally.

secretary carter: you're absolutely right and i hope you will support and continue to support us. to shed excess infrastructure and shed excess staff. this is the kind of thing we have to do if we are going forward with resources that are going to be under pressure. we have to make sure every dollar counts. before i ask the chairman to comment, let me say that i appreciate your consideration. this is about healing up my back however i am doing fine. since everybody is here, i am ok going on and i appreciate your consideration. senator mccain: i was trying to prevent you from being interrogated by trust senator fisher, she is next. [laughter] secretary carter: i just got

another pad. general dempsey: when i became the chief staff of the army we were tasked to find $4.7 billion in the budget and we did. when i became the chairman we were asked to achieve that at a level of an additional $520 billion. we have actually found $750 billion of it. i think we have done pretty darn well. in terms of what you can tell people in west virginia, they are going to see those mountaineers playing basketball and they don't have to worry about getting blown up while watching a basketball game. we are doing ok at the away game. i would venture to tell you all that this group at jcs, the chiefs, have proposed some of the most controversial changes in health care, weapon systems

than any group in my memory in 40 years. if we get some help with that and we get some topline for things that were unforecasted, we can actually manage it and let -- look the american people in the eye and tell them we are spending your money wisely. fisher: i do appreciate your service and secretary harder i appreciate your fortitude to stay see can have my westerns. as a lot of my colleagues have drilled down on some issues and i have about three different areas i would like to touch on if i may. as we look at the situation in the ukraine and we see the separatist forces are having success on the battlefield, do you believe that may incentivize

putin to become more ambitious in ukraine? so that he may be would look at more ambitious goals? secretary carter: i am concerned about that and i think he made his goals pretty clear he speaks about them openly which is to have all around him states that are in his orbit rather than pursuing their own futures. and ukraine is an example of that. i think that if we don't remain united on the political and economic pressure which is

having a real effect in russia and if we don't remain united in our standing up for nato in europe and we don't remain united in sticking up for the utility -- ability for the ukrainian government to plot an independent half for itself, putin will just keep pushing. my read is that is the kind of guy he is. senator fischer: i would say right now that we are united and that i have fears for the future and how we move forward in this area and you mentioned nato and our commitment there and the commitment that we have. what affect is it on the world when they see we are not helping a country, the ukraine

with more lethal force, to defend themselves when we signed an agreement that we would. what message does that send to our nato allies and to the institution of nato itself? secretary carter: as it happens i was in budapest in 1994 when that agreement was signed, the very one that vladimir putin's russia is violating. i know it well. i know it was not a nato type of agreement but in it, russia alleged to respect the territorial integrity of ukraine which clearly he has not done. insofar as nato is concerned, as you say the point of our so-called reinsurance initiative basically means rotating more

forces into europe and taking steps to strengthen our presence and from europe, that is a way of saying, which we have to do to nato, that we are with you in a very serious kind of obligation that we have under the nato treaty. we have an obligation to the ukraine also and i think assisting them politically and economically and we have talked before about the military being something under consideration that is very important. senator fischer: as we looked at russia, they are not honoring the assurances that they gave to the ukraine. as you mentioned that was an agreement. they have been in violation of the inf treaty, which they don't admit to, but as has been

discussed they have been in violation of that treaty. how long does the united states weightait before we start exploring options, not just with regard to the ukraine, but with regard to russia's blatant violations of a treaty agreement with our country? secretary carter: we have not waited and should not wait to explore alternatives. the inf treaty is a two cited treaty. -- two-sided treaty. they said they wouldn't you something and we said we wouldn't do something. and they have done what they said they wouldn't do and that means we can react. in various ways. if they don't yet back into compliance, we can take steps

that are defensive in terms of defending ourselves deterrent steps. that are aimed at countering the and i think they need to understand that the united states can react to this kind of thing. it is a two-way street. it is not something we asked them to do and they gave it to us for free. it is something -- it is a two-way street and we have begun to think about things. we signed the treaty because we thought it was best for both of us not to do that. that was the logic behind the treaty. you cannot be one-sided about it. >> i totally agree. i appreciate you looking for options.

i hope you can be more public about that and also very firm publicly and that the united states will react to treaty violations especially when they are violations on treaties with our country. thank you. >> senator donnelly. >> thank you for your service. general dempsey, secretary carter are you looking into how our plan for mosul got out and what is going on with that? >> i have spoken to general austin. the chairman has as well. clearly, that was an instance of speculation that -- it certainly does not reflect what we need to be thinking with respect to

an offensive against mosul which is willwe will conduct an offensive when the iraqi security forces can lead such an offensive help to buy us -- help ed by us. it will happen when it could succeed. >> how do we make sure this does not happen again and what is being done to prevent that? >> as the secretary mentioned general austin and i have been in contact and he is conducting an internal inquiry. i know he will take the appropriate action. >> thank you. let me ask you this -- these are obviously not classified sources, these are in newspapers. they said this morning and the effort that is going on that we are really kind of peripheral

players and that general suallamani from iran is on the front lines with the shiite militia. what is going on? >> it gets back to the point made earlier -- >> i apologize. >> your question is right on. we operate in iraq in support of the iraqi government. the iraqi government in this case did not ask for our support in this particular operation. and, i think that we need to be watchful as we take, together with the iraqi government, take back territory from isil. that we continue to conduct of

this campaign in a multi-sectarian way because we have been down the road of sectarianism is iraq. it is important that the government of iraq does not go down that road again. we need to have a way that does not inflame sectarianism. >> if i get added, the report -- i have seen the pictures myself. the committee will go to work to decide whether he was personally there or not. it is worth reminding ourselves iran and its proxies have been inside of airaq since 2004. this is the most overt conduct of iranian support. frankly, it will only be a problem if it results in sectarianism, as the secretary

said. it is about the size of the force going to tekrit, a third of it is iraqi security divisions. the other two thirds are shia from the mobilization committee. if they perform in a credible way enter the city back into its inhabitants, it would have been a positive thing in terms of the counter-isil campaign. at this point, it is supported by the sunni members of parliament but that is dependent on the behavior of the militia. we are watching. >> my concern is the sunni tribal leaders look up and go these are the same people who have been working us over for years. at onewhat point do they say

what is the good option? >> that is exactly the concern. they did, as we understand it, make a statement today the tribal leaders, that they supported the offensive. i hope that is true because what is very important is that we all be behind defeating isil and that sectarianism not raise its ugly head again because that is what brought us to this place in the first place. >> let me ask one last question because i have about one minute. it has been mentioned in syria that we plan to reduce isis, get rid of them. how do you bring assad to the table? >> in syria, that is a very good question. i offer the following -- he n eeds to come to the table in order to discuss his own

receding from the scene in syria. for that to occur, he needs to see the right combination of the doom of the strategy that he has set his country's course on and also, i believe, pressure from russia and iran. both of whom are supporting him and the need to withdraw their support event because of what he has done to his country. when he sees that combination it seems to me that may cause them to recede. no doubt on our point of view which is he has done things to his people by this time that put them outside the pail.

he has to go. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman and secretary carter, good to see you again. congratulations. general dempsey, thank you for your service. i want to go back to a theme that we have discussed during your confirmation hearing and that is this broader theme of leveling with the american people on our threats. i would call it a pretty general bipartisan concern that there is a disconnect sometimes between what we are hearing from the uniformed military and what we are hearing from intelligence services and agencies and importantly, what we are hearing from the leadership of this country. the president senator wicker was talking about secretary of state. there is growing agreement here about the importance of defense spending and how we certainly think -- most americans think we

face a lot of threats in the world and defense spending is a function of these threats. when we hear the disconnect between different members of the administration on what the threat levels are and how the president in many ways takes a very benign picture of what is going on in the world and how we are making progress in a lot of areas -- it undermines what ability -- credibility and what we are trying to do in bolster our national offense -- df efense. i will not go into the specific rose from secretary kerry, the president's state of the union all of which seems like americans hate. everything is looking great. things are not looking great. i think you and members of the military recognize that. what would you see right now as the top three biggest threats to the united states, both of you secretary carter and general dempsey?

>> before i get to the top three, to your first point, i think that the president is requesting in this budget more than and end to sequester and more money than would be called for by sequester. >> i recognize that but it is harder to get it to the congress if the president in his next breath or the secretary of state in his next breath says do not worry, everything is fine in the international world. the threat levels are decreasing. the moment of crisis has passed. we are making progress with isis. i don't think any of those statements are accurate. >> the only thing i would say is that i think the reason why we need the resources that we are requesting both in the base budget and the oco budget, is

because we have been asked to respond to and defend the country against a great variety of threats. i will do a stab at three of them but it is hard to rank things because they are all important. otherwise, we would not be doing them. but, just to pick the things that we are requesting additional funds for this year which are new things, i think you have to account isil as one. in addition to the base budget for combating isil, i think the same is true of the european reassurance initiative which is connected with behavior of russia in europe and are other obligations in europe. we are requesting extra money for that in the oco budget. we are also requesting funds for afghanistan to make sure our success there can stick. those are 3 -- they are very

important things and they are other reasons why we are requesting the amount of money that we think the country needs which is above the sequester level. >> general dempsey, do you generally agree with those top three? >> i might package them differently. i'm concerned about european security because -- it is not just about russia, it is what russia has done -- start a fire of ethnicity. it may burn out of their control. european security is concerning me. the network runs from afghanistan to pakistan to boko haram. we cannot deal with all of those groups. we have all kinds of tools. building partners, enabling others like we are doing with the french in mail but we need to keep pressure on the entire

network. last one would be on their owing technological -- narrowing technological gaps in key areas. >> i what to switch to the arctic and the strategic posture that we have up there. mr. secretary, in your last hearing you mentioned that you agree with me that alaska occupied the most strategic place in the world. i just want to straighten the record with the chairman and the ranking member. billy mitchell was court-martialed but he was court-martialed for " insubordination" for treasonable national defense in investing in battleships as opposed to aircraft carriers. he was later given a congressional medal of honor by the congress. i think he has been vindicated but i will ask a question that follows up on that. you put out a strategy on the

arctic and yet the russians are making huge moves with regard to new bases new airfields, new arctic command, claiming territory over huge parts of the arctic. we had a big support in alaska the last week on the army task force and was looking at potential force reductions. looking at the potential of being moved out of alaska. if the army even one brigade combat team in alaska, how do you think kim jong-il or vladimir putin or our allies in japan, korea singapore would react to that given how important the arctic is, given how important this new part of the country. we have a 13 page paper. the russians are putting major major troops and infrastructure

in the arctic. does that concern you and should we be looking at removing brigade combat teams in the pacific? sorry, i went on a little longer. >> i think both of your points are very important. the arctic is going to be a place of growing strategic importance. the russians are active there. we are. it is an arctic power and it needs to be part of our strategy and i think it is. the other thing you raised what kim jong-il is thinking and so forth -- this is why our -- whether we continue to invest in the defense we need, whether it be btc's or any other part of our force, is something that

others are watching. it is important if we ever have to use it, but it is also important in ensuring it is less likely that we will have to use it. i do worry about our foes being encouraged or hardened when they see us debate whether we should spend enough money on our defense and that is just yet another reason why i really hope we get the support for the defense spending we need. >> i won't speak to the number of army btc but i will say the russians have taken a decision to activate six new brigades and four of them will be in the arctic. >> some of us still believe in battleships. we are not sure that alaska should have ever been made a state. [laughter]

senator king. >> with some trepidation mr. chairman, i want to associate myself with what the senator of alaska is asking because the arctic is becoming enormously important. we have one heavy icebreaker and one medium icebreaker. the estimates are the russians have seven to 10 icebreakers. that is basic infrastructure and the resources of theirre are enormous. i think one of the things we have to do is put this discussion into context in terms of your budget. this chart which i'm sure you're familiar with, is the last 50 years of defense spending as a percentage of gdp. starting in 1962 at about 9%. today it is at 3.3% and heading down at a time of increasing threat and peril for our

country. often, we get confused about the absolute dollar amounts but it percentage of gdp is a way of comparing apples to apples throughout recent history. we are reducing the defense function dramatically, dramatically at a time of increasing threat. general dempsey, i want to put a fine point on your testimony. you talked about numbers of deployments and readiness. if we are not able to avoid sequester, or american lives being put at risk? >> yes. that is an>> that is an eloquent answered general. secretary carter, i want to talk about an area of your budget in more detail. five point $5 billion scheduled for increased activities in cyber. i'm extremely concerned about cyber. i think it is the next frontier of warfare.

we have had plenty of warning shots across our bow in the last couple of years and yet congress has not acted. i commend you for taking this initiative. here is my concern however -- news reports are that the cia are expanding their cyber keep abilities and data capabilities and -- they areir cyber capabilities. i don't want to go to the 9/11 days where there was a lot of capability but they were not talking to each other. please tell me you are coordinating with the cia and nsa so we are not spending more of the taxpayer money that we have to and worst of all, not sharing what of information is being derived. >> thank you. you are absolutely right. this is a terribly important to dod mission and that is what

both i and the chairman has been a great leader in this -- we are so determined to do more. but this is one of those things just like you and now i made an analogy about before 9/11, it is the different efforts of different parts of the government. to the list you named, i would also add fbi which has some capabilities in this area. dhs has authority in this area. even as we move out and make the investments we need to at dod, we need to coordinate with the others. our investments are into categories. one is to make sure our networks are secure because our forces depend for their effectiveness upon information networks. the buying of ships, planes and tanks is not take us anywhere unless we have the networks to go with them and they don't do

any good in warfare i was the networks are survivable and able to avoid penetration. also another thing we need to do is build cyber weapons as weapons of war because that will be a dimension of future warfare as many have noted. we also -- >> i'm concerned that our cyber defense system is just that -- defense. we don't have an offenseive give ability. -- capability. especially nationstate to attack our cyber, we are very vulnerable. there is no price to be paid. i wonder if we should not be developing a theory of deterrence similar to nuclear deterrence in the 1950's and 1960's which served us well until today so that people

understand that if they come against our cyber infrastructure, they will pay a price. that is something i hope you can consider. >> i think that is very wise. i appreciate that thought. i think that that is something we need to think through better than we have. what does the doctrine mean, what does deterrence mean in this new domain. at the same time we build capabilities, we need to build doctrine as well. i think that is a very wise point. >> final question -- i am running out of time. you have identified as a priority reform. i hope you will hold to that and i would like to see a little more detail about how you are going to tackle that. i know the chairman has expressed his concern. how do we get procurement not

only in terms of cost, but in terms of time lapse. that we are not taking literally decades in developing new aircraft but that we have a more timely procurement process. you don't have to respond now, but i would appreciate seeing something on that because i think that is a very important part of your mission going into this job. by the way, i'm delighted you are with us today. thank you. >> will do. i will respond. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, secretary carter and general dempsey for being with us. we appreciate your testimony today. secretary carter, in the beginning of your testimony, you have given quite an extensive list of the trip you have taken the people you have met, the places you have been and the impact with equipping and training our soldiers. i can tell that is very important to you. is it correct, do i understand correctly that you also took a trip to arlington?

>> i did. in the morning i was sworn in with my wife. >> i appreciate that so much. that tells a lot about a person that not only are you recognizing the sacrifice the blue star family gives to the loved ones that are serving overseas right now, but also to those gold star families that have left someone behind. thank you for doing that. i learned of that and was significantly impressed that you would take the time to do that so thank you. >> thank you. >> i want to talk a little bit about -- we have talked about this all day with the shia militia. i know senator mccain has spoken about this earlier. in the fiscal year 15 budget, we had $1.6 billion that we used for the iraq train and equip fund and that was the train and equip the iraqi security forces, the kurdish peshmerga and sunni

tribes and other local forces. in this fiscal year 2016 budget, you're requesting $700 million for this fund. i do support this effort. i think we should be training and equipping the kurdish peshmerga. i think that have been important allies in the pushback against isis and others. but, what i am concerned about though is the relationship between the iraqi security forces, iran, which has been the sidebar topic of many conversations today, and the shia militia forces. during the iraq war ied's were huge concern to american troops. i think sn senator mccain has alluded to earlier there were some types of ied's, explosively

formed projectiles that were formed -- they were devastating to our men and women. left many gold star families out there. we know that those efp's. a lot of those came from iran. so right now, what i would like to hear from you is are american taxpayer dollars going to the shia militia that once were fighting against american soldiers? how can we ensure the american taxpayers that these funds will not be used against us as we move forward? secretary carter, if you could address that. >> thank you. first of all, i share your concern about the shia militias

being the face of sectarianism looming again in airaq which you know very well from your own service, it is the principal challenge that the government of iraq faces going forward. our training and equipping is through the government of iraq. our assistance of the peshmerga is also to the government of iraq. that reflects the view that a multi-sectarian iraqi government is the best way to keep iraq together and defeat isil in iraq and ultimately drive them out of the country. i share your concern because what we have seen in the last few years has been sectarianism eroding the capabilities of the

iraqi security forces and that is why they collapsed in the face of isil. i absolutely share your concern. about efp's, you know that extremely well from your own service. we have had that experience before. general dempsey was there also in iraq does as well so let me ask them to join in. >> i will express my own concern as well. i think in general austin were here, i guess he will be, he will tell you the reason his campaign plan is deliberate as that one of the lines of effort -- i mentioned there were nine -- is iraqi governance. if the central government av of iraq does not achieve reconciliation -- that is probably the right word -- with the shia and kurds then it does put our campaign at risk. i am concerned about that. as far as the weapons we have been issuing to the isf as well

as the peshmerga through the government of iraq, we have confidence that those are going into the right hands. some of the weapons you have seen in the hands of the shia militia -- you can see it on youtube and on twitter and places -- are things that were procured by the iraqis through our foreign military sales process that they bought a couple of years ago. we are monitoring it as well as we can. >> i thank you very much. senator mccain, thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to the witnesses for this excellent testimony. i want to ask about two items -- sequester and the isil. on sequester, i received a letter last week as a member of the budget committee from chairman mccain and ranking member reed. i asked it be entered into the record.

highly important letter for budget committee members at all of us. i want to read one sentence and ask if you agree. "if we continue on our current path sequester, we risk undermining the central pillars of our all volunteer force and with it, the foundation of international p and security of which the united's military has been the most reliable guarantor since the end of world war ii." do you agree? >> i do. >> i do, senator. >> it strikes me could we set up a white flag at the beginning of partial disarmament than to place a vote on the bca of august 2011 as a higher priority for the nation tham oun our security in a world that has changed and as new threats. can we do anything to send a worse message about our

weakening resolve? >> i'm very concerned about what our internal budget debates look like to friends and foes alike internationally. it is yet another reason why we need to knock it off and get ourselves on a stable budget path that gives us enough to defend ourselves properly. >> let me say that we had an interesting set of discussions about afghanistan where i think the committee has come to the position we should be condition based, not calendar-based. let me send that same analogy to our sequester. are we really going to elevate a bca task that we voted on in august 2011 before north korea's cyber attack or when russia went into ukraine. i we going to elevate that above the conditions-based national defense for the same reasons we should not elevate a calendar for the conditions in

afghanistan, we should not elevate the conditions in 2011. i took that as the point of the letter. with respect to the isil an issue i sometimes disagree with the chairman -- the issue of ground troops. listening to the chairman about this, what i have realized is that my concern is not really about language and not really about the constitutional allegation. it is about the definition of the mission and i would like to ask your position on this. >> we have heard in meetings with the foreign relations committee about the battle against isil in the region. both of them said to was

essentially u.s. ground troops is not a good idea because this is got to be our fight against our terrorist threat. we want your help. we want you to be deeply involved, but if it gets pitched as the u.s. against isil or the west against isil, it takes on a fundamentally different tenor and could even become a recruiting bonanza for isil. king of bella -- king of abdullah, in a very courageous way he said this is our fight and we to needneed all kinds of help from you, but we have got to be up front that this is our fight. the united states did not create isil. it did not create this extremist ideology.

it was birthed in our region by people claiming the mantle of the religious tradition that we honor and perverting it. both of them have sort of guardedly advises against ground troops, but towards the big picture that is battle against isil has been the region policing itself, not the u.s. trying to counter them. what is your response? as we think through this military mission, what is your response to that sentiment? it is not about draftsmanship or the allocation of power, it is about -- isn't there a compelling need for the region to show they are able to battle their own threat and if so, we will help them? >> that is exactly how the campaign is designed. it is designed to leverage a coalition of regional partners assisted by those outside the region but very much relying upon those in the region to leave the effort -- lead the

effort. requiring iraq to leave the effort, especially in reaching out a coalition with anyiraq. and, i would safely say that is exactly how the campaign is designed. >> i second that. that is how it needs to be designed for the two reasons you say. the first is we don't only seek to defeat isil, we seek the lasting defeat of isil. that means after they are defeated, they need to stay defeated and that means somebody who was there ensuring that the feet. the second reason you also say which is if it becomes our war. for both those reasons, we need to have others involved and that is, as the chairman said, what the campaign calls for now.

>> thank you so much. >> senator cotton. >> thank you. secretary carter, welcome back. i have to go back to something we were discussing about the plans for mosul. i believe secretary carter, you are looking into it. general, i know you said you were looking into it. i don't understand what take so long to get to the bottom of this. this was a planned conference call with members of the media. did i misunderstand something here? >> that is my understanding as well. and, i would say two things about this whole incident. the first is that when an operation is mounted against mosul or anywhere else, it needs to be a success and it needs to be iraqi led supported by us

and have to be successful. that is the condition based point -- >> i agree fully. i don't understand why announcing any timeline is contributed to any idea would be a success nor to understand it would take so long to understand why an organized conference call with the media was held. >> i will say something about that and the chairman is also spoken to general austin about that. that clearly was neither accurate information or would it be information that should be blurted out it was accurate. it is wrong on both scores. the only thing i will say is we try as the department of defense of a democracy to be as open as we can.

there is a lot of people talking all the time about what we are doing. every once in a while, so many gets out in front of their skis. i also, even as we make sure this particular incident does not happen again, i think that it is important that we be open as an apartment. not with military secrets which was a mistake made, but we try to keep the country informed with what we are doing. it is about protecting them. it is a democracy. so, openness is important but it has to have limits when it comes to security matters and those limits obviously were not respected in this case. >> senators mccain and graham have sent a letter through the president to the secretary -- to general austin -- to ask that very question. i must suggest that i will await until we respond to the letter.

>> secretary carter, during her confirmation hearing you had mentioned that you options to respond to the breach of imf treaty by russia. this is a quote -- "active defenses to counter intermediate launch missiles, counterforce capabilities to prevent cruise missile attacks and strike capabilities to enhance u.s. or allied forces." would you elaborate on the size and scope of those capabilities and what you think those numbers might be if we were to fund those capabilities? >> i think in this setting i would like to limit the amount of detail i go into, but i will affirm what you said which is we have three kinds of options for

responding to a violation of the imf treating. y. i think the russians need to know that this is a two-way street. they signed, we signed. we can and will react and those are the three categories in which reaction -- which we could react militarily. active defenses which are to protect ourselves and our allies and their territories and give this new threat a counterforce which is a way of making sure god for bid there is an actual military confrontation, they cannot be used. the third is this opens up the option for us to have systems which we decided to forgo. in the interest of this treaty years ago. we don't have to forgo them anymore because a treaty is a two-way street. >> the only thing i will add senator, the development of

capabilities fit into the categories the secretary mentions would be compliant. that is the difference between the two of us. >> this might be a question of military terms of art. i will start with the chairman and then let secretary carter bat cleanup. mr. chairman, what are enduring offense of combat operations? >> i will tell you as the one who would have to assist in the implementation of that, i would consider enduring to be mission by mission. if we were for example to decide our advice to the president would be that we would have to introduce ground forces to accompany iraqis into combat in mosul because of the terrain, we can do that but it would be mission specific as opposed to a temporal mission.

meaning two weeks or two years.>> secretary carter, you have anything to add ? >> i think that is accurate. the important thing about the language of the amf and however that discussion turns out from my point of view is we have the flex ability -- flexability to run the campaign. the second is our troops see our government as a whole supporting them. those are the two things that are important to me in this whole debate. >> thank you. >> general, you keep saying if you decide to recommend to the president -- we would like to know when you decide to make that recommendation to the president. >> well, senator, when the task

at hand when i get the advice from general austin and when the mission would require it and we have not reached that point. >> things are going fine. senator nelson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. gentlemen, it is good to see you. mr. chairman, in your professional military opinion if additional arms are not provided to ukraine -- you have a little david fighting the russian bear. is it reasonable to assume that russia through their centrifuge of the rebels would continue to

advance on right across the country? >> i'm concerned about two things. one is it would be a rush and aspiration to do so and secondly would be the separatists on their own decide to do so. here is the other thing -- if russia wants to take ukraine, it will take it because its geographic proximity and the size. there are some gaps that puts the ukraine forces at a real this advantage -- disd advantage. i think we should look for opportunities to provide those capabilities. if the separatists in the ukraine can compete on a level playing field. >> why the russian policy is such -- why do you think the

russian policy is such as you think it is that they could take ukraine if they could. why are they not moving more aggressively across ukraine? >> this is probably now speculative because the intelligence does not yet support it. i think their pace is designed to create uncertainty on the part of our european allies because if they can maintain that level of uncertainty then they have the potential to put friction inside of nato which is actually their larger strategy. >> if successful in ukraine and russia wanted to continue to be aggressive, they can suddenly go on the borders of the three baltic states, there

would be no match there. but now we have nato members. what do you think is the resolve of the european nato membership to stand and fight for the baltics if the russian bear comes across the line? >> that is the commitment they have made. as a member of nato, they all agreed to live up to their article five responsibly -- responsibility. i will say the european assurance initiatives that nato has taken -- baltic air policing, establishment of a very high readiness joint task force -- nato and wales made some commitments of that indicate to me that all of them take that response ability seriously. the problem we could potentially have is the asymmetric nature of it which there might be a

dispute about whether it is actually happening. we are working with our nato allies to work through that. >> of course, the situation there with of those large russian speaking populations in the baltics, especially in estonia, it could give him the same excuse that he has tried to use with regard to crimea. let me ask you about mental health. i have been the norm is the impressed -- enormously impressed with some of our special operations forces that they are now realizing that the stigma against mental health counseling -- they are really trying to turn it around because it's performance enhancement. not only of the body, but the mind as well.

to what degree are you all trying to implement that same thing across the board of the department of defense? >> to a great degree because when it started under bill and now under joe they realized it is not enough to say it is not a statement so they found a way to turn it into a positive -- a combat multiplier. not only is it something you do after the fact, but you build in the kind of resilience you me from the start. all the services are learning lessons from each other. >> final question for either of you -- training 500 a month or every two months for the free syrian army, is that really going to be productive?

>> i will take that first. that is a small number that is -- but grows over time and it is paced by the training centers. i think that the u.s. effort needs to be just one effort. there need to be others in the region who participate in this. he gets back to something we were -- it gets back to something we were discussing earlier about the need for the defeat of isil to be a lasting defeat and for regional partners to be involved. the only thing i will say is that there needs to be an effort -- other efforts besides the u.s. effort here in accordance with the discussion we were having earlier. >> senator graham.

i'm sorry. general? >> we need a partner on the ground. we need something that we can have this coalition around. >> senator graham. >> thank you. let's continue that thought. have you been told general, by the arab forces in the region, arab leaders, that we are not going into syria unless we can get rid of assad? >> there are some of them that say that but i have. >> they don't want to defeat isil and turn syria over to iran. that assad is a puppet of iran. they are saying they want to destroy both enemies of the region. assad as well as isil. i don't see any chance of original force.

the authorization to use military force -- the people we are training throughout the region to go in and fight isil, the free syrian army, what would happen if the assad air force the airpower, if they begin to attack the people we trained because assad knows one day they would turn on him. can we protect the people we train against an attack by assad? >> well first of all, think we have an obligation to those we have trained to protect them. the manner in which that will be done is something that is being discussed, but in my view, we have an obligation to do that. it goes with the training part. >> i agree with the above.

-- you both. i have asked the general counsel of the white house about this and he said no, it would not allow us to engage the air forces of assad. that is not included in the authorization. that to me is a very important point. would you check and see where they come out on this at a later time? if the sanctions -- if the iranians got sanctioned relief, general, what do you think it will do with the money given their behavior on the ground today? >> i cannot speak to that but here is what i will say -- i am under no illusions that ending their nuclear program ends the problems we have in the region whether it is arms trafficking, cyber. this is an adversary who actually led to the deaths of

american servicemen on the battlefield. i think we have to keep an eye on them in that regard as well. >> would you agree with me that the most likely outcome given their behavior today is that they are not going to build hospitals and schools they will probably put the money into their military? >> i think it will probably distribute their money like we do. i just hope they don't sequester it. >> i tell you what -- i just hope we don't give them more cash because i think they are wreaking havoc as it is. secretary carter, do you agree with me that they are wreaking havoc throughout the region without a nuclear weapon? >> i do agree with that, senator. you look at yemen -- from yemen to syria and iraq and lebanon and elsewhere, and that is why i

think it is important that we remain vigilant and prepared. i think we in the department of defense need to and well be prepared for iran across a very wide front. >> would you agree with the following statement -- the iranians with a nuclear weapon would be the most significant national security threat that israel faces and the united states would face? >> the -- certainly, the -- i let the israelis speak for themselves. >> i think they have. >> i would say that we need to be concerned about iranian behavior beyond their nuclear program. >> could you think of anything

off the top of your head that would be doubt an i -- beat out an iran with a nuclear weapon? >> well, there may be a close tie with north korea with nuclear weapons. >> they have already got nuclear weapons. >> i understand but in terms of the danger posed by difficult state -- >> do you think it is board destabilizing for iran to get nuclear weapons than north korea in terms of the mideast? >> mideast surely. >> have you been told by arab allies that it can you give to the iranians that they would want the same thing or more? if they get a nuclear capability, do you think the arabs in the region would want nuclear capability to match them? >> there are those who said that and that is one of the reasons

why we oppose iran getting a nuclear weapon because it could become the beginning of a powertrain for people to pursue a nuclear program as well. >> so, the prime minister's warning in that regard today is overly well heeded. >> i did not hear the primaries are today but i do think the danger a runaway iranian program and elsewhere in the middle east is a very serious one. >> thank you very much. >> senator lee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thanks to each of you for being here. thanks for all you do to keep our country safe. secretary carter, the department of defense is calling for brack in 2017 citing it has nearly 20%

more infrastructure than it finds necessary. can you give more detail of vaccination -- explanation of what the department finds within it infrastructure that is unnecessary or in excess and why? also, can you describe to us what improvements you think need to be made to the process to avoid the kinds of cost overruns that we have experienced in the 2005 round. >> thank you. we are requesting another round of brack. the basis for that is a measurement of our infrastructure against our current holdings of equipment and our needs. for example, aircraft fleets versus space. that is the kind of analysis

that measures the amount of excess infrastructure that we are carrying. with respect to brackgroun, the 2005 one was not wewhat we were seeking. we were seeking one in the 1990's were true savings occurred. why didn't savings occur in the 2005 one? it is because when it came time to reconfigure bases -- that was a time when the defense budget was growing very rapidly -- we decided, the department decided at the same time to modernize a lot of installations at the same time it was consolidating others. that created far fewer savings than a peerure brackground.

we are seeking rack authority. i know that is not an easy thing to get both recently have to reduce pail or take it out of tooh and i don't think anybody wants that. >> a lot of americans became frustrated last summer when we saw the iraqi security forces on whom we just spent $25 billion training and equipping over the course of the last decade quickly free from a much smaller and less well-trained, less well-equipped isis force in northern iraq giving up ground and lots of weapons and leaving behind a lot of equipment that was provided for them, a lot of it by us. mr. secretary, you just returned from a visit to the middle east

to look into our strategy and see how things are going. can you discuss with us a little bit the oversight we exercise over the train and equip missions in iraq and syria and tell us what is being done to make those forces accountable for the training and equipment we are giving them to make sure some thing similar does not happen? >> thank you, senator. let me give that a start and ask chairman dempsey to chime in. you put your finger on it. what happened last year was an unwillingness of the iraqi security forces to fight using the equipment and train thagget united states had given them. and the reason for that was a political failure on the part of their government to keep the promise that had been made to the country to keep it a multisectarian state.

and that was not what was happening under maliki and that's the reason why the forces folded. and so the most important thing we can do going forward is to make sure that we -- that iraq doesn't decline against -- into sectarianionism. so that's the most important thing we can do and it's a political thing rather than a technical thing involving the training but it is job one. insofar as their training is concerned, i will let the chairman speak to that. but we are giving them training and we're going to give them support when they go into battle. and we are now and we have been now for quite some time conducteding a bombing campaign against isil in order to blunt their offense and prepare the way for the counter offensive. >> just in terms of the oversight. four locations ear bill in the

north, alassad in the best, taji, and bess marie to the east. so the training is centralized. the oversight once they deploy is actually built around the supply chain so the things that we're giving them they have -- there's a tether that goes out to where they're operating. and to this point our program is to take and pull some units off line who exist, regrouping them and putting them back out as well as help the iraqis. >> i think that's helpful. if i can as my clock is ticking down ask one other quick question that either one can answer. how are u.s. defense and intelligence agencies adapting to the collapse of the yes, ma'am ni government and the loss of our primary counter terrorism partner against one

of the most capable al qaeda offshoots? what are we doing on that fronted? >> well, i'll start and chairman please add. first thing is that al qaeda in the arabian peninsula which is in yemen is a very serious offshoot of al qaeda, a very -- very serious for us because they are determined to attack us. they make that absolutely clear. therefore our counter terrorism operations in yemen are critically important. therefore, the restoration of a government there that will cooperate with us is very important to us. now, we're trying to do everything we can to continue to combat aqap in the face of what is going on. with the housing and urban developmenties and the government in -- hudies and the government in sana. but it will be much better for us if we are able to

reconstitute or assist in the reconstitution of a government there in son ad. i know our plopetic colleagues are working on that but it is important to our counter terrorism effort. >> so our diplomatic effort is to try to keep the country together but our counter terror effort is in the south. we have a partner there interested in keeping al qaeda in the arabian peninsula under pressure. our fear is that if the country devolves into civil war we lose that platform. >> thank you so much. and thank you, mr. chairman. >> i thank the witnesses for a long afterof testimony. and i believe that it's important that all of our colleagues as well as the american people understand your message and that is that sequestration cannot continue without, as you responded to

senator king, without putting the lives of the men and women who are serving in uniform today in danger. and i thank you for that frank and candid testimony. and i thank you for being here this afternoon. >> thank you. >> thank you. this hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015]

ladies and gentlemen please welcome hillary clinton. [applause] thank you all so much. oh, my goodness. that was a walk down memory lane. so many years, so many hair styles. it is wonderful being with you

tonight. i have to say i am still kind of in the grand mother demrow six months in it's better than a spa treatment. i highly recommend it. but if there's anything that can compete with it, it is a room u full of women and men who recognize the importance of making sure that all of our people have a chance to live up to their god-given potential. and if that includes running for office, running campaigns standing up and being an advocate, then emily's list has been on the right track for 30 years. and let's hope for 30, 100 more. until we're no longer needed. [applause] now, i want to answer one question right at the start before it stirs up twitter. over the years people have read

a lot of different things into my pants suits. so let's settle this once and for all. despite what you might think this outfit is not actually white and gold. i must say that gave us all a little bit of amusement in the middle of our days and i can't tell you how many people i have beep with who have held up the pictures and asked me.

tells you everything you node to know what an extraordinary person of patience stephanie is. but she has led this indispensible organization into the 21st century with such savvy and class and she took the baton from ellen and she has run faster and farther than we could have hoped.

this anniversary is a chance to celebrate how far we have come together and where we still need to go and why it matters not just for women but for the entire country. now, i have to confess sometimes i do feel like a broken record saying that. i know there are still some people who roll their eyes when i or others say that women's issues are america's issues. it's important for us to remember what politics was like

before emily list. it wasn't just that the playing field wasn't level. women were barely in the game. that's the genius that inspired ellen to shake things up. on that day when she gathered those friends in her basement none of them could have known exactly what kind of impact they would have. our country is full of brilliant tall presidented women ready to step up and lead. and who better to prove that

than a four-foot-11 inch spark plugged named barbara middle class ski? now, barbara has great integrity but that 4-u may be stretching it just a little. but the old boys never saw her coming. and with the help of emily's list the voters not only saw her, they elected her again and again. barbara's victory in 1986 was a turning point for this organization, for women in politics and certainly for the united states senate. she blazed a path forward. and one of her many accomplishments was when she

forced the senate to allow women to wear pants suits on the floor. like so many of my fellow women senators i will always remember her kindness and wisdom when i was elected in the election it went something like this. i followed and that was a hard fought race. now you need to figure out how to be a senator since you've been elected to serve as one. she came over and sat down with me and started giving me a tutorial that stood in such good stead but she also knew how to cut through all the hot air. we have to work out macro

issues and also macaroni and cheese issues and for hard-working families, they are one and the same. it's hard to imagine the senate without senator mikulski. but i'm glad she's going to stay out there raising hell like she always has and inspiring even more people to consider public service because of the rewards that despite all of the challenges come to you. they've come to the senate floor than 100 as you heard to congress and 11 governors. emily's list with your help has recruited and trained more than 9,000

women from every background to run for every office at every level. aren't you proud to see governors like a wonderful maggie from new hampshire and leading the way don't you love seeing nancy pelosi stand up against efforts of politics with the security nobody fights harder for middle-class families day in and day out and didn't it make you want to cheer when it was a coalition of the women senators that finally broke the jam during the last government shutdown. were when patty murray showed that it is still possible to build relationships in washington when she worked out a budget deal with paul ryan. it's because of because of you that

kirsten gillibrand can lead the fight against sexual assault in the military it's because of you that we can hold wall street accountable. it's because of you that barbara boxer can defend the rights of women to make our own reproductive health care choices and of course it's hard to believe we are losing both of barbara is and about well i hope inspire more women to run to follow in their footsteps. i will always be grateful that i got to serve alongside so many terrific pro-choice democratic women senators. the least emily's list was there. as exciting as the past 30 years have been, think about the future. wasn't

it amazing to hear from stacy abrams. they are both true rising stars, to kind of leaders we needed to know how to find common ground when they can do to stand their ground when they last. and even in 2014, a difficult year for democrats. you saw as nancy pelosi introduced them the nine new democratic women now serving in congress. so all of these women certainly fill me with hope about what we can accomplish together and also reminded me that we are not just standing up for women but for all people

and for our families and communities and our country and indeed the kind of world we want for our children. we are fighting for an economy that works for everyone and includes everyone. that is the only way to achieve broad-based growth and prosperity in a world that is growing more competitive and interdependent every day. we can't leave talent on the sidelines given the pressure and challenges we face. not when men and not the millions of young people who were out of schools and out of work. not the long-term unemployed or every day americans who work hard for years but find it

tougher and tougher to get ahead. as the secretary of state i've spoken around the world about a new participation age and that's what we need here at home as well. next week as part of our no ceiling project at the clinton foundation i will be joining chelsea and melinda gates to unveil a sweeping report full of evidence about how women and girls have opportunities to dissipate. they lift up not just themselves but their families, their economies andentire

society. we know that women moving into the workforce in large numbers help america's economic growth over the past 40 years. they would be earning less and our gross domestic product would be about $2 trillion smaller if those women hadn't gotten jobs and paychecks. but unfortunately today there are too many policies and pressures. but it makes it harder for the parents and men and women alike to work while also raising a family. it's hard to find the quality affordable child care. they are often too far from predictable or flexible and sometimes simply unfair taking advantage of the low wage workers and so many women are paid less than men for the same work. its problems for families and the entire economy. let's be honest our families look different

than they did decades ago, and so do our jobs. many families today depend on the incomes to make ends meet and 40% of mothers are now the primary breadwinners. that is a fact of life that we have not yet fully embraced. so when any parent has shortchanged, the family has shortchanged if you go all the way up the ladder our economy is shortchanged. when i talk with men at outfits i asked them to think about if their wife or sister or daughter or mother is getting taken advantage at work, then they are suffering because of that. this is everyone's fight. we have to fight it together and win it together and that

means making sure women have the legal tools they need to demand fairness at work and real transparency that makes accountability enforcement and negotiation possible. as a nation we know that the american middle class was built in part by the right for people to organize and bargain on the health of themselves and their colleagues. this is one of those important issues that isn't just for the lieber issues. this is important for everybody who works because if

there is not a balance of power in the workplace, everybody will suffer. so we have to get our economy to reflect the reality of the 21st century america and we are not doing that. we are not giving back when the hard work of women and men across the country is not rewarded with rising wages but the ceo pay goes up and up. if they can exploit tax havens overseas but small businesses are held back by outdated redtape it's not happening when the workers have to jump from job to job in a dynamic market that often have to leave benefits they have earned behind. it's not happening when

so many young people worry about no matter how much education they get, no matter how hard they work, they won't be able to afford to pay for college or the middle-class lifestyle that their parents and grandparents enjoyed. across our country and americans feel the ground shifting under their feet. so many of the old jobs and careers are gone or unrecognizable and certainly the old rules don't seem to apply any more come into the new rules are not at all clear. we have fought our way back from the crisis and recession but there is still so much anxiety and uncertainty and the games that we've made our real but fragile and we have to regain a sense of security and confidence if we want to find our balance and. we have to work together to build a 21st

century economy. creating more and better jobs with higher wages that will make it possible to afford a middle-class life. helping more people start growth in small businesses and investing in the innovators and entrepreneurs that will create the new jobs of tomorrow. providing our kids and our adults with the education and skills they need for lifelong earning to compete. changing the way we do business so that americans have the flexibility and support to be the great workers and great parents. and making washington work again not just for those at the top for those that have access and influence but for those whose great and hard work drove our comeback and have come back and have always been the backbone of the prosperity.

we have to get back to investing in the long-term end of the things that matter most. if we remember how to work and grow together, we can help more families find their footing in the middle class and make sure every one of our kids has a fair shot to climb that ladder of opportunity. we have always supported a pro-choice democrat but if you look at the agenda from city hall to the congress we can see that they also stand for the kind of prosperity that has made it possible for so many of us to leapfrog our grandparents and parents.

recently we have heard republicans try to sing out of the same hymnal, talking about income inequality, like watching the end of casablanca. my goodness people are talking about it. round up the usual suspects. while, in fact we do not want to discourage their newfound interest. but we are not buying that old trickle-down economics that didn't work before and can never work again because it defies arithmetic standard reality. so we welcome them to come with their ideas and that is what it should be about. they should be the contest of ideas. and i think emily's list has proven

that in that contest of ideas the women that are willing to enter the arena well equipped with a great measure by the support they get from emily's list can make their case and can be elected. when i think in my own life history i like so many of you across the room and in the country grandfather was a factory worker that started at the age of 11 and worked until he was 65 and got to retire. his son, my father went to college. he was a small businessman who worked really hard and made a good way for us. my mother had a terrible abusive childhood. have to leave at the age of 14 to go to