request for more dollars in the anti-microbial study, what we call an anti-resistant your group -- leaerder group. doing studies that you can't do and it individual institute because of the fact that the incidence aren't -- and finally we're doing work on developing vaccines for some of these difficult microorganisms that are highly susceptible when you think in terms of people for example, who have transplants or are immunosus preed. -- are immuneosupressed. the n.i.h. is involved in this.

>> you have a request for an additional $100 million. >> in the president's 2016 intudget $116 million for anti-mike robe qual resistant research. >> thank you and i'll submit my questions for the recorder. >> now to the gentlelady from connecticut. >> let me follow up on my colleague, mr. dent's, questions on antibiotic resistant bacteria. there is a significant increase in the budget. can you talk about the new technique discovered to deal with this and also there is some misunderstanding of how long it's going to take to be able to use that. can you give us an idea about how long a timeline for the potential availability of, and i don't know if i'm pronouncing it right, but tecksabat.

recently i was in haiti and i met a doctor who talked about the eablet resistant tuberculosis. are there drugs in the pipeline to treat drug resistant t.b.? and again, finally, i understand you're dealing with looking at a database. for this effort. antibiotic resistant infections. but there are many of them pork tu -- to put it simply new york my simple language on this but if the database is going to hold all gee noem sequence data for the 10 deadliest antibiotic resistant pathogens what kind of effort would that entail? >> ok, three questions. >> i wanted you to get about what's talking -- happening in lie beeria. >> we'll do that. so the n.i.h. is very pleased with this new treatment this

was an entirely funded n.i.h. effort to the tune of $20 million and we now have a new class of antibiotics that have developed from the soil and the issue is, we've got to be careful, it's not going to be tomorrow or next month where that's going to be vail on the market because we need to continue to do preclinical studies in the animal model before we can get into the human situation. i'd like to say it's going to be around the corner but it likely will be over a year before we do that. the good news is it's a brand new concept of an antibiotic that essentially skirts the resistant mechanisms that other types of microbes use against the common antibiotics. it will likely be good against microbes for which there are multiple resistant. t.b., good news here also. we partnered with drug companies work several of them, particularly jensen, develop new

drugs that are good against some of the multiple and extensively drug resistant tuberculosis. so we do have one, maybe two in the pipeline. if you asked me last year i would have said, we don't have anything new. database, and this is something we do well. we have phenomenal sequencing cape abilities -- capabilities now. that's one of the things we put as a high priority, to be able to use our technologies to get databases of essentially all of the various versions and iterations of anti-microbial resistant might be miecrobes and as we do at n.i.h., it's open access. serg open to the general public. >> [inaudible] >> vaccine trial started february 22 in liberia, in monrovia.

my deputy is there now overseing the trials. we started off with a phase two for 600 individuals where we'll access slowly to make sure it's still safe and immunogenic. and then we'll go to the full total of 29,000 people. it was the vaccine you mentioned was twopped by nancy sullivan in the vaccine research center together with the v.s.d. vaccine which we collaborated with the department of defense, getting back to the other question, about our collaboration with the department of defense. those two are ongoing. it's up and rolling. zmap is, again, zmam was very, very fave -- zmap was very, very favorable in animals. we don't know if it works in humans. we started a comprehensive protocol that was announced three days ago by the ministry of health in liberia, actually at the same time the president of liberia was meeting with our president here, right here in the united states. it started a few days ago and

what it's going to do is compare standard of care, namely intravenous replenishment of fluid, against standard of care plus zmap. zmap is a cocktail of three separate antibodies directed against the ebola virus. it looked very good in animals but we need to prove definitively if it will work. both of those are n.i.h.-driven trials and both are ongoing in liberia right now. >> thank you. just, first of all, dr. collins thank you very much, and your colleagues, for being here this morning. i have no doubt this is not only the most brilliant panel we'll see all session, it's the most popular panel we'll see all session long. thank you very much. >> we need to have a group hug. [laughter] [captioning performed by

national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015]

>> federal offices are closed in washington, d.c. due to today's esnowstorm. snow ranged from five inches in the city to 10 inches in the suburbs. on capitol hill, neighbors staged a social media inspired protest after capitol hill police rejected a plea to lift the ban on sledding. kids and adults brought sleds to the capitol and scooted down the hill. police did not stop them. tonight on c-span, former astronauts including buzz aldridge, testified before the senate on the future of the space program.

topics include manned missions to mars, the moon, and nearby asteroids. apollo 11 astronaut buzz aldrin spoke on the need to find practical ways to fund space missions. here's a look at that portion of the hearing. >> why do i have to come up and say it. a combined megs is much better. but maybe that's not essential. i happen to think it is, where you can combine orion with a long support system. that's what we're going to do when we go to l-1 and l-2. we're going to take an oh ryon up there and there's going to be a system that lets us stay much longer. we'll be rotating commercial crews up and down, not just to the space station, but they'll go to the vicinity of the moon. we're going to do these things but we don't have put all the money in building those habitats

because the foreigners are going to want them and we're going to want them there and we're going to want them at mars. the foreigners have to land, ok. we're going to develop a very sophisticated landing system and we're going to be landing so many people at mars that we can take them along on the first landing, ok. take us along as visitors on your landings. let's not go broke by doing things back at the -- but let's astutely learn to do things there that do make sense. >> the hearing also includes a panel of executives from private space flight companies. witnesses testified before the senate commerce subcommittee on space chaired by texas republican ted cruz. you can see that hearing tonight at 8:00 here on c-span. and tomorrow, supreme court justices meet to go over the challenge to health care law subsidies. they heard oral argument

yesterday on whether the federal government or states should subsidize the health care law insurance exchange premiums. the cofert plans to release the audio of the oral arguments tomorrow. you can listen to it at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. defense secretary ashton carter and joint chiefs chair general martin dempsey testified before the senate armed services committee tuesday. the 2 1/2 hour hearing covered the impact of sequestration budget cuts an challenges abroad between russia and ukraine and with isis.

mr. mccain: i apologize for keeping you waiting. the committee meets today to receive testimony on the department of defense's fiscal year 2016 budget request. the associated future years 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 to the soldiers, sailor, airmen and marines here at home and in harm's way around the globe and to their families. over this pea -- over the past six weeks, this committee has upside taken a serious and rigorous review of the present global challenges we face as well as review of the united states national security strategy. we received testimony from some of america's most experienced statesmen and leading strategic thinkers, a unified and alarming assessment that is -- has emerged from these national leaders. as former secretary of state dr. kissinger testified on january

29 the united states is not -- has not faced a more diverse and complex array of crises since the end of the second world war. given the accumulating dangers we face, it is notable that the president supported the department of defense in 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 the b.c.a. was enacted in 2011, and with the united states slashing its defense spending as a result, the world has become more dangerous and threats to our nation have grown. i don't think that is purely a coincidence. the president's budget request responds to many critical priorities, particularly addressing cyberand 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 urgent and legitimate military needs where to believe. as for meeting our growing security requirement general dempsey's prepared statement states that the president's request is, quote, at the lower ragged edge of manageable risk, and leaves no slack no margin left for error or strategic surprise. i go further. i question whether the deft department's current strategy, 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 post war order in europe by invading and annexing the territory of another sovereign nation. a terrorist army has proclaimed its desire to attack america and its allies controls a vast swath of territory in the middle east. iran continues its pursuit of nuclear weapons while spreading its maligned influence across the region. north korea mounted the most coercive attack on our nation. the find offings last year's national defense panel cast serious doubt on who our -- on whether our military can fulfill even the current strategy at acceptable risk. this bipartisan group of military commanders and policymakers stated that the

defense spending cuts imposed by the b.c.a. and sequestration quote, constitute a serious strategic misstep. more ominously, the panel concluded that, quote in the extreme, the united states could find itself in a position where it must either abandon an important national interest or enter a conflict for which it is not fully prepared, unquote. based on its findings, the national defense panel recommended unanimously that congress and the president immediately repeal the b.c.a. and return at a minimum to the last strategy driven budget proposed by former secretary of defense robert gates in 2011. that would mean $611 billion for the discretionary budget for the defense department in fiscal year 2016. but here, too, i would note that the world has changed significantly since 2011 and this recommendation is more likely a floor, not a ceiling,

of what we as a nation should be considering for our own defense. while senator reid and i support the defense panel's recommendation we recognize that $611 billion for defense is neither realistic in the current political environment, nor sit likely that the department could responsibly execute this funding in fiscal year 2016. that's why senator reid and i came together in the views and estimates letter 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 there are differences of opinion over broader fiscal questions, especially how to approach nondefense discretionary spending, but continuing to live with the unacceptable effect of

sequestration is a choice. sequestration is the law but congress makes the laws. we can choose to end the deep de-bill dating effects of sequestration and we must because at sequestration levels it is impossible to meet our constitutional responsibility to provide for our national defense. we look forward to the witnesses' testimony today and hope that they will 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 the ukraine and in syria and iraq. i want to thank senator reid for his continued bipartisan cooperation that has characterized our relationship for many years, especially on this joint letter to the budget committee. i thank senator reid. mr. reid: thank you mr. chairman. let me join you in welcoming secretary carter, general

dempsey, gentlemen, i appreciate you being here to talk about the f.y. 2016 budget can request which is $38 billion over the budget control act discretionary funding. mr. reed: these coupled with cuts are necessary for military planning, create an urgent and growing strategic problem that we simply must address. indeed, in my view, it creates a problem for every federal agency and department and i think sequestration across the board must be ended. on january 28 this committee heard stark testimony from each of the service chiefs about the impact of reduced funding levels. all the services are working hard to maintain near-term readiness to meet the fight tonight requirement but only by assuming increased risks in the form of cuts and delays, and by curtailing quality of life programs.

chief of staff general welch eloquently stated, when the bugle calls, we will win but the vulnerability sequestration introo deuces in our forces will encourage our adversaries, worry our ally limb the number of operations we can conduct and increase the risk to the men and women who fight america's next war. the services, the men and women in uniform are the backbone of our nation's defense and they are under great strain. i'm certainly interested in the witnesses' testimony in how the department of defense will continue to manage this problem while a solution is not yet on the horizon. if you do not get the $38 billion of the b.c.a., and that's the president's request and senator mccain and i again are urging even more, what must be cut? and if sequestration is not avoibdable what else must be cut? and what is your timetable of beginning to implement these cuts. 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. national security interests. in afghanistan, the commanding general of the u.s. forces, general campbell, believe he is has resources and authority he is needs for the 2015 fighting season but the taliban remain resilient despite coming under pressure on both sides of the pakistan-afghanistan border. operations against isis in afghanistan and syria continue at a pace that appears to be rolling back their territorial gains of the last year providing the space needed for advise and assist programs. but this campaign must continue unabated if it's going to be successful against such a dangerous enemy and the fight will be harder each and every day, especially as iraqi forces try to enter urban centers like mosul. in europe, post-cold war sp is under orders from a russia that seeks to dominate its neighbors by cuggetting increasingly violent military actions.

yemen and libya provide terrorists safe haven and must continue to watch. and china makes its neighbors uneasy. aws these things require adequate troops and adequate funding and i'm intested in how you're prioritizing this funding. in addition, there are emerging threats that will require immediate and significant investments. the recent cyberattack on sony by north korea illustrates that even a relatively small and weak rogue nation can cause extensive damage to u.s.-based targets. the u.s. must work to counter this threat. in addition, i also understand the -- that efforts are now under way to protect our space assets from hostile acts, an equally serious threat and one that will require substantial funding. in focusing on emerging threat well cannot kiss regard the significant funding necessary for the maintenance and modernization of our nuclear enterprise including the ohio class replacement submarine. i'm interested in hearing how

you will balance new threats with existing programs. clearly the department has many bills to pay and they cannot do it without the help of congress. department the department has once again submitted several proposals aimed at slowing growth in military personnel. 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. with regard to brac, i understand the department is again requesting a base realignment and closure in 2017. while brac has been controversial in the past, i believe we feed 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 higher priorities. again, i would appreciate your views on this matter. while the focus today son the

defense budget, the pentagon cannot meet all these national security challenges without the help of our other government departments and agencies, including state, justice, homeland security, the intelligence community and so again i would ask, as you speak to comment on the interagency necessities that are facing the department. >> we commend the witnesses for working hard and comment the chairman for his efforts and i look forward to your testimony. >> secretary carter. secretary carter: thank you mr. chairman. ranking member reed, 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 in 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 share response b89 for them and for the -- schafers responsibility for them and for he -- and shares responsibility for them and for the defense of this country and 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 2016. since i've been on the job for exactly two weeks, it's plain i did not have a role in shaping this budget, but i've studied it carefully and i'm fully prepared to answer your questions about it and 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 and i support the president's commitment to vetoing 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 here. shortly after i was sworn in, i spoke to the people of the department of defense, military, civilian and contractor. and 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 effect i haveness. and equally to those who came before them and to those who will come after them. the second commitment is to

assist the president as he makes difficult decisions about how to defend the country in a turbulent world. and then to carry out those decisions where they involve the use of military force. and 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 and 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. and also the leaders of afghanistan and some of their military leaders. i wanted to assess the conditions on the ground there as we enter a new phase of our long campaign and 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 emir before convening senior american diplomats and military leaders from throughout the region. ambassadors from several countries, our commanders from sent come, ucom, africom and socom, and the commands 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 to leveraging u.s. leadership of the broad coalition combating this ugly scourge. and this afternoon, i'd be pleased to discuss these challenges or any others the chairman mention -- any others. the chairman mentioned ukraine. in addition to the budget. the point is, in these regions of the world just as in the asia-pacific, in europe, and elsewhere, it's 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 our children. but this congress will determine whether our troops can continue to do so. the administration is proposing to increase the defense budget in line with the projection submitted to congress last year. by halting the decline in defense spending imposed by the budget control act, 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 threaten ours military's readiness, the size of our war fighting forces, the

capabilities of our air and naval fleets and ultimately the lives of our menuniform. 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. and i completely agree with you that the threat of sequestration is, as you said, "a national security crisis of the first order."edy is that this corrosive damage to our national security is not the result of objective factors, logic, or reason. it's 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's not that sequester is forced upon us emergency or dire recession that makes taking grave security risks absolutely necessary. it's surely not the case that the world has suddenly become more stable or that america has less to do to keep it safe allowing us to take a peace dividend. it's not even that these cuts solve the nation's overall fiscal challenges -- because the sad math is that 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 was 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 -- that has coupled mindless 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 as committed to reform as i am. and i look forward to working with you on new reforms. 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, excess infrastructure and the like. there are significant savings to be found through new reforms across dod -- reforms that we're committed to pursuing. but sequester cuts don't 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 unit costs. but 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 force structure 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 looms, and at the same time as -- and at the same time as we make 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, inadequate readiness, or ineffective doctrine. but everything else is on the table -- including parts of our budget that have long been considered inviolate. 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's budget cuts over the long term our entire nation will have to

live with the answers. so 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 boldly new technology, leading in domains like cyber and space -- as the chairman and senator reed said -- 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. given today's security environment, the president's proposed increase in defense spending over last year's budget is responsible, and it's prudent. i earnestly hope we can come together behind a long-term budget approach that dispels

sequester and provides stability, rather than doing this one year at a time. i hope we can again unite behind what our great nation should -- and must -- do to protect our people and make a better world. and i hope we can provide our magnificent men and women of the department of defense -- who make up the greatest fighting force the world has ever known force the world has ever known -- what they need, and what they fully deserve. thank you, mr. chairman, and i look forward to your questions. senator: thank you, mr. secretary, and i hope that every member of congress has heard that message you conveyed. >> i appreciate the opportunity to provide you an update on armed forces and discuss our budget for 2016. i asked by written statement he submitted for the record.

i will touch on a few points. our military remains strong today. with threats proliferating resources declining, and sequestration months away, our ability to a sure our our allies is in question and are invalid -- are shrieking. this is a major strategic challenge that the not only our military, but also america's leadership in the global world order. we face the reemergence of nation-states with the capability and potentially the intent to constrain us. in space and cyberspace, our adversaries are rapidly leveling the playing fields, and we face an increasingly capable network of nonstate actors, including the islamic state of iraq and the levant. our strategy against isil balances nine lines of effort. isil's threat is trans regional and will require an exchange

effort over a. of time which will create an environment where they will be defeated. in europe, russia seeks to reduce european influence in eastern europe and generate disagreement on the future of europe. shall leaders have chosen a dangerous path to achieve their strategic objectives, lighting a fire of after and nationalism not seen in europe in 65 years. it may burn out of control. as strategy is to reassure and reinforce our nato allies while considering other instruments of power to counter russian aggression. altogether, the global security environment is as uncertainty as i have seen it in my 40 years of service. and we are at a point where our national aspirations are at risk of exceeding our available resources. that brings me to the budget. different the congress lot of clear as a have jealous us to

become more efficient and determine the minimum requirements we need to do what the nation asks us to do. pv16 is that answer. this budget rose presents a coronation of capability capacity, and readiness investment what we need to remain at the bottom edge of manageable risk to our national defense. as the chairman said, there's no slack, no margin left for error nor for response to tree she -- two strategic surprise. the lack of flexibility in making reforms necessary to put us in a situation could and will put us in a situation where our national defense strategy will simply no longer be filed will. for the past way five years the united states military has secured the global commons. we have deterred after sherry schematically a short allies, and responded to crises and

conflict by maintaining our presence abroad. it has been our strategy to shoot the international security environment by our forward presence and by building relationships among regional partners. in general terms 1/3 of the force is forward deployed, 1/3 has just returned, and 1/3 is preparing to deploy. certain capabilities operate with half of our forces deployed and the other half recovering. this puts a significant strain on men and women in uniform and on their families. sequestration will fundamentally and significantly change the way we deployed of force and shape the security environment. we will be almost 20% smaller but our forward presence will be reduced by more than 1/3. we will have less influence and we will be less responsive. conflict will take longer to resolve and will be more costly, in terms of dollars and in casualties. in an age when we are less certain about what will happen next but certain that if a

happen more quickly, we will be further away and less ready than we to be. simply stated, sequestration will result in a dramatic change in how we protect and how we protect our nation and how we promote our national interests. mr. chairman, members, our men and women in uniform are performing around the globe with extraordinary courage character, and professionalism. we own them and their families clarity and importantly predict ability on everything from policy to compensation, health care, equipment, training, and readiness. settling down this uncertainty will help keep the right people, our decisive edge, in our all-volunteer force 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 i look forward to your questions.

senator mccain: thank you very much. chairman mc, in front of the house armed so versus to become a general breedlove testified " i think mr. pruden has not published his objectives in ukraine camusso next is more probable action in ukraine." in your opinion do you think general breedlove is correct that putin will continue operations because he is not congress his objectives? >> in a speech, president putin referred to a concept he described as novo russia, which is new russia, which stretches across areas of ukraine, the eastern, southern, oblast of

ukraine and upwards. he said that is what his intention was to do, and to this point there action suggests to be they may actually be intent on, pushing it. senator mccain: does that convince you or give you the view that we should be providing defensive weaponry to ukraine? general dempsey: chairman, we have provided about $100 million and other kinds of aid. we have a program to provide -- senator mccain: the question is do you think we should provide defensive weaponry to ukraine? i know what you have done -- not enough. go ahead. general dempsey: we should consider providing legal aid and it should be in the context of our nato allies, because his objective is to fracture nato. senator mccain: today secretary

carter, the shia militia with the iranian revolutionary guard leader, among others, and a rainy and air, is now attacking tikrit, the hometown of sodom hussein, as we -- sodom hussein, as we recall, and the majority of that effort with a couple thousand iraqis is being undertaken by the shia militia the same militia we fought a bentz -- against in the search, the same militia that according to estimates are manufactured the iud--that resulted in the deaths of thousands of young americans. are you concerned that iran is basically taking over the fight and according to a report this one, we are observing that operation? does that ring and alarm dealt with you, mr. secretary? mr. carter: it does.

our approach to combating isil in iraq is to work with the iraqi security forces and a multi-sectarian government that takes a alt i sectarian approach to defeating isil and re-greening control of its own territory. sectarianism is what brought us to the point where we are and so i look at it with concern. we're watching it very closely. the shia militias involved, also the iraqi security forces involved, some sunni forces involved, and i would note that some sunni tribal leaders in tikrit have signaled their support for this offensive, and if that is true, it is good news, because it suggests that

this is not purely a shia- on-sunni thing. i am looking at it with great concern. senator mccain: it is well documented human rights violations, significant, by shia militia on sunni. secretary carter, you just returned from afghanistan, an excellent visit from all reports. in my understanding from the reports is that you will be reevaluating the calendar-driven plan for withdrawal from afghanistan. and is that true, and can you tell us what recommendations you have in mind? we have been hearing about these recognitions for a year or two now. you got any timeline as to when a decision will be made, because according to the calendar-driven

plan that is known place we are going to have to be withdrawing troops very soon. can you update us on that? mr. carter: i certainly can, and that was the reason i went to afghanistan, second only to the primary reason, which is to see our fantastic people who are there and let them know that we are all with them and think about them every day. but i had an opportunity to assess conditions on the ground there, to discuss them with president ghani and i will share the observations, but to get your question, i think the phrase i used when i came before you last was we have a plan, but a plan is a plan, and a plan is something you would adjust overtime. i think that we can adjust our plan over the next year or two.

i did discuss that with president ghani. i have discussed that here in washington. i do not know the decisions the president will 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. the other thing i would like to say is that president ghani 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, and i do not want to take too much time, but i wanted to tell everybody on this committee that the first thing he said to me when he saw me was, will you please go home and tell everyone there, and especially the troops, that i know that almost a million americans have come through here in the last decade to help my

country, and that thousands of them have been killed and wounded, and i want you to know, thank you, and i wanted to tell you that, because -- [indiscernible] senator mccain: is it your opinion the present plan needs to be revised? mr. carter: there are respects in which the present needs consider. i will give you examples of that -- senator: do you want it to be revised? mr. carter: we have to be conditions taste, absolutely, firmly. senator: i think both of you for your testimony and secretary do you want to add anything? >> not on the subject of afghanistan, thank you. senator reed: thank you. quickly following up, mr. secretary, you have been to afghanistan, iraq, and the

region, and then into medication with foreign leaders your counterparts across the globe. are they aware of the impending budgetary train wreck in the united states, and does this sort of create the anxiety and conclusion that we will not have the resources even if we have the resolve? mr. carter: in general, they are polite not enough to answer this question, but when i have had conversations with foreign leaders, i think it is 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 not good for our friends. i am only talking to our

friends, but i can imagine what our foes are thinking, but they are thinking the same thing -- what are these guys doing to themselves? this is why it is not only a substantive matter, but it is a matter of appearances and the deterrence that we get our act together. senator reed: so this goes beyond the numbers and the budget and what programs we are going to fund. this goes to the perception of the world the united states is being both capable and resourced to carry out a strategy to support their allies and oppose our adversaries? mr. carter: that is exacting right. senator reed: we are also in a position where our allies are not step into the play to fill out our gaps. mr. carter: amen to that, and you mentioned the europeans.

our nato partners made a pledge to take steps that would for most of them, involved an increase in defense spending, and they really need to take that step as we cannot be the only one on our team with military potential in that theater, which is -- you and the chairman have mentioned with respect to ukraine -- which is a very dangerous one. senator: your enthusiasm to raise the defense budgets are probably affected by our lack of will to raise hours. is that correct? mr. carter: that well could be and yet another reason for us to get it together here. senator: you mentioned there are nine lines of operations against isil and defense has two so the seven other lines are being funded outside dod budget.

is that accurate? >> some of the lines result in our budget, but the general answer is yes. senator: so if we were to give significant funding to department of defense on the ground, you would be without the resources you would need to defeat isil and degrade isil? >> yes, sir. if what you mean is the whole of government, absolutely. senator: the situation with the bullet recently etc., so there is not a nice separation between our national security and dod and the rest of government? >> not on the isil. campaign. senator: secretary carter, let's assume the worst and we do not move above the issue of

sequestration, how does this affect our accounts? does it affect our ability to fund them? do you have to borrow to pay for paul? mr. carter: you mean if we are denied what we're asking for in the base budget -- we also have an other budgets, as you say. there is not slack in the oco budget. that is money being spent for real things, being spent for the war against -- the campaign against isil, is being spent in afghanistan, the horn of africa, so oco is committed to the here and now in ways that we are protecting our security, and we cannot rob peter to pay paul. senator: in that same vein, how are you going to manage the strategic risk if we have a

situation of sequestration in place, to control act? >> we have already -- i have submitted the risk assessment which establishes the fact that we are at significant risk against the strategy as conceived in 2012 already. what we have been doing is we have been increasing risk of the past three or four years. what i would tell you is if we do not get funded at pv 2016 level and do not get reforms inside the budget, because it is $4.2 billion this year, but crews to 40 billion -- -- but accrues to $40 billion -- it is unmanageable. senator thank you, general. senator: you agree with his statement? mr. carter: i do. senator: i am sorry and mr.

opening statement, and did not have that that if it of reading it, but i think this worthwhile getting on the record again. you heard many times the statements of james clapper and others that looks back over the half-century of intelligence, i have not expressed a time when we had been beset by more crises. just last week, we had general stuart saying the same thing. i assume you agree with the statements. mr. carter: i do. when i started in the business and was one problem, the soviet union, and now we have -- senator inhofe: those were the good old days. mr. carter: i remember enough not to be too nostalgic. senator: hearing netanyahu this morning, that drove at home. i was thinking how easy that was, yes, the threat was terrible two superpowers, they

were predictable, we were predictable, and mutual assured distraction. it does not mean anything anymore. i was thinking about that. how different that is today. the other thing i wanted to mention is that you have heard general odierno and others all testified and they talked about if sequester is coming in. you said something that i think is even more significant. you said even with the fiscal year 2016 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, even if it is a budget without sequestration, you are saying that threat is there. mr. carter: what is going on there is digging ourselves out of a hole of sequester in the

past, particularly the 2013 budget, the year in which the shutdown occurred, and so forth. the thing about readiness is it is easy to have it fall off that it takes time to build it back, and what the chiefs were saying, absolutely accurately, is we lost a lot of readiness through the turmoil of the last few years. even if we are given the opportunity, as we hope that this budget to start building act, it is just in the nature of training that it takes a while to get that readiness back. i do agree with him. senator: secretary carter, you were over there -- this is the first time you have been before this committee in this capacity. when you were over there and you apparently had some time, good quality time with president ghani when you were there, and it was observed by general dempsey that we do not operate in a vacuum here.

what we are saying and the whole world knows, is there anything you want to add with our relationship with president ghani that would be beneficial to have the whole world know, for those who are participating in a theater? mr. carter: yes. one thing, which is that he is a partner in a way that we have been looking for and without whom the sacrifice that we have made over these last 10 years cannot be successful. he understands what we have tried to do for him. he knows it has been of great benefit to his country and not just to protect our country, which ist has, which was why we were there in the first place to protect ourselves from the breeding ground of the 9/11 attacks on our own country. and i think everybody who participated in this campaign

offs to know that around the world and in our coalition that we have now in president ghani somebody who really gets the sacrifice that we have all made on behalf of afghanistan and is committed to making the progress that we have made their stick. -- there stick. senator: i appreciate that. senator reed talked about our limited resources. do you think people are out there, in ukraine, it could be georgia, anyplace, do they recognize that we do not have the resources we have historically had and are able to do what we have historically done? mr. carter: we hear them's -- they hear a saying that an interest debating that. i hope, and this is of the i try to say and i am sure you all try to say, which is, yes, we are

having internal debates and so forth and we do not like what is going on here, and i certainly have said that today but do not underestimate the will and the power of the united states. and i hope people understand that as well, because we still have the greatest fighting force the world has ever seen. senator: i understand that, and we are aiming that toward others yes, we do, but looking here at home, when even you admit that with the current budget, even without sequestration, our risk level is going to increase. rightr? mr. carter: the risk is measured in the readiness that needs to be restored -- senator: general dempsey, should congress pass a aumf without restrictions? >> i am the military guy and the room, and i was always seek to preserve all of our options.

i was consulted on the document past through the congress and it will allow us to meet the campaign as we have designed it. you say without restrictions? that really becomes a decision between you and your colleagues. senator: secretary carter? mr. carter: exactly the same answer. key to us is can we do our campaign. senator: thank you, mr. chairman. senator: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your service and your testimony. senator carter -- chairman carter as there are fairly big challenges in terms of available resources. i know from our january meeting that you agreed that stability in asia-pacific region is critical to our national security easy -- even as there is instability in so many other parts of the world. so you mentioned they once again in your testimony that the priority one of the priorities

is to commit and you are committed to the rebalance of the asia-pacific. i want to highlight related issue that i would like to continue to discuss with you and that is there are plans in place to ship the number of military personnel and assets from hawaii to include naval vessels, aircraft, air force tankers, that to the continental u.s. by 2020. i am concerned about how moving these kinds of significant capabilities away from the region while we are supposed to be committed to the rebalance of it the asia-pacific will look to our allies and to our adversaries. so i would like to continue this discussion with you as we go forward. this is a question relating to energy security. in april of 2014, there was a dod directive to all of our

service entities, signed by the acting deputy secretary of defense. excuse me. this was a new energy directive to enhance capabilities, while improving energy security and mitigating costs, because we all acknowledge that the dod is the largest user of energy in our country. can you tell us where dod stands in regards diplomatic this directive, which, by the way goes to 2024, and how is it supported in the president's budget? mr. carter: thank you, senator and on the first point i agree with you entirely. to asia-pacific rebalance is a critical part of our strategy going forward. we cannot forget, as we are embroiled in the conflict with isil which we must win it is a

big world out there, and we have interest and friends and challenges throughout the world and the asia-pacific is where half the world's population and economy resides. i would be happy to discuss that. we have done it before, and that is a continuing commitment not only of mine and yours, but of our country, so i am glad to talk to you about that. with spectra energy, the energy landscape is talking death with respect to energy, the energy landscape his changing a lot and dod is the largest energy user in the government far and therefore has a real stake in where we go with respect to energy. and the role to play in getting us there, and i signify two ways in which we do that. one is r&d in areas particularly important to

defense where because of our particular needs, we may be an early adopter of technology. that is a long-standing role of the department of defense in many things like the internet and every thing else, and we are doing it for defense, but it has spinoffs. and the other way we play a role is in the country's overall energy strategy, and obviously secretary -- that is the secretary and the president's responsibility, and i do not want to go on too long, overall, her energy situation has improved tremendously over the last couple of years and her opportunities have widened, and that has been good for defense because we are a huge user of fuel. when oil prices come down, we benefit from it. thank you. senator hirono: general dempsey,

there was a recent report that indicated that 62% of women reported an unwanted sexual contact to military authorities and indicated they excrete at least one form of retaliation -- and that they experienced at least one for fm of retaliation. i would like to know what your thoughts are on this type of retaliation and how at can be curtailed. >> it is unacceptable. there were 12 metrics we have established to track progress toward ridding the professional force from this stain. and it trended positively, two of them negatively. one was the retribution issue. a companion piece was that the vast majority of respondents --

and by the way we had an unusual number of respondents for the survey -- expressed faith in the chain of command. sue we have been able to isolate -- so we have been able to isolate the key issue on the are on graduation. based on that survey, the secretary convened a meeting every two weeks, i think it is. had one yesterday. and that is a topic, and we are looking to get after that, but we actually are encouraged we have been able to turn the trendline on 10 out of 12. we got to work on the other two. senator: there will be continuing interest on the part of most members of this committee. >> as there should be. we do not mind that a bit. we got work on this. senator: thank you. senator: thank you. secretary carter, general dempsey, i want to ask about the big picture, and that in the six minutes we have, i would like to

drill down on afghanistan. last week the director of national intelligence james clapper spoke to us and he said among other things unpredictable instabilityu is the new normal and secretary carter, this is what you were talking about when used said we used to know that threats. now it is unstable and unpredictable. general klapper also said to this. he noted that last year more that's from state-sponsored mass killings workers displaced from their homes, and a high rate of political instability. it was the most lethal year for global terrorism in 45 years. that is director clapper. a few days before, secretary of state terri told the house foreign affairs committee that we are actually living in a period of us daily threat to americans and to people in the

world than normally. less that some less violent deaths than through the last century. now, secretary carter, are we living in a period of less daily threats to americans? mr. carter: senator, i have not seen that quote a secretary kerry in the context. i would say two things. one is get back to what director clapper said about an uncertain world and one in which things -- new and different threats are constantly emerging, i would agree with that completely. and i cynthia did not know what secretary kerry said in that particular instance senator, or what that context for it was. but we certainly have serious threats to the united states around the world.

it is a good thing that we have combated terrorism as vigorous as we have since 2001, and we have made a lot of changes, a new department of homeland security, a lot of changes in intelligence, in the department of defense, and so i think we have of our game considerably. at the same time, our opponents but state and terrorists, continued to be very ingenious -- senator: but i would observe, in terms of the level of threat, it is hard to square the two statements coming from two members of the same administration. either we are living in a time of higher instability and more deaths from state-sponsored mass killing's we are in a time of less daily threats to americans. the second statement, coming from our chief negotiator, with

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

and i am doing everything i can working with the bipartisan leadership of this committee and i appreciate your testimony on page three, general dempsey, that threats are proliferating. it seems to me that that is what is obvious out there. it does concern me, though, when the secretary of state completely misses the point as demonstrated by the juxtaposition of director clapper's statement and the secretary's statement. secretary carter, on the first page of your testimony thank you for committing our troops. you say in afghanistan can our soldiers and airmen are helping to senate progress made toward a more secure stable, and prosperous future. i want to salute you for saying that we made progress. and it seems to me that there is some people out there listening

maybe to the network news were some of the talking heads who would conclude that things have gone to hell in afghanistan. as a matter fact, as you pointed out in response to senator in hofe's question, president ghani in his later are any partnership, and we made progress. things are headed in the right russian. 10 years of blood and sacrifice have gotten us to where they are. you say they are working to ensure that afghanistan never becomes a safe haven for attacks on our homeland or our partners and allies. i think six years ago you might of been able to say that about iraq and i just wonder what lessons we learn from iraq and what assurances you can give with the plan the administration has come up with the president's plan toward a drawdown of troops in afghanistan we will not lose the progress that we have made

that you have talked about that cements the progress toward a more stable future in afghanistan and toss that all the way as we have elsewhere. mr. carter: thank you senator and we do have the opportunity to submit it -- cement it. you say what is the difference between iraq and afghanistan. they were very different situations in the following two ways. the first is that we, as presidentghani clearly indicated to me and has said this publicly, he wants us there. we have a willing partner. we have a bilateral security agreement, which we did not get with iraq, welcoming us to stay in afghanistan. that is the first thing. and the second thing is we have a partner in president g

hani, and you mentioned the chief executive officer, and that is an important point as you note, they are working together. i saw both of them. i saw both of them together. i kind of watch their relationship. and they have agreed to work together in a multi-sectarian, if i can use that phrase weight, which is exactly what did not happen in iraq, was the devolutions to sectarianism, and that is what led to the opportunity to the cruel force of isil exploited and the situation we are now in. so we have an opportunity and afghanistan for those reasons that were so different from iraq to get an outcome that really is cemented. senator: general, would you like to comment on that? general dempsey: there is a terrorist network that stretches from afghanistan to nigeria, and we have got to keep pressure on

it along its entire length. and i think afghanistan is and will remain an anchor point for that pressure. senator: thank you. senator blumenthal: thanks. i want to ship to an area where but if you have demonstrated a lot of carrying, which is the well-being of extraordinary men and women whom you command, and while they serve under you and after when they become veterans. i know that both of you have shown indeed, mr. secretary, in your prior life when you worked as undersecretary, and, general dempsey, i was privileged to watch you perform at a recent event sponsored by the woodward foundation, so i know how active you are in support of our troops

and our wounded warriors. and i want to focus on the connections between dod and the v.a. having now seen it from the perspective of the v.a. in my capacity as ranking member, i am struck by the need for better information, the electronic health records have been a point of contention, but so have the formulary issue, the drug formulary issue. there are a variety of areas where there needs to be better coordination. that is a washington word, " coordination." can you see ways we can improve the flow of information and the help that veterans get particularly our veterans who suffer from post traumatic stress and brain, which as you

know chairman mccain and i have addressed in the veterans suicide prevention bill that we cosponsored and that recently passed but that is the beginning of a down payment, and i am wondering what we can do in that area. we have talked about it a little bit and i was wondering if you could address that in the context of the budget. mr. carter: i can and thank you for that. we discussed it accordingly. i have a great partner in the secretary of the veterans affairs, and i have talked to him. you know, to the soldiers sailors, airmen, and marine, they do not have to worry about there are two cabinet department's taking care of them. you mentioned iehr, formulary

issues that have to do with pharmacies and what they call drugs and so forth. 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 sad experience in the last decade or so is a serious thing that can also be treated. and i think you have thebeen the one champion, and i thank you for that, and we will do it, making sure that veterans came along before there was this awareness and before there were these treatments are given the benefits of this awareness and given the benefits of this treatment. and i have looked into that since you and i talked. i can say more of that. we can talk about it privately.

i understand exactly the need that you are pointing me to, and i see a way that we can address that, but it is really important for older veterans. senator blumenthal: i appreciate those comments. the diagnosis for pts began in the 1980's, by troops were suffering from it way before then and the challenges to care for them, and you mentioned there are treatments, but in many ways, pts is still a history. there are centers of excellence, and one happens to be the v.a. facility in connecticut, under the aegis of yale-new haven, and they are doing some great work. with proper support and i hope it will come from the department of defense as well as the v.a., so much more can be done and more effective treatment which we are just beginning to

discover as you observed. let me conclude by going through some of the procurement issues that i think are important. the joint strike fighter, i am pleased to see the increase there from -- it's going back to your service from the department of defense might not be predicted at that time. the vote of confidence, it looks to me like that procurement program is proceeding well. am i correct? mr. carter: i think we have stability in the joint strike fighter program compared to five years ago, and that is the basis on which the ramp-up of production is a prudent thing to do, and that is a good opportunity for us that the program is running that way. senator: i am pleased to see that both the virginia class and the ohio replacements are moving

ahead on a very good pace. mr. carter: true, but necessary. senator: thank you, general. senator ayotte: i want to thank the chair and thank all of you for what you do for the country and, secretary carter, i want to thank you very much for so quickly into after your confirmation of following through and meeting with the -- to hear their perspective on the air support on friday and for including me in that meeting. i appreciate your commitment to review the air force's decision on the a10 and appreciate your willingness to do that. so thank you very much. i wanted to follow-up on the issue of ukraine on a different topic, and that is the issue of u.s. intelligence sharing because there were reports recently in "the wall street

journal" that really troubled me about what we are doing to help the ukrainians in terms of their defense, the information we can share with them to be able to minimize their casualties and defend the territory. and in that article basically what it said is images are being degraded to avoid provoking russia and that what it was doing in terms of ukrainian officials, they said, has really hampered their ability of their forces to counter separatists because of the 24-hour delay of intelligence sharing, and they are approaching countries like canada because of these gaps. if we are not going to give them arms and to defend themselves because we're not than that it, and i appreciate the comment from general dempsey and you as well that this is of the

you're open to, at least picture information about them because they are dying by the thousands defending their own territory. can you help me understand this issue of can we share intelligence with them so they can defend themselves. mr. carter: i can help you in a limited way because that is not a decision that i or the chairman is involved in. it is an intelligence community thing, and it has to do with the sharing arrangement we had with ukraine, and i think there are other considerations that they have to take into account when making that determination. but i think your larger point, which is that there are things that we can do to help the ukrainians help themselves -- and of course the main effort there is political and economic, sanctions and sort -- but on the military side there are ways we can help that ukrainians help

themselves, and working through them now, but i cannot speak to that. the intelligence committee needs to answer that. general dempsey: it has nothing to do with the fact that we are worried about angering russia. i can assure you put the secretary and i are committed to find ways to help ukraine defend its sovereign territory and reduce the casualties. there is a disproportionate number of casualties hundred -- on the ukraine side, and you're right, but europeans and us to be active in trying to help them. senator: so think about if you were general dempsey, with all your military experience, you are fighting an enemy and you 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 to me -- there's got a way to be to protect our sources and methods, but not 24-hour slater in at -- 24 hours later in an intelligence con text is a lifetime. i hope we get them their intelligence so they can defend themselves and they have suffered too many casualties, and anything we can do to prevent those casualties, we have some responsibility here given we were -- we were signatories to the budapest memorandum too. i appreciate that. i wanted to ask as well about i sil's activities beyond iraq and syria. we are hearing a lot about isil's activities in libya. can you help me understand what we see isil doing beyond the grave challenges we face of their associate caliphate along

iraq and syria in places like libya, and where else are we seeing their presence and what are we going to do about it? mr. carter: thank you, senator. i will say something, and then the chairman will want to add in. we are seeing it. we're seeing a throughout north africa. we are seeing it in thegulf area. i had a lenghthy conversation with president ghani about a chewing up in afghanistan. and then we see people in europe individuals who are joining up and so forth. and i will give you the perspective i learned by talking to our folks over in the meeting i held in kuwait last week, what i learned about it, which is, one, isil is attractive to younger members of movements --

of older movements with the leadership has gotten a little older, maybe they have gotten a little staid and the younger guys who have more steam or are more deluded, are tracked into this more radical thing. the second learned is this is a social media-fueled terrorism group in a way that we have not seen yet. and so people who are very distant from any battlefield very distant from any experience of radicalism settling -- suddenly becoming enticed to social media. in terms of what we do about it, i think this is why i wanted people to come from all over the region and indeed the case of

special operations command all over the world we need to be prepared for this in terms of protecting our own people. i think it is also true in the diplomatic people in this conference have this knowledge and responsibility, it is something we need to combat in the information domain. this is a social media, if bin laden was the internet terrorist, these guys are the social media terrorists. and i think we will see people running up that flag, or saying they are attracted to that movement all over the world. that is why it is important to inflict defeat upon isil. these guys are not invincible. we've got to make that clear.

general dempsey: the radical nature of its ideology makes it attractive to a population where governance has collapsed across the region. they are in the social media so we really are taking and continue to refine a sustainable, persistent approach to this. it stretches from al qaeda in iraq and pakistan all over to boko haram. they syndicate with each other and we've got to see it's that way. senator manchin and then we will take about 15 minutes after senator manchin and the committee will stand in recess for 15 minutes. senator manchin: thank you for

your service to the country and i appreciate what you do every day. there is not a person i know that doesn't support everything you do. the military, anything you ask them to do. but they ask questions about why we spend so much money on military. more than eight of the next countries put together. we have to be gaining their trust. i know in procurement, we are not the best in developing weapons. eisenhower said beware of the military-industrial complex. i know how tremendous it is. we talk about flexibility. flexibility will do it by itself. i understand that. secretary carter, we had a conversation. i think secretary hagel was trying to look at the budgets,

reduce them by 20%. it comes down to the auditing, knowing where we are. i've talked about contracting, the effectiveness of the national guard and wide we have duplication? there is so much going on, are we allowing you to do everything you need to do to run an efficient military for our country? the people in west virginia are willing to spend taxes to the defense of this country. they would like to make sure they are getting pretty good rank for their buck and not just throwing it away. how do we do this? had we help you? we've got to have an audit. i know the chairman has been concerned about that. developing our arsenal, if you will, making sure we are able to get that to market as quick as possible. anybody on the panel and

secretary, if you wanted to start with that? secretary carter: i think your constituents are very logical. i'm willing to pay for defense but i want to make sure every dollar is spent well. we need to pair our request for the funds to defend the country with the assurance we are using it well. we know we are not using all of it well and that is why i think senator mccain, chairman reed, and this committee has been urging a movement toward reform. one i support and i would like to partner with you on because i think the taxpayer will 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. that is key. we have a plan for audit readiness, for the departments you and i have discussed that. secretary mccord is in charge of that effort. i'm completely committed to its success. senator manchin: every time we hear about the reduction of force, it is always on the front line, the people fighting. when you look at the size of the staffs it is just overwhelming the size keeps growing. we continue to talk about reduction of force. what can we do to help you get

control of that and reduce that staff proportion? secretary carter: you are right. i hope you will support and continue to support us as we get rid of access infrastructure and shed excess staff. this is the kind of thing we have to do if we are going to go forward with resources that are going to be under pressure. we have to make sure every dollar counts. senator, before i ask the chairman, let me say, mr. chairman, i appreciate your consideration. i'm doing fine. since everybody is here, i'm ok going on. i appreciate your consideration. mr. chairman: i was trying to prevent you from being interrogated by senator fisher. [laughter]

secretary carter: i just got another attack. [laughter] general dempsey: when i became the chief staff of the army, we were asked to find money in the budget. when i became the chairman, we were asked to achieve that level of 520 billion. we have actually found $750 billion. what we are debating now is the last $250 billion. i think we have done tar and well. in terms of what you can tell the people in west virginia, they are going to see the mountaineers playing basketball. they don't have to get worried about getting blown up. last but not least i would venture to tell you this group have proposed some of the most

controversial and emotional changes in terms of paid compensation, health care weapon systems, than any group in my memory and if we get some help with that, and we get some topline for things that were not forecasted nuclear weapons, the emerging threats, we can actually manage it and look the american people in the eye and tell them we are spending your money wisely. centsenator: thank you for being here. i appreciate your service and fortitude to stay so you can have my questions. a lot of my colleagues have drill down on issues. i have about three areas i would like to touch on. as we look at the situation in ukraine and we see the

separatist forces are having success on the battlefield, do you believe that may incentivize vladimir putin to become more ambitious in ukraine so that he may be would look at more ambitious goals with regard to that country? secretary carter: i am concerned. i think he has made his goals clear. he speaks about them openly. which is to have all around him states that are in his orbit rather than pursuing their own future, their independent future. ukraine is an example of that.

i think that if we don't remain united on the political and economic pressure, which is having an effect in russia, and if we don't remain united in standing up for nato in europe, and we don't remain united in sticking up for the ability of the ukrainian government and ukraine to plot an independent path putin will keep pushing and pushing. that is the kind of guy he is. senator fisher: i would say right now that we are united but i have fears for the future in how we move forward. you mentioned nato. our commitment to their and the commitment -- there in the commitment we have. what effect is it on the world when they seem that we are not

helping a country, 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? secretary carter: as it happens i was in budapest in 1994 when the agre. the very one vladimir putin is violating. i know it well. it was not a nato agreement, but it did, russia pledged to respect the territory of ukraine. which is not done. in so far as nato is concerned the point of our reassurance

initiative, it basically means rotating more forces into europe and taking steps to strengthen our presence in 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 a nato treaty. we have an obligation to ukraine and i think that assisting them, politically economically and you talked about the military being something under consideration that is very important. senator fisher: they are not honoring the assurances they gave to ukraine. as you mentioned, that was an agreement.

they have been in violation of the treaty, which they don't admit to. they have been in violation of the treaty. how long does the united states weight before we start exploring options, not with regard to ukraine, but with regard to russia's violations of treaty agreements? secretary carter: we have not waited. we should not wait to explore alternatives. the treaty is a two-sided treaty. they have done what they were supposed to do. that means we can react.

in various ways. so if they don't get back into compliance, we can take steps that are defensive that our deterrent steps and that are aimed at countering the effects of this weapon system that violates the treaty. and i think they need to understand the united states can react to this kind of thing. it was a two street. it is not something they asked us to do. it is something it is a two-way street. we have begun to think about things we can do. 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. i think that is fine. you can't be one-sided about it. senator fischer: i totally agree. 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. are you looking into how our plan for mozilla got out and what is going on with that? secretary carter: i have spoken to general austan, the chairman has as well and clearly that was an instance of speculation that

does not reflect what we need to be thinking with respect to an offensive against mosul. we will conduct an offensive when the iraqi security forces can lead, helped by us. is important it succeed. it will happen when it can succeed. senator: how do we make sure this does not happen again? general dempsey: as the secretary mentioned, we have been in contact and he is conducting an inquiry into it and i think, i know he will take the appropriate action. senator donnelly: these are not

classified sources, whatever. these are newspapers. they said this morning in the effort that we are really kind if peripheral players in this. and that the general from iran is on the front lines with the shiite militia. what is going on there? i apologize. secretary carter: your question is right on. we operate in iraq in support of the iraqi government. the iraqi government 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 this campaign in a multi-sectarian way. because we have been down the road of sectarianism in iraq and it is important the government of iraq not go down that road again. we need to have success against isil in a way that does not inflame sectarianism. that is why we are watching this so closely. senator: the report -- general dempsey: i have seen the pictures and our intel community will go to work decide -- to decide whether he was there or not. iran and its proxies have been inside of iraq since 2004. this is the most overt conduct of iranian support in the form of artillery and other things.

frankly it will only be a problem if it results in sectarianism. so if these groups, it is about a third iraqi security forces, the fifth division. the other two thirds are shia militia from the popular mobilization committee. if they perform in a credible way and rid the city, turn it over to its inhabitants, it will have been a positive thing in terms of the counter isil campaign. at this point, it is supported the sunni members of parliament and the local leaders. that is dependent on the behavior of the militia as they conducted this campaign. >> my concern the leaders will go, these are the same people who have been working that's

over four years. at what point do they say, where is the good option? secretary carter: that is the concern. they did make a statement today the tribal leaders, that they supported the offensive. i hope that is true. what is important is that we be hind defeating isil -- b defeatingehind -- behind defeating isil. senator donnelly: it has been mentioned in syria that we plan to reduce isis, get rid of them. how do you bring assange to the table -- assad to the table? secretary carter: very good question. i will offer the following.

he needs to come to the table in order to discuss his own receiving in syria. for that to occur, he needs to see the right combination of the doom of the strategy that he has set his course on, set to the course of his country on, and also, i believe, pressure from russia and iran. both of whom are supporting him. they need to with draw their support of him because of what he has done to his country. and when he sees that combination, it seems it may cause him to receive. -- recede.

he has done things to his people that put him outside the pale. he has to go. senator: good to see you again. congratulations. thank you for your service. i want to go back to a theme we discussed, and that is this broader theme of leveling with the american people. on our threats. i would call this a general bipartisan concern that there is a disconnect sometimes between what we hear from the uniform military and the intelligence services and agencies and what we are hearing from the leadership of the country, the president, secretary of state and i think there is growing

agreement about the importance of defense spending and how we think we face a lot of threats in the world. defense spending is a function of this. when we hear the disconnect between different members of the administration on what the threat levels are and how the president paints a benign picture of what is going on in the world and how we are making progress, it undermines credibility in what we are trying to do with regard to bolstering our national defense. i'm not going to go into the specific quotes from secretary kerry, the president, all which seem to tell americans, don't worry. everything is great. things aren't looking great. i think you and the members of the military recognize that. what would you see as the top three biggest threats to the

united states? both of you. secretary carter: before i get to the top three, to your first point, i think that the president is requesting, in this budget more than an end to sequester and more money than would be called for by sequester. senator sullivan: i understand that. but it is hard if he says don't worry. everything is fine in the international world. the threat level is decreasing. the moment of crisis has passed. we are making progress with isis. i don't think that is accurate. secretary carter: the only thing i would say is that the reason why we need the resources we are

requesting in the base budget, is because we are being asked to respond to and defend the country against a variety of threats. i will do a stab at three of them. it is hard to rank thinks because they are all important. otherwise we would not be doing them. just to put the things we are requesting additional funds for this year, which are new things that you have to count isil as one. and in addition to the base budget for combating isil the same is true of the european reassurance initiative, which is connected with the behavior of russia in europe. we are requesting extra money for that. and we are requesting funds for

afghanistan to make sure that our success they are can stick. they are very important things and they are other reasons why we are requesting the amount of money we think the country needs, which is above that sequester level. senator sullivan: general dempsey, do you agree? general dempsey: i'm actually concerned about european security, for reasons we talked about. it is not just about russia. it is what russia has done, to start a fire and it may actually burn out of their control. european security for the first time in 20 years security -- concerns me. and the network runs from afghanistan, pakistan, to bow boko haram. we can just do with one of them, we've got to deal with them in

the aggregate. we've got all kinds of tools direct action, building partners, like with the french. we've got to keep pressure on the network or the last one is one i would have to discuss and close session on narrowing technological gaps in key areas. senator sullivan: i want to switch to the strategic posture we have. mr. secretary, you did mention and agreed alaska occupied the most strategic place in the world. i want to straighten the record with the chairman and the ranking member, billy mitchell was court-martialed, but for " insubordination after accusing army and navy leaders of almost treasonable investments in battleships as opposed to aircraft carriers." he was later given a

congressional medal of honor. i think he has been vindicated. 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. we had a big support in alaska the last week on the army task force looking at potential force reductions. two combat teams being moved out of alaska. if the army eliminated one team in alaska, how do you think kim jong-il or vladimir putin or our allies in japan, korea singapore, would react given how important the arctic is? given how important this new

part of the country is? we have a paper, the russians are putting major troops in the arctic. does that concern you? should we be moving brigade combat teams? sorry, mr. chairman. i went on a little long. secretary carter: i think both of your points are important. the arctic is going to be a place of growing importance. the russians are active there. we are, as your state is on the point of an arctic power. that these to be part of the strategy. i think it is. more than a pamphlet, as you say. the other thing with kim jong-il, this is why our whether we continue to invest in

the defense that we need, whether it be bct's or any other part of our force, is something others are watching. but it's also important in ensuring that it's less likely that we will have to use it. and i do worry about our foes being encouraged or heartened when they see us debate whether we should spend enough money on our defense. that is just yet another reason why i really hope to get support for the defense spending we need. >> i won't speak to the number of army brigade combat teams, but i will say the russians have just taken a decision to activate six new gates, and four of them will be in the arctic.