first hearing since you were confirmed as secretary of defense roughly a month ago and we are very glad to have you with us. general dempsey, thank you for being here. being here, and the fact that you would take time to come out here and meet with us and discuss some of the challenges that we face was asked really hope all and meant a lot and we are very grateful for that and for being here today and for your many years of service. as you all know, this committee has him things a little differently this year, rather than starting out talking about the president budget we have been looking at the national security challenges that we face around the world, and that has put us in a better place to be able to look at the

administration's budget request and a number of other of -- other issues that are before us. i would say one of the key takeaways the last few months has been the growing number of threats to our technological superiority. we have had classified and unclassified sessions on that and to me, it is one of the key challenges that we chase -- that we face. as i mentioned secretary, i was perusing my bookshelf, and i came upon a very brilliant edition called keeping the edge, looking towards the future and that was managed by ashton carter -- written by ashton carter and essentially it said two of the things that we had to

maintain a technological edge was to align our defense procurement practices with market forces, and secondly, to remain the world's fastest integrator of technology into the defense system. i kind of wonder how we are doing these days. i think that is very relevant for today. i just had a medium -- meeting with one of the defense thinkers last week talking about the challenges of integrating commercial technology into defense articles and how we are not doing as well as we should. as you know, reform is a major priority of this committee on both sides of the aisle. desertion -- mr. smith certainly shares my concern, as well as all of the members here permit and that is one of the topics that we want to talk you about as many others. that includes the president's request of using military force against isis, we have had several cen sessions -- several

sessions on that, but before we get to those, let me yield to the distinguished ranking member who sat in for today the distinguished gentlelady from california, miss davis. rep. davis: secretary carter, general dempsey, thank you very much for being here today. i also want to thank ranking member adam smith, we know that you have been a -- been through a difficult time and we wish you a speedy recovery i would also -- recovery, and i would also like to enter his opening remarks to the record?

rep. thornberry: we will allow it. rep. davis: thank you very much and i would like to thank you for service, and i think this present a great opportunity to help shape the budget during a very difficult time, and we appreciate your insights very much of it thank you, sir. sequestration is obviously at the forefront of everyone's mind, but we want to remember that everyone is still engaged in conflicts around the world while still battling suicide and sexual assault and recruitment issues here at home. but these are only a few of the discussion points that we face when looking at the budget. we have to look beyond defense and the entire budget and we understand that their other portions of that will affect the department of defense more often than we realize. just yesterday, the secretary service chief spoke about going

into the service and roughly 75% do not meet the requirements today. we have to be mindful of that and maybe that is what we call a whole government approach to that particular issue. we also want to ensure that this budget is aligned with our national security strategy. if we do not address conflict around the globe, we cannot -- we cannot address issues around the globe without addressing strategies here at home. we are trying to fix these problems in our budget, and i know the chairman believes in this role, and we are working together to address sequestration as a whole. i look forward to both of your statements here today. we are looking forward to an honest and open dialogue. thank you again. rep. thornberry: thank you gentlelady. mr. secretary, your record will be -- your. it will be added to the record. please proceed. sec. carter: thank you, i thank

you to all of the members of the committee, thank you for having me here today, it is a pleasure to be with you once again. i have had the opportunity to speak with my many of you -- with many of you but this is my first time to testify as secretary of defense, and i know that all of you, all of you all of the committee, including the 23 veterans on this committee, share the same devotion as i do to what is the finest fighting force the world has ever known. this is for the defense of our great country and i think you for that. i hope that my tenure as secretary of defense will be marked by partnership with you on their behalf. i am here to present the president's budget to the department of defense this year for this year, 20 16, and i strongly support the president in requesting a defense budget

above the artificial cap of the budget control act. . that is, above so-called sequester levels, in this year and the year after i also -- after. i also uphold the president's commitment to veto any bill that locks in sequestration because to do otherwise would be both wasteful and an faith -- unfaithful. we want to increase the defense budget in line with the congress last year and we halted the resources to execute our nation's defense shouted you -- defense strategy, and as the secretary hash as the chair --

as the chair noted, we needed more. sequestration is set to return in 197 days, and our nation will be less secure. mr. chairman as you and your colleagues have said sequestration threatens the size of our fighting forces and the capability of our air and naval fleets and ultimately the lives of our men and women in uniform. the joint chiefs have said the same. the great tragedy is that this corrosive damage to our national security is not a result of objective factors and logic reason instead, sequester is purely the fallout of political gridlock. its purpose was to compel prudent compromise on our long-term fiscal challenges, a

compromise that never came. this has been counted down in recent years because the defense department has suffered double the worst of both worlds, that is coupled mindlessly with sequestration on the constraints with our ability to conform. we need your help with both. i know that german thornberry and breaking members smith -- chairman thornberry and ranking member smith has dedication to this idea and we want the opportunity to work with you. at the pentagon, we canada must do better to get all of the defense dollar. we are committed to pursuing this. at the same time, i have to note that within the past several years painful but necessary reforms proposed by dod reforms

involving elimination of overhead and unneeded infrastructure, retirement of older systems, and reasonable adjustments for compensation have been denied by congress at the same time that sequestration has loomed. if confronted with sequestration , we will have continued obstacles, and i do not believe that we can make incremental cuts and 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. the secretary of defense will not want to send troops in with outdated equipment 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 am not afraid to ask the difficult questions, but if we are stuck with sequestration's budget cuts for the long terms our entire nation have to live with the answers. so instead of sequestration, i urge you to embrace the alternative. building the force of the future. powerful enough to underwrite our strategy equipped with bold new technology, and leading in domains like cyber and space. we will be lean and efficient throughout the enterprise. we will show resolve to friends and potential foes alike, and attract and retain the best americans to our mission. americans like the elite cyber warriors that i met last week when i visited our cyber unit.

that is the alternative that we can have. without the crustacean. -- without sequestration. given today's security and farming, the president's proposed increase of spending, all are essential for providing our troops what they need and what the full deserve. thank you and i look forward to your questions. rep. thornberry: thank you, sir. general dempsey i am not quite ready to let you go yet, so thank you for being here, and please, make any oral comments that you would like to make. general dempsey: thank you chairman, and congresswoman davis, i appreciate the opportunity to provide you an update on our armed forces and to discuss the defense budget for 2016, and i will add that it has been a rare privilege to

represent the armed forces of the united states and the men and women who serve around the world. we want to live to our full potential together and i thank you for the opportunity at this time, and until we meet again. i would ask you chairman, to submit my written statement, and i will confer mention of my opening statements, but i will stay -- i will say that the global security problem is one of the worst i've seen my four-year service, we are at a point where our aspirations are at the point of exceeding are available resources. we have heard the congress loud and clear as it has challenged us to become more efficient and to determine the minimum essential requirements that we need to do what the nation asks us to do, and we believe that

this is that answer permit this budget represents a responsible combination of capability capacity, and readiness. it is what we need to remain at the bottom edge of manageable risk against our national security strategy. there is no slack, i have been here for four years now, and we have watched our budget authority decline, i am reporting it to you today, there is no slack, no margin left for error, nor for response to strategic defense, and funding a lower than this proposed bill, it would mean less flexibility for the reforms that we need to make and we will have to adjust our national security strategy. that does not mean it disappears in its entirety, but we will have to make some adjustments to the way that we do business. you may decide that that is a good thing. i will certainly be willing to have that conversation with you. or the past 25 years, the global

confidence, we have deterred adversaries, we have reassured our allies, and we have responded to crises and conflicts, and principally by maintaining our presence abroad. it has been our strategy to shape the international environment by our forward-presence and building relationships with regional partners. in general terms, one third of our force is forward deployed, one third has just returned, and the other third is preparing to go. of necessity, even at that there have been her to keep the these where we have to operate at half the time of the point it back home. as you know, this puts us at significant strain of the women and families who serve in those particular areas. sequestration with fundamentally and significantly change the way that we deploy the force, and the way that we shape the security environment. we will be, at the end of the day, if sequestration is a pose, 20% smaller and our

forward-presence will be reduced by more than one third. we will have left in -- less influence and we will be less responsive. conflicts will take longer to resolve, and we will create more casualties and it will cost more. and in asia we are less certain than what will happen next, i think we are quite certain that it will all happen more quickly we will be further away and less ready than we need to be. simply stated, sequestration will result in a dramatic change in how we protect our nation and how we promote our national security interest. mr. chairman members of this committee, our men and women in uniform are performing around the globe with extraordinary courage, character and professionalism, and we of them and their families clarity's and, more importantly, predictability, on everything from policy to conversation, to health where -- health care covered to equipment training to readiness. getting us out of this cycle

that we have been in, which has been one year at a time, will help us keep the right pace, and that is our decisive plan in this all volunteer force. we will also be able to maintain the military that the american people deserve and quantum -- and, frankly, expect. i look forward to your questions. rep. thornberry: thank you, sir. i might also note that we have the comptroller of the department, who is available with us, to answer questions. mr. mccord, i might just warn you that an audit came up several times yesterday, and if someone else does not ask you about it i'm going to at the end because there is can turn -- concerned at the defense agencies will have a hold up, and we will get into that as appropriate. mr. secretary, i very much appreciate your willingness to

work with us and the senate on various reform issues, i think you make excellent points about the need to find greater efficiency within the department, and again, thinking back to what you wrote 15 years ago, as a chairman just said, our security environment is incredibly more complicated than we could have imagined in the year 2000 when you wrote those words, so it seems to me that even more than efficiency, some sort of reform, and the session -- especially reform that is needed to make the department more agile, means there is no way there is no way we can predict what is going to happen. if we need to make 20 years -- take 20 years to make a new system, the need for agility is even a higher priority in my mind that the need for efficiency.

do you have any comments about how that interplay's? -- interplays? sec. carter: if we can't keep up with the pace of how technology is changing in the world as a whole, and we cannot turn technological corners fast enough that a typical program duration we are not going to be able to be the most modern military, so it is not just a matter of saving money, it is a matter of being the best. our agility is needed. back when that was written, it was even apparent then, 15 years ago, that the era in which all of the technology consequence to defense was to develop -- consequence was to be developed it was apparent then that the era was coming to an and.

now a lot of technology of a vital importance to defense is out there in the world, and we need to be the fastest and the first to have it in order to keep up with and keep ahead of all of our opponents. i could not agree with you more. rep. thornberry: let me ask you about one other area of reform. a number of people are concerned about the reductions for especially the army and the marine corps, and yet if one looks at the pentagon you have not seen commiserate reductions in the number of folks who work there, and so there is interest, including from a number of people who come out of the obama administration, to streamline the bureaucracy and the department and thin out some of those layers that cost money and time that affect the agility that we are talking about. is that something that is on your radar screen, and is there a chance we can work together to

use some authorities to move the stuff around, but have the effect of cleaning that out and lowering the bureaucratic hassle? sec. carter: i would very much welcome and appreciate your help in that regard. a lot of that is on us and we need to do it ourselves, and in many cases, we would benefit from legislative help. but as you used the example of and strength, if all we are doing in a period of budgeting is shrinking tooth and the tail remains the same size then it is unjustifiable as a way of managing the place. so we have got to, got to, got to get out of these headquarters. it seem like a good idea at the time but they have lost their purpose or lost their way or lost their vitality and we need to be aggressive with ourselves

and rigorous, i would very much appreciate your help and working with you, and i don't know who those people are but i -- rep. thornberry: i think there is interest on both sides of the aisle and we are looking forward to working with you. you said that we could quote you, that the president's budget level was the lower ragged edge of what it takes to defend the country. the president has requested 561 alien dollars -- $561 billion is it still your opinion that that is the bare minimum, i don't want to put words in your mouth, but how would you describe how that figure, the grand total of which is $612 billion, meets the needs of the coming years?

general dempsey: the strategy that we developed in 2012, if you recall, we submitted a budget for that strategy, and in 2013 and 2014, and the budget has been continually pushing down from that level of which week said we could achieve our strategy at moderate risk. we are now at a point where the risk to the strategy has increased, and what we are reporting to you as a group of joint chiefs is that we have reached the edge of that, so that anything below that level of budget support, however you choose to knit it together for the total amount, will cause us to have to adjust our strategies, it is as simple as that. some of those adjustments will not be life altering, if you will, or security environment altering, but some very well maybe. rep. thornberry: thank you, mr. davis -- miss davis?

rep. davis: thank you, chairman could we go back and be a little bit more specific in terms of not just the authorities that you need but the flexibility? how can we get that best value for the dollar that you are suggesting? what is it that the congress is denying you in terms of a flexibility in the past and what would you like to see, how can we best work together on that? rep. thornberry: thank you -- sec. carter: thank you, and i will give you some examples, and this is not a popularity contest on these, because these are not easy things to do you rep. davis: -- to do. rep. davis: that is why we're here. sec. carter: it falls into three categories, and i'm using the categories that i think that i learned from the chairman, one

is in the acquisition area where we need to have the discipline to stop things that are not working to not pretend that something is going to work when it isn't, to just keep going, that we can afford it when we can't, just to keep going, and we have to stop it at all the money on it is wasted. so the acquisition area -- rep. davis: so that one area when you make that statement that you are thinking about, does it need work? sec. carter: there is the process and the paperwork, which is ridiculous, and which leads to these perverse results, and then the system can keep suggesting to itself, and the other thing is that -- remember, we don't build anything at the pentagon, we contract out to her excellent industry, so we depend

upon our industry, and the incentives that we give them to provide what we need are a clued in contracts and other relationships is another place that is critical to think about in the area of acquisition. then there is compensation, how weak opposite our troops, our retirees -- how we compensate our troops and our retirees and then the third is the one the chairman was mentioning a moment ago, which was kind of the overhead, the people overhead, the facilities infrastructure, and i know ace closings are not a wonderfully popular thing either but at some point, when the budget comes down, you need to make sure that you are taking away the tooth and tail situation, so i organize it into those three categories, and those of the same once of the chairman does it these are difficult choices, there are no questions about it, and i know they are hard. rep. davis: general, do you want

to comment on this as well? and as far as flexibility, i know that there has been some constraints and perhaps the is the time to address this. general dempsey: speaking as a former service chief, the service chiefs have been uniquely limited in their influence over the acquisition process, in terms of identifying requirements, and it passes into the acquisition community. neither side is trying to limit one way or the other but there is no kind of life cycle responsibility, so the requirements grow and for the chairman timeline, a good stretch. i'm just going to give you an example. many in this room probably have an iphone. the first iphone was introduced to the market eight years ago, so in eight years, we have had six variations of iphone and

that is not the way that we deliver our information technologies. rep. davis: thank you. thank you, mr. chairman, you may go on to other members. rep. thornberry: thank you gentlewoman, and now we go on to other members. rep. jones: i believe to start with an article that i read back in december this year, and then get to a question. the article is titled "down the opium rathole." if you spent 13 years going down in opium rathole with little to show for it, you might wake up one morning and say, hey i'm going to stop sending money down the rathole. unfortunately, the united states government does not think that way. when that rathole is afghanistan and it essentially is without end, mr. secretary, when i

listen to all of the threats to a strong military, and i have counted this done in my district, and i think about all of the problems that we are faced with, it brings me to this question. we have nine years of an obligation, an agreement, that was not voted on by the congress, and of course the president did not have to bring it to the congress, so i am not critical. but here we are in an almost desperate situation to fund our military so we will have an adequate and strong military. and then you read articles like this. and there is one more that came out this week that says, this is from john socko by the way "afghanistan cannot manage billions in aid there are

people on this committee in both parties, and we have met unofficially with him for two years and listened to him. and i want to ask you and mr. mccord, how in the world can we waste nine more years to continue to spend billions and billions of dollars in a country that we have very little i can ability for, and we had general campbell here last week, and i'm very impressed with him and i want to make that clear, but the point is, we will continue to put money down the rathole, and then they will say it is time to put money down this rathole. i would say this under the secretary of defense under george bush or who the next secretary of defense might be, why can't people like yourself, sir, be honest with the american people who pay our salary, who pay for the military, and say "you know what?

we need to rethink where we are. we need to have a benchmark. if we have not reduce the waste of money, that we need to change our policy and start pulling out." i want to ask you sir, are you going to bring in these other people to tell you about the absolutely waste of money in afghanistan that is taken away from us and rebuilding our military? comptroller mccord: thank you for that congressman, you had a very straightforward question, and i will try to give you a very -- sec. carter: thank you for that, congressman, you had a very straightforward question, and i will try to give you a very honest and straight forward answer. there were and persists issues with contingency contracting

going back years now. and i know that mr. socko tracked them, and i remember when i was undersecretary of logistics, the difficulties in teaching our people, that contracts would be awarded properly, that they were under seen with a were executed, and they were not happening -- and that was not happening in afghanistan in many cases. this has improved over the long years of war, but it is not perfect yet, by any means, it is not where it should be, but i want to associate myself with your argument, that we do have some work to do. all of strategic questions about afghanistan, i would say that we have the following. to me, rathole doesn't quite capture where we are in afghanistan.

i certainly hope where we are in afghanistan is that we are going to be able over the next couple of years, to increasingly turn the security, the basic security, of that place over to the afghan security forces that we have built, in such a way that it doesn't, that that country does not affect our country anymore. that is a difficult task, general campbell is doing it as well as anyone can possibly expect, and we have in president ghani in afghanistan one new ingredient which is a very bright one. this is someone whom i visited in my first week in office the first thing he said to me was "can you please go back and thank americans, especially thank american service members for what they have done here and

are doing here in afghanistan?" and so in partnership with him over the next couple of years, our objective is to stemand security forces up on their feet so we can have a very strong presence there and leave us in a circumstance where it does not threaten us anymore. you can never say any plan is at 100% probability of being successful, but i think there is a high of ability of being successful and the president is a strong ingredient within that. rep. jones: -- rep. thornberry: if at any point you need to supplement an ad, for example if your question last three minutes and the answer last three minutes, please feel like you can add anything at the end.

rep. bordallo: thank you mr. secretary, and we appreciate your questions. we agree with you regarding the sequestration, it is a shortsighted policy, it prevents us from working with our citizens, and i hope that our congress can show the courage to repeal this bill while our nation faces these challenges across the globe, we have made strategic choices in developing a focus in the asia-pacific region. mr. secretary, it is my understanding that in many areas, such as if a structure, maintenance, when we take cut today, we end up paying a far more in the future. and you talk about areas where

we would likely see increased huger costs if sequestration cut funding today, and if you could make your answers brief please? rep. thornberry: -- sec. carter: i will give you one simple example why sequestration is wasteful as well as damaging and that is when we are forced by the suddenness of it to curtail the number of things and the overall size of our procurement in such a way that we drive up unit costs or we prolong the duration of a contract. you all know that a short come contract you pay more for and that is the kind of thing that we are driven to buy sequestration and it is obvious to anybody who is contracting with anybody to get their lawn mowed or something that that is economically inefficient, so it is more than dangerous. rep. bordallo: thank you, thank

you very much. also i have another question for you. can you comment on how broadly speaking the fy16 budget supports the asia-pacific region, and how important was removal of the restrictions of the government of japan's and for the relocation of the marines in last year's defense bill, and also, are you looking to activate the guam oversight committee, which i thought was a helpful internet tool to the dod, and how it will affect the japan's military on goings? sec. carter: thank you, the asia-pacific rebalance is central to our plan that is where half of humanity lives that is were half of the economy

is, and one of the strategy is keeping everything in perspective, and while we are focused as we need to be on isil afghanistan, which was already mentioned, ukraine, and other troubled spots elsewhere in the world, we have to remember that this is where much of the future lies. the american military presence at there has been a central factor that has kept peace and stability and therefore prosperity going in that region. we need to keep that going, and you mentioned japan, and the revision of the guidelines there, and this is an extremely important development, and the prime minister will be visiting the united states shortly. this is an opportunity for japan to become a, to help us to

maintain the peace in the asia-pacific region, but the guidelines are global in scope. so it gives a military that is quite capable to japan and a country that shares a lot of our strategic objectives and basic values a new way of helping us out in the region and around the world, it is a very positive thing. rep. bordallo: thank you very much secretary, my time is almost out, so i don't have time for the third question, so mr. chairman, i yield back. rep. thornberry: thank you very much next the percent of -- next representative. rep. forbes: thank you very much, we realize what a difficult job that you have and let me just ask this question, because you heard chairman thornberry mention the phrase that if we get anything below the president's budget, that we

will go below the lower ragged edge that we need for national security. you agree with that? sec. carter: i do. rep. forbes: do you believe that if we go below that reagan edge, that it would be problematic? sec. carter: i do. rep. forbes: so you say that as a yes? sec. carter: yes. rep. forbes: what really took me back is that you said that you supported the president's position to veto any bill that did away with sequestration because you do understand that the president's position is that he would veto any bill that does not do away with sequestration not just for national defense, but also for everything else. do understand that that is the president position? -- present uponident's position? sec. carter: i do.

rep. forbes: so what you are saying is that you are willing to go along with him even though he wants to get all the funding for the epa, irs, and everything else? sec. carter: what we need congressman forbes is two things, we need stability -- rep. forbes: that is not a question, and i don't mean to cut you off, but we only have five minutes. i what you to tell us as a committee that as the secretary of defense that you are coming in here today and saying that unless the president can get full sequestration and taking off the limits of spending that he has on epa, irs and other nondefense matters you would rather have a crisis when it comes to national defense funding? sec. carter: no, that's not -- rep. forbes: thin would you support a bill that would support national defense only -- then would you support a bill that would support national defense only? sec. carter: as a president, i

would not come but we need relief from sequestration across the board, every other manager in the agency across the government -- rep. forbes: mr. secretary you are not managing these other agencies, you're telling me today that you are willing to accept the crisis in national defense unless the president get the funding for the epa or the internal revenue service or all these other programs he has across the country? sec. carter: no, mr. congress may, i take a view of national defense and national security that is that takes into account the fact that to protect ourselves as part of security, we need the department of homeland security -- rep. forbes: i'm not saying it, but i'm saying that you don't necessarily need -- sec. carter: i think each of those budgets can be looked at in their own terms -- rep. forbes: mr. secretary, you are the secretary of defense and what bothers me is that you come in here and say that you would rather have a crisis in

national defense, which is what the president is all about, then to cut or have a cap on any nondefense spending that could be anywhere else in the government and i just find that atrocious, and let me just say this -- sec. carter: i think what the president is saying and what i agree with is that we need relief from sequester across-the-board -- rep. forbes: but you are the expert in defense, and what we need is when you come in here as the secretary of defense the you are not willing to accept a crisis in national defense if you can't get everything you want with the irs and the epa and some of these other funding programs, and just to put it on the line when you talk about the flexibility that you need and the department of defense, which is recognize also that sometimes the congress has to hold that flexibility, if we had given it to the pentagon in the 80's, we would still not have precision initiatives, and also sometimes when you talk about these outside cuts to facilities, remember what we did to the joint forces command?

we cut that down and say that we save all this money, and we centralized in the pentagon to the joint staff, so we need to make sure, mr. secretary and i say this with all due respect that we are dealing with a crisis that we have in national defense, and this is what this committee should be about, that is what the pentagon should be about, and we should not have to hinge all of that on what happens to the internal revenue service or the epa, and with that mr. chairman, i yield back. rep. thornberry: thank you. rep. tsongas: thank you very much for the opportunity today and i just want to say i always appreciate your candid and forthcoming testimony before this committee. just to address briefly the

issue of sequestration, i too share the concern, secretary carter, that we have to deal with it across-the-board as we know, how we defend our country does not exist in isolation it i come from a state that is heavily invested in education and it is an educated community that leads so often on developing all of the technologies that all the service chiefs have acknowledged are very important to how we move fortin -- move forward in defending our country and remaining agile. so we have to invest in our minds as much as anything else. so it is all very much linked and i do appreciate you acknowledging all of that. two weeks ago, this committee had the chance to discuss the bill against isil, so i think you -- thank you both for your presence here today, and i asked general austin about the united states addressing issues

to successfully confront isil and i compare that to a successful chess game, and nowhere is that better understood than in the city of tikrit. iraq's engagement underscores the need to think through the assistance that we need to provide for the government of that country and for other partners. so with that in mind, secretary carter, how is iran's engagement iraq's engagement to confront isil complicate our efforts to ensure a pluralistic order? as we know, it was the maliiki government that allowed the

opening for isil so had you see this complicated our efforts going forward, and general dempsey, how does this complicate our military efforts? general dempsey: it can couple of -- sec. carter: it can complicate our efforts, and as you said, it is sectarianism that brought the iraqi security forces to the low point in the first place, and we are supporting a government of iraq that is multi-sectarian and that encompasses the entire country. that is our preference. so our preference is that all operations to combat isil, which we honestly support, are

conducted with the knowledge and authority of the iraqi government, and we support them in doing that when there are others that are conducting operations, without the authority of the iraqi government, that is the face of sectarianism rising again in iraq. we are very concerned about that. rep. tsongas: so what you are saying is happening in tikrit is happening without the iraqi government's permission? sec. carter: no, but you asked if i'm concerned about purely sectarian activity there, and i would be concerned about that and i am concerned that the iraqi government be controlling and that the interactive security forces are controlling and directing all military activity. excuse me, and that is why the nature of some of the militia activities and so forth is so concerning to us.

rep. tsongas: general dempsey? general dempsey: we are building the iraqi security forces to contribute and they are being kind of part of an internal media blitz and it is popular because they did succeed in pushing back against isil, although they are not having as much as s as i think they initially reported, so i think the issue of trying to make sure the iraqi military forces remain in force for stability in the future and not this mobilization force, and there is secondly a d conflicting, airspace, ground and decisions based, and so yeah, it does make a couple kidded. -- make it complicated. rep. tsongas: thank you, my time is up. . -- rep. thornberry: thank you.

rep. wilson: i'm very interested in seeing changes to sequestration, and thank you general for bring up the idea of readiness, because this needs to be addressed but it should also be put in the context that actually, bob murdered -- bob woodward, he said in his book "the price of politics" that we are getting a shrinking military and we will have the smallest army and the smallest air force since 1939 and said i

can 60, and i think frankly the american people are at risk and this needs to be addressed, and it should be pointed out that i don't want to figure point, we don't need to get to that, but the facts are clear. house republicans twice voted to address sequestration but it was never taken up by the former u.s. senate. as we look at the world today i'm very concerned, general jack kane is defined earlier this year about the spread of radical islam across north africa and central africa and the middle east, central asia and i am just so concerned that a safe haven, so being created could attack american people, and in light of that, in fact, boko haram, last week, mr. secretary indicated that they would be a part of isil. what is our policy to address this particular situation in central africa? sec. carter: as you say, the

isil phenomenon is metastasizing . there are groups and boko haram or some parts of boko haram are being one of them, that are rebranded themselves as isil or joining isil or getting a new lease on life by affiliating with this movement. it is the ability of the movement to spread through social media and to motivate younger members or groups that already exist and radical groups already existed, but younger members are particularly attracted to the isil ideology and that is what makes it so dangerous as of difficult to combat wherever it arises. rep. wilson: has there been any progress on releasing the kidnapped young girls in the region? sec. carter: you are speaking of

the ones that were kidnapped some time ago? rep. wilson: yes, by boko haram? sec. carter: i think the best that i can say about that in here is that we continue to assist in trying to locate them and return them to their homes. but that effort still continues. rep. wilson: it is such a clear indication of the barbarity of the people that we are facing. i want to condemn you on your visit to afghanistan you confessed a concern about a drawdown and said it should be a condition space, and that action has probably been taken, but what are the conditions that you are looking at in regards to the drawdown? sec. carter: there are conditions on the ground in terms of the strength of the afghan security forces and the performance of the afghan security forces, they are

conducting operations as we speak which are very impressive and unprecedented in the scale and complexity of an operation that the afghan security forces do by themselves, they are in absorbing enablers, so the afghan forces are operating independently, and that is one set of conditions that are very important. another one that i mentioned earlier is the successful creation of a national unity government with president gahnihani and ceo abdullah, and what that could mean for the political development and the assurance of afghanistan is important, so these are both things that at the military level over there and the things at the political level are both of which are changing and are very different for me as of one year ago or two

years ago. rep. wilson: think you very much. rep. thornberry: miss duckworth. rep. duckworth: thank you very much, and i want to thank you for celebrating -- for serving so many years. the house budget committee chairman has proposed boosting the budgets with additional allocation, what is this just as useful for congress that 83 mindful of -- that it needs to be mindful of? comptroller mccord: we don't need 36 or 37 you additional dollars, but they are both h useful to us.

rep. duckworth: so if you had your druthers, you would have that funding? comptroller mccord: absolutely, that is where we have identified the need,. -- the needs. sec. carter: this is the base budget upon which we build our future budgets, and we need stability, we need a horizon so that we know what our budget is going to be, not only this year but in the years to come otherwise we can't spent inefficiently and we can't spend it strategically, so we need that kind of horizon and sequester is what robs us of that and that is why it is bad in a managerial sense for anybody who has their budget sequester. rep. duckworth: do want to speak to that in terms of readiness? general dempsey: we have been trying to dig out of a readiness whole, but we've been saying

that three years ago it would take us three or four years to recover out of afghanistan because it was a particular kind of conflict, so we had to kind of recapture our credentials for other kinds of military missions to include high-end, and sequestration, when it hit us last time, readiness tends to suffer a deeper impact because you have to go get the money where you can get it, in some cases you cannot get it in manpower come you cannot shed it quickly enough, you cannot shed excess equipment quickly enough, you can't shed external contracts because of individuals involved so i think readiness always suffers more than we think. rep. duckworth: thank you. mr. secretary, i share the concerns of my colleagues and other defense officials in terms of the detriments of

sequestration, but i also am interested in the implication for money that is also being used in efficient ways, and in particular, i am thinking about the fact that we really don't know the kind of money that we are spending when it comes to service contractors, and there is still yet to be enterprise-wide contractor reporting contracts and under your own documentation, i believe the goal was to have 95 compliances by 2018, and i don't think you are probably going to make that goal, so despite numerous commitments from senior-level dod officials, can you tell me when you will restart work on this and when you are going to use acceptable army methodologies, and when you will be using compliance to ensure that inventory is used to inform and review decision making i what taxpayer dollars are being spent and what department? sec. carter: thank you for that,

and some of that detail i will have to supply to you separately. rep. duckworth: that's fine. sec. carter: the general point that you are raising is our tradecraft and excellence and the acquisition of services, and i will just say something for everyone's benefit, which is something you know that half of the money that dod contracts is not for goods, it is for services so as we talk about acquisition reform and improving our game, we need to improve how we acquire services as well, and the initiatives that you cite are some of the ways in which we are trying to improve our performance at our tradecraft and the acquisition of services because that is half of our spend. rep. duckworth: and i will give you that question for answering on the record. sec. carter: will do. rep. duckworth: thank you, mr. chairman. rep. thornberry: mr. turner.

rep. turner: thank you everyone for your hard work and we are very happy that you're in your position, you do have very difficult times and issues as the chairman was indicating and we need some plain answers and talk on the issue of this budget. we had a brief conversation about this. let me tell me where you are and tell you why we immediate your help. the president had submitted a budget that had a base amount of 561 and our budget committee is currently marking up a budget with the base of 523. they're indicating that they want to make up the difference to that jagged edge of the lower number as you said, mr. chairman, so that the aggregate number would be around 613. you sort of said, however you cobble it together.

how you cobble it together does make a difference. i would like you guys to help us with this. i have told the budget committee that making up does not work. 70 members of the house signed a letter and sent to the budget committee asking to honor the base budget number of 561 the president asked for. what i have said to the budget committee is they should ask you guys. so this is my asking you guys, help us, mr. secretary, you said that, one it affects because based upon, this is the basis upon which you build your next budget. that's certainly important. we don't need to hear that it's an issue of rather. i think there are structural issues as ms. duckworth was going to that was important that would impede your access to those funds. your fiscal year begins in the fall and tell us why a base of 523 with 90 plus billion doesn't work or you're going to be facing that.

sec. carter: i'll start first and then chairman. it doesn't work because to have the defense we need and the strategy that we have laid out, we need the budget that we have laid out, not just in one year, but in the years to come. so budgeting one year at a time and this proposal is a one year at a time thing, doesn't work for national defense. it's not going to permit us to carry out the strategy as we've planned. ref. turner: you said that point before. you -- if we pass a budget that has 523 at the base and send you an towardsization act that is a base of 523 with o.k.o. of 90 plus billion, is that within that veto threat?

sec. carter: i think what the president men was that a budget that did not get relief sequestration, that is, give a multi-year perspective for the budget he would veto not just for defense, but as has been mentioned earlier for others as well. rep turner: there are restrictions if we don't lose our restrictions and our bill doesn't get passed until december and your fiscal year begins before that, won't you have a period of time, almost a quarter of the year where you can't use the money? sec. carter: if this is done without an appropriation,

you're right, we would have that problem. your earlier point, too, the question about whether this approach being presented by the house committee would be acceptable to the senate, the president, the uncertainty whether it would work for this year is another problem with that approach. rep. turner: you have 40 more seconds if you want to tell the congress why they shouldn't do this you should do it now. otherwise you will be facing this. sec. carter: my advice is we need to fix our base budget. you build the institution through the base budget and you respond to contingencies with the fund called over other contingency operations. we submit a one-year budget, but in the context of a five-year future defense plan. we won't have the kind of certainty we need over that period if the current strategy is followed. look, as you heard the service chief say, you know, we're at the point where this is better than nothing. frankly, it doesn't do what we should be doing for defense in

a predictable fashion. rep. turner: thank you. i mentioned to the gentleman, it's before december before we have a defense authorization bill this year. senator mccain and i are determined to move -- i know it's different than we have had in the past, but it's going to move a whole lot quicker. mr. o'robbery. rep. o'robbery: thank you, mr. chairman, mr. secretary, you said in your opening comments that you would never send our men and women into harm's way without the necessary readiness, the necessary equipment and the necessary doctrine. you also agree we shouldn't send them in harm's way without the necessary strategy. i'm having a very difficult time in light of the six months during which we have been at war in iraq and syria against isis and in light of the president's authorization for the use of military force that is now before this congress for

consideration, i'm having a very hard time understanding what the strategy is and i want to make sure that as my colleagues have said that we fund our military well beyond the budget caps and sequester levels i agree with them there. but i think perhaps more importantly we have the necessary strategy in place so that their evidence, those men and women serving this country and our interests overseas are not in vain. could you answer the strategy question for me? sec. carter: certainly. first of all strategy is does take in addition to geographic perspective, a multi-year perspective and a mullie-year commitment which is why annual budgetary turmoil isn't consistent with our strategy in taking a strategic view. with respect to the strategy against isil and defeating isil in iraq the first thing

i would say is that we not only need to defeat isil, we need to defeat them in a lasting manner. that's always the difficult part. we can defeat isil, but tweeting them in a lasting manner means having somebody on the ground who keeps them defeated after we assist them in the defeat. on the iraq side of the border, that is the iraqi government, a multisectarian force organized by the iraqi government, that's our strategic -- rep. o'rourke: from my understanding based on the testimony of the excellent hearings that the chairman has brought before us, our strategy there largely relies on training equipping and advising the iraqi national army. we have spent tens of billions of dollars doing just that from 2003-2010 to awful effect.

the army melted in the face of a far inferior enemy. what is different about our strategy today that is going to ensure its success? sec. carter: it will hinge as it did then upon a multisectarian approach by the government of iraq. without that it cannot succeed and what happened to the iraqi security forces a year ago was that they collapsed because sectarianism had taken root in the government of iraq and the people who lived in the regions that were swept over by isil were not willing to accept or support the iraqi security forces as they were then configured. they need to be configured in a nonsectarian manner, a multisectarian manner or it won't be possible to have that lasting defeat of isil on the iraqi side of the border. it's as critical now as it was

last year. rep. o'rourke: mr. secretary, the strategy today is insufficient to achieving the president's aims of degrading and destroying isis to your aims of ensuring a lasting defeat of isis. i think if we're honest with ourselves and the american public and the servicemembers who will act out the policies of this country, if we were going to achieve those aims, we are going to need u.s. ground forces in iraq and syria. we can't depend on a syrian moderate opposition force. we cannot depend on the political with hims of the difference sectarian factions in iraq. we should not depend on iranianbacked shia militias in this country as well. if we're going to do it, let's be honest on what it's going to take to do it. with today's topic of the budget in mind, do we have the resources necessary in the president's request to support

ground forces to achieve our tactical and strategic goals in syria and iraq vis-a-vis isis? sec. carter: i'll answer that first and the chairman may want to add something to it. we do have the resources to support our strategy. the one ingredient, very important ingredient that you left out was air power and we are applying air power in a very effective way in support of ground forces that are not u.s. ground forces, but that are local ground forces because we want a lasting defeat of isil and only local forces on the ground can impose a lasting tweet. that's our strategy. chairman. rep. thornberry: in the interest of time i'll take this for the record, strategic advantage we have is the coalition. i think that will eventually be the path to enduring defeat. i'll take it for the record. rep. o'rourke: thank you.

rep. thornberry: mr. -- the program that you're famous is replacing the combat vehicle which is maintaining at the army depot. i'm interested in seeing it maintained at the army depot. who is going to make that decision and when about where the source of repair is going to be made? sec. carter: i do not know when that source selection will be made, but i'll find out and make sure we get back to you. rep. rogers: thank you very much. general dempsey, based on open source reporting, russia is planning to put tactical nuclear weapons in the illegal legally seized territory of crimea. what is your best military advice as to how we as a nation should respond to that? gen. dempsey: there are several things. i have seen the same report.

i haven't seen it in intelligence. if i had, i would suggest we have this conversation in closed session. there are other things that russia is doing that seem to be provocative in nature and i think we have to make it very clear that things like their compliance with the i.n.f. treaty, there will be political, diplomatic and potentially military costs in the way we posture ourselves and the way we plan and work with our allies to address those provocations. i have seen it. it concerns me greatly. certainly would counsel them to not roll back the clock with previous experiences and had those experiences with my counterpart. >> this was for secretary carter. i was pleased after you were approved by the senate in your new position that this treaty

violation by russia can no longer be tolerated without some sort of response. i'm curious how much longer it will be before we do provide some sort of response to that violation, that continued violation of the i.n.f. treaty? sec. carter: our response is twofold. one is to a diplomatic one which is to try to get the rushans to come back in compliance with the i.n.f. treaty, not my responsibility but an important part of it. on the military side, we have begun to consider and i think what our options are, the i.n.f. treaty, it's a two away street. we accepted constraints in return for the constraints of the then soviet union. it is a two away street. we have to remind them that it's a two away street meaning that we without an i.n.f. treaty can take action.

we both decided years ago it was best for neither of us to take. we are looking at our alternatives in the areas of defense against the systems that they might field in violation of the i.n.f. treaty, counterforce options and countervailing options, all of those are available to us. we're looking at all of those. the rushans need to remember, this is a two away street. >> i appreciate that. you modify what we're currently constructing in romania with the capacity to defend itself against the intermediate yacht range missiles that they are illegally testing. sec. carter: that is in a category of response that we can consider. rep. rogers: thank you very much. that's all i have, mr.

chairman. >> welcome, mr. secretary and nice to see you again general. i want to ask you about what is happening in hawaii. there has been a lot of talk regarding the drastic reductions in army troop levels, which i believe actually is contrary to the defense strategic guidance that is particular to the defense. mr. secretary, does the president's fiscal year 16 provide you the capabilities and resources to conduct a rebalance to the pacific and how would drastic reductions in this theater affect this capability? sec. carter: well, it does provide for the rebalance but i want a second with what the chairman said, which is we are on the ragged edge of being able to satisfy all of the ingredients of our strategy of which the asia pacific rebalance is a central ingredient. so if we don't get some budget

stability and we keep doing things one year at a time and one piece at a time, we are going to have to reconsider our strategy. the way i put it earlier is not just the size, but the shape. now, i would hope that our rebalance to the asia pacific is something that we are able to sustain. in our budget and our multi-year budget plan we are able to sustain it. under sequester and in one year at a time fashion as the chairman said, we're on the ragged edge in our strategy and something will have to give. >> thank you mr. secretary. the other purpose of this hearing is to talk about the president's request the a.u.m.f. request. i wanted to shift gears a little bit and talk about that and ask you to clarify some aspects of the request. in subsection c call

limitations, the authority granted in subsection a does not authorize the use of the united states armed forces in enduring offensive ground combat operations. so what is enduring offensive ground combat operations as is referred to the length of time which the operation is ongoing the scope of the operations, some undefined relationship between time and scope? sec. carter: thanks, the aumf for me as secretary of defense, two things are important in the aumf. one is that it gives us the flexibility to carry out our campaign and that speaks to the provision you quote and i'll come back to that in a minute. the other is that passed up here on capitol hill in a way that says very clearly to our men and women who are conducting the campaign against

isil that the country is behind them. that's very important to me both the content and it's supported widely in the congress. to get to the provisions of it, it doesn't try to say everything that is permitted instead which is i think wise because for the chairman and me, we need the flexibility to conduct the campaign against isil in a way that the enemy -- defeating that enemy requires. it does rule out using the language that you described what the president has said an iraq or afghanistan-type long period of offensive combat operations. that language by taking that possibility only out leaves to me our department the

flexibility we need to conduct the campaign against isil, both practically and geographically. we don't for see having to conduct another campaign like library and afghanistan. that is the one thing that is ruled out in the formulation you describe. elsewhere we have substantial flexibility under the president's formulation and i welcome that. because i said flexibility and widespread support with the two things that we need most. chairman, you want to add anything to that? gen. dempsey: there is no term in our military that is enduring offensive. it's clearly a statement of intent by the commander in chief. it does allow us to execute the campaign as it is currently designed. rep. takei: i appreciate that. maybe if you can for the record provide it to us. i think it's important to define this provision of the request. so if you can provide it in writing, some clarity as to what the president means by

enduring combat ground offensive operations thank you. rep. thornberry: thank the gentleman, mr. whitman. rep. whitman: thank you for joining us today and thank you for the service to our nation. we have heard a lot about how we're going to address future challenges in our military. obviously on the funding side, i want to follow up secretary carter but how we can do a better job in the dollars that we get in spending, especially acquisition, big programs, making sure we have efficiency and timeliness in those decisions, that agility as admiral howard spoke about yesterday is critical. give me your perspective on where you believe we are right now with the acquisition process, should there be greater authorities given throughout the different levels of decision-making in acquisition and what do we really need to do as far as acquisition and, well,

acquisition reform throughout the process? sec. carter: well, thank you, and thank you for your interest in that subject because it is central and i appreciate the fact that this committee is committed to it. i'm sorry, i can't give a simple answer to that because there are so many ways that we can improve our performance in acquisition and that we need to improve our performance in acquisition. there is acquisition of services that has been mentioned previously. there is the requirements process and the role of the service chiefs and i personally welcome a greater role on the part of the service chiefs and the acquisition system. i think maybe goldwater nichols went too far in that regard and we can get some of that back. there is an enormous amount of simple process that encumbers good sense.

there is some training that is required to better equip our people to interact with industry and understand how to give appropriate incentives and partnership with the industry that we serve. there is the technology point that the chairman was pointing to earlier where we have to work very hard to stay up with today's eight generations of funds. we can't take for granted anymore that we're at the cutting edge. we have to fight our way to the cutting edge. there are many many dimensions to this. this is something that i believe we will be continuing to struggle with for a long time because technology changes, the world changes and we have to keep up if we're going to continue to have the best military in the world. general denvery, your perspective on what we can help

with the acquisition process. the chiefs would like a threshold heightened so they can be more involved in the decision-making process. give me your perspective, too, on how do we get, as secretary carter said, how do we get technology ideas, innovation more quickly to the war fighter? gen. dempsey: a line myself with both what the chief said yesterday about increasing their role in this process. there is a very bright red line right now that probably needs to be dotted as we say so there can be much more collaboration across it. in terms of the technology, i think it's a combination of shortening our programmatic time horizons. i recall the days of the future combat system which was conceived in 2003. it was going to deliver in 2017, which to my way of looking at it doomed it to a graceless death from the moment because that's seven cycles of the congress of the united states. i just think we have to take a look at the pace at which we

try to develop -- i think as the secretary said, commercial is outpacing government at this point and we can either fight that or find ways to conform to it. rep. wittman: secretary carter, what you're advocating is putting more authority but also accountability in the hands of decisionmakers so making it more away from process, which is more of a process driven effort to more of a person or individual driven effort. kind of give me your perspective on where you think the balance is there. it seems like we're too much of a process driven effort today. gen. dempsey: i think that's right. we have gotten to a point where there is many checkers as there are doers. and we need the doers to be enabled and then held accountable. so today you have the worst of all words. there aren't enough doers. when something goes wrong, you can't tell how it happened or

what its causes were or who is responsible for it. rep. wittman: thank you, mr. chairman i yield back. rep. thornberry: thank you. ms. graham. rep. graham: thank you mr. chairman, thank you. congratulations on your recent confirmation. general dempsey, thank you not only for your generosity of time but with new members in general, you have been very, very kind. thank you. first i would like to start, secretary carter, in 1915, 100 years ago this year, the mark 5 dive helmet, the trademark of diving was created. military divers are located at a number of military installations around the country including at the naval support activity center in panama city which is at my district. i had the opportunity to visit recently, it'sus phenomenal. with the 100th year upon us, mr. secretary, i would much

appreciate if you would support the designation of 2015 as the year of the military diver to honor those who are serving and have served and will serve as military divers for our country. gen. dempsey: well, first of all, thank you for hosting our folks and for supporting servicemembers in your district. we don't take it for granted, we're very appreciative of it. that sounds like an excellent way of commemorating the significance of the diver community, so thank you for that suggestion. rep. graham: thank you, i really appreciate that support. i know the men and women who serve as military divers do as well. so thank you. a separate question yesterday to both general dempsey and secretary carter i asked the service secretaries about their wounded warrior care programs. as the copping debates a new authorization for use of military force, one of my priorities is knowing that

should we engage in military, in current or future conflict or military in current or future conflicts that our military servicemembers go into this fight with confidence that this country will take care of them especially the most severely injured when they return home. so i would like to learn what is the department of defense's -- what is the department of defense doing to insure the transition from active service to v.a. for our most injured and ill servicemembers and what can we do for those. i appreciate your answers. sec. carter: i'll start and chairman, if you want to join in. first of all, thank you for your interest in that, too. we are fortunately at a period right now where the chairman and i on a weekend at bethesda

won't find 10 new wounded warriors as was the case for many years when i was serving in the department and chairman was serving in the department. we're very grateful for that, but we can't forget that those who have been wounded will in many cases are 20 years old. they have a long life ahead of them. that means we have a long obligation to them. i am concerned that our country remembers the sacrifice of these service members in all of the years that they'll live. i think we owe them that. of course, we hand them off to the v.a. and your question goes to how good is the transition program for their care to the v.a. and in general to civilian life. that is something that we have done a lot of work on in the course of these wars, but i think there is more that we can

do and should do to smooth that transition and prepare them for the life ahead. to me, it's really something from the heart that we need to remember, these are young people. they have a long life ahead of them. it can be a productive, happy, and wonderful life for them, notwithstanding the sacrifice they made at a young age. we owe them the help to make sure they can do that. chairman, you want to add anything? gen. dempsey: thanks, mr. secretary. yeah, the service chiefs and i and with the help of the department have included in our budget two aspects of this. one is the care of those who have already been wounded through the life cycle of their care. secondly importantly we're taking a look at there are three areas where we have developed incredible expertise. we can't let it erode. one is amputees, burn victims and brain injury. so we're looking to the future

now that we don't have a population thankfully, that is suffering those injuries, we got to make sure we can sustain our expertise that we have developed. that's also put into the budget as well. rep. graham: thank you. i feel back the time i don't have left. rep. wittman: mr. hunter. rep. hunter: three things. the first is this. when it comes to acquisition reform one of the best ways is instead of doing a process or apology change, which we do every year, you can use technology and change the system itself. it takes months to test our systems. it takes forever. there is now a programmatic line

in your budget request we will match and hopefully put money in. it is a new way to test. you can test your cruisers on the spot, literally on the spot as they are in the water and see if they are going to work or not. that has met with fierce resistance even in san diego where we have entire departments testing. you have departments that spend years simply testing. they are not happy about things like this that disrupt the system and cause reform just because of the nature of the technology, if that makes sense. i would encourage this committee and you to instead of just doing policy reforms working within the system and technology to put in systems that reform no matter what because people cannot stop it. if it is faster, it takes fewer people. there will be major push backs because you have tens of

thousands of people who test. that is their job. they don't like it. that is the first thing. we talked about isis and our coalition partners. i've talked to jordan and written the president letters. we have weapons in warehouses. we have the exportable predator 2. even if state approves this, it will take a year or two to get these in the hands of the jordanians. you have to deal with the qualitative military issue with israel because the jordanians would only aircraft --only aircraft. a fix to this is to take aircraft in the warehouses and let jordanians find them and let the contractors that make the creditor, have them recover and launch, and have them do it. the jordanians do not own them.

they are able to use that now. they are requesting this now. the king has requested this. is ambassador has requested this. their military liaisons have requested this straight i want to run that by you. what do you think? sec. carter: that is one of many forms of assistance to coalition partners we are looking at. no decision has been made about that. the logic you describe and the possibility you describe is a real when. to get back to your testing thing, i think that is a good point also. technology can transform the way we do tests and therefore the cost of the test systems. both good points. do you want to add anything? gen. dempsey: after king abdullah visited the secretary

chartered his deputy to run a group to look at all the coalition members. there are many requests coming in. there is a thing called the war fighting sig getting at things like that. your letter is getting addressed at the department of state right now. >> i will have a piece of legislation due to the hostages we have taken. it is on an unprecedented level to have so many hostages taken in places where we don't have a big f.b.i. contingency. the f.b.i. still has purview over hostages anywhere in the world. even if they only have three agents at the embassy in iraq, they don't have the ability that our special operators or the army or marine corps. i think there needs to be a buck stops here person. your predecessor put in mike

lonking. he became the hostage guy our recommendation. we also recommend of be a buck stops here person that answers to the president. whether they chase the f.b.i. or c.i.a. whoever has the most resources to bring to bear for that hostage case, i think that is the way we should go and we can maybe recover a few of these hostages which we have not done yet. i wonder if you can comment on that. sec. carter: my only comment would be that you are right. this hostage rescue is an example of something that can only be done with a whole of government approach. we need things to be done in a way that is law enforcement sensitive. but in many cases, we have the assets or the intelligence

community has the assets or it involves homeland security. this gets to the point i was making earlier. i have to take a view of security and the future strength of our nation that looks beyond the department of defense itself to all of the instruments of national power and everything that will carry us into the future. these kinds of operations are a perfect example of that where you need all those parts to come together. you are right. we do need a choreographer to bring those pieces together. it is essential. the times in which we live require for most problems that there be the defensive instrument and other pieces of the government as well. whether it be technology, personnel, or operations. rep. wittman: mr. moulton. rep. moulton: thank you for your service to the country.

there is agreement we need to move past sequester. i just came from a budget committee hearing. there's frustration with the way the budget is being handled. how do we get there? how do we figure that out? one question debated in this committee is, is there a role for nondefense spending cuts under the budget control act and ensuring our national defense? secretary carter, you have made your view clear on that. general dempsey i was wondering if you could offer your own comments. gen. dempsey: everything we do around the world in terms of security is done with other government partners. yes, there is a role on the nondefense site for security. rep. moulton: thank you. if you could both comment on this and i want to be specific to cut through the rhetoric.

what are the top five programs or weapons systems you want to cut, to take that money and better invest it in ensuring the success of our troops on the ground or more broadly in our future national defense, but are prevented from cutting by congressional politics? secretary carter, perhaps we can start with you? sec. carter: there are more than five, i am sorry to say. some of them are programs. some of them are older platforms. there has been a lot of discussion and debate around the a-10 for example in the air force, which the air force wishes to retire. not because it is not an excellent airplane, but because their budget does not provide room for it anymore compared to other things that are a higher priority. that is one.

there are a number of those we have enumerated in past years. we are willing to work with people. i want to find common ground with people. but we can't just continue to be frustrated year after year in these program areas or in compensation areas, efficiency areas, and so forth. i would be happy to provide to the committee a list of more than five items of initiatives we have proposed in past years. this is before i was here. that we thought on balance and sometimes with great regret as in the retirement of older systems, we needed to do and have not been permitted by congress to take those steps. rep. moulton: if you could provide that list, i would appreciate it. general dempsey, as specifically

as possible, outline what things would be on your list. gen. dempsey: i can't congressman. recall my role. the services build their program to deliver service capabilities we integrate into a joint force. what we submitted was what we believed we needed to accomplish a joint force to execute the strategy. i am not in a position to tell you there were ways we could have done it otherwise. we have given you our best advice. i can't help you decide to find the money to do it. we need the capabilities we have described in our budget. rep. moulton: thank you. i held my time. -- i yield my time. >> thank you for being here. secretary carter, as you know, qatar is an important partner of ours. we have troops stationed there

and they have played a role in the counter-isis fight. however, they are playing both sides. there are a number of u.s.-designated terrorist financiers operating openly in qatar. the leadership of hamas openly operates there and they have been financing some very bad islamist extremists. how can the u.s. hold them accountable and how can we make it clear that played in sides is unacceptable? sec. carter: thank you for the question. catarrh, as with other of our coalition partners in the fight against isil, are being very helpful in terms of the airbase we use, indispensable. at the same time, not everything our coalition partners do in the region are things we support or

think are constructive with respect to the isil fight were other things. all of our partners, we are trying to work with so we get their support for the fight against isil, but we can continue to work with them on areas where we disagree. there are disagreements we have almost all of our coalition partners helping us with isil. we just try to work through them. rep. lamborn: i understand we may disagree on this or that issue. but when the policy is cutting against what we are trying to accomplish in that fight, i have a real problem with that. sec. carter: we have problems with that, too. we explain that in our view their policies are contradictory in that way, but we have these disagreements with them that we try to work through while at the same time benefiting from their help where we can agree. that we don't agree 100% of the

time. rep. lamborn: secretary carter or general dempsey, on the aums, i have a major problem with the two limitations the president has put into his proposed language, a limitation on time and scope. is it right to be tying the hands of this president or a future president in that way? sec. carter: i will start first. rep. lamborn: if you have a just this, i apologize. i was in another committee. sec. carter: i did not. on the scope it gives us wide scope to conduct a campaign we are anticipating against isil. the time limitation has nothing to do with the length of the campaign. i cannot tell you the campaign will be over in three years. i don't think anybody can tell you that. that feature is included for

reasons not military related. they are related to the fact -- derived from the fact we will have a new president in three years. the amf provides for a new president and new congress to revisit this issue. that is not something that comes from the secretary of defense or our thinking, but we understand and respect it. it derives from the way the constitution regards use of military force as a grave matter in which both the congress and the executive branch play a role. i understand that. i respect that. but the number three does not come from the campaign. it comes from our political system. i understand and respect that. i hope the result is the aumf that tells our troops we are

behind them in this fight. that is the key thing to me, in addition to having the flexibility to carry out the campaign that will win. gen. dempsey: i was consulted before it was submitted to you. i believe it does allow us to execute the campaign we anticipate against isil. i think what you are sensing is the difference in using military force against state actors nationstates and these groups of nonstate actors which have a different character to them. the last time we were handled unconstrained authorization to use force was probably eisenhower's orders on the eve of the invasion of europe where he was told to take the armed forces of the united states, deploy them to the continent of europe, and defeat nazi germany. that is probably the last time we have had a completely unconstrained aumf. mr. aguilar: thank you.

good to see you again. i want to talk about the aumf just discussed and the wide scope you mentioned. one of the questions i had was the hostility. it does not say anything about the termination of hostilities at the three-year period. is it you're feeling hostilities could continue and we could have actions against isil beyond the three years as currently written and implemented? sec. carter: three years is not a prediction about the direct -- duration of the campaign to defeat isis. it is a recognition of the way our political system works. and the recognition that a new president and new congress in three years may wish to revisit

this issue. i understand and respect that, but it is not a prediction about the duration of the campaign against isil. rep. regular: aguilar: general? gen. dempsey: it will likely extend beyond three years. rep. iaaguilar: could hostilities extend beyond a new aumf buy a new commander? gen. dempsey: the enemy gets a vote in how long hostilities extend. i don't understand the question. rep. aguilar: if congress gives the authority to use military force, we have this three-year window which you both set offers

flex ability is more of a political discussion that allows the new president to make that determination, absent a new discussion about aumf, could hostilities continue in perpetuity the on three-year window? gen. dempsey: i think the aumf the president proposed would require action by a new president and congress in three years beyond the circumstances at the time, which we cannot foresee. rep. aguilar: one of the things not discussed his detention policies. this was discussed at another hearing this committee had. could you provide us with examples of what u.s. forces could and could not do with respect to detention policies under the proposed aumf? sec. carter: under the aumf, the

law of armed conflict and the applicable u.s. and international law would apply to detention operations, as they would to all aspects of waging the campaign. gen. dempsey: i have nothing to add to that comment. rep. aguilar: thank you. i yield back. rep. fleming: thank you for your service and coming before us today. the president has said his goal is to destroy isis. he has submitted a proposed aumf. it says a limitation is no enduring offensive ground combat operations. that suggests no significant boots on the ground, sort of a colloquial expression we use about that. my question to both of you is

can you give examples of wars america has one with sustained success and peace without substantial ground forces in relation to the foes? sec. carter: i am sorry. i'm not an historian so i am not sure i can answer your question from an historical point of view. i can give a commonsense answer to the boots on the ground question as it applies to a campaign like the one against isil. it has to do with who sustains the victory after isil is defeated, because we seek not only the defeat of isil, but the lasting defeat of isil. that means there are local forces involved who control the territory after it is won back. that is our strategy.

otherwise, we have boots on the ground for a long time. rep. fleming: many experts believe the reason we have the isis problem today is we did not have a status forces agreement and a stay behind force. i will ask you, chairman dempsey, can you name the wars america has won without sustained boots on the ground against a significant foe? boko haram has given its allegiance. forces are growing with isis. we know how barbaric they are. can you name some examples of wars we have won without boots on the ground? gen. dempsey: we have had several campaigns against insurgencies, in the philippines for example back at the turn of the last century. generally were actually, our campaign strategy has been the same as it is today, which is to find a coalition and indigenous

forces as we used to call them. now we call the regional partners to do the lion's share of the lifting. unless they own it, they will often allow [indiscernible] rep. fleming: can you tell us who these forces are going to be? i get that we are trying to stand up and iraqi army that fell apart because we left. can you explain in regions outside of iraq where we are getting these forces where they are coming from, and when they will take action? gen. dempsey: i don't want to align myself with we were the cause of the current crisis. i think the secretary mentioned earlier that iraq had an opportunity to demonstrate to its population it would work on its behalf of all groups, and failed to do that, which provided the environment in which this challenge arose. we have a 20-nation coalition. two members are the kurdish and iraqi forces.

we are working to develop a moderate syrian opposition. we are hardening regional allies. even some of that discussed moments ago -- you heard some of that discussed moments ago. the reason the campaign has a defeat mechanism is the coalition, is not because of our activity. rep. fleming: who are going to be the core forces in syria? we hear about the free syrian army which nobody seems to know who they are. they were referred to as doctors and pharmacists before. and we are going to off-line train them someplace, maybe inchoate -- in kuwait. isis is growing everyday. they are killing people in brutal ways, specifically going after christians and jews. my question is, who is this core force that will go up against isis in the near future?

i am still very vague on who this force is. gen. dempsey: they are forces. it depends on what side of the border you are talking about. sec. carter: on the iraqi side there are forces -- rep. fleming: i'm talking about syria. sec. carter: on the syrian side, as the chairman indicated, we are trying to build. rep. fleming: so we don't know who they are. sec. carter: you have the forces of assad regime any forces of isil neither of which we want to align ourselves with. they are the largest forces on the ground in syria. that is the circumstance in which we find ourselves. we are trying to create a moderate syrian force that will be able to defeat them and own the future of syria. that is our objective. rep. fleming: i just have to say we are not finding out who these people are. there is no answer to this

question. rep. askedhford: thank you. card microglia losing -- part in microglia losing -- i will bring it back to the university of omaha. i agree with you about president ghani. there is a lot of hope in his ability to start reforms in the armed services and open up discussions with pakistan which are meaningful. when we went to visit with the president, one of his first comments with me was about tom. he started the afghan studies program 35 years ago and is a friend of the president, and they communicate. that was nice to see.

also the peter kiewit institute at the university of nebraska at omaha is doing research into isis and has been doing some of that research prior to june of last year. and the ebola work done at the nebraska medical center is significant, and we are very proud of all of that. having said that, i guess my question is when i visit those institutions and talk to the principles it is clear all over the country there are partners at that level who are significative -- sophisticated significant partners in the mideast. can you comment on how you foresee those partnerships continuing to develop and evolve and move forward? sec. carter: it is critical because we depend for our technology all the research and

development that underlies our system we depend on private institutions to do that, whether they be our excellent universities, university affiliated r&d centers industry. i have to remind people we don't build anything in the pentagon. this is not the soviet union. our way of doing things is not to do it in the government. it is to contract with private entities because we think that is the best way to get as close -- get excellence, so we depend on those institutions. our great university systems, our great laboratories, and our great defense industry, to make us the best military in the world. rep. ashford: i think that is right. it does differentiate us from everywhere else in the world. we are proud of what we have contributed in nebraska. but every state has similar experiences.

thank you for that answer. this goes back to congresswoman graham's question. this is something i'm trying to figure out. your comment about transitioning the military back to civilian life and rolls in administration. i know in nebraska, we have had an in fusion of veterans with problems unique to the middle east and higher degree of disability claims and all of that. what we are trying to think about doing in nebraska is to think about developing outpatient clinics because we are seeing a real need of the veterans coming back now needing that sort of outpatient mental health, women's health issues not being addressed in traditional mode. i don't necessarily need a

comment on that because it is a different department. if you have any thoughts on the new way of delivering health care? sec. carter: i would echo something that chairman said. by sad necessity over the last dozen years, we have learned a lot and in a sense pioneered techniques in treating amputees, burn victims, t.b.i., ptsd. we need to make sure, as the chairman said earlier, we remember those lessons and transfer that knowledge to society more widely, which i think is happening in our medical system, including the medical system of the veterans administration. rep. ashford: i agree. clearly in our area of the country where we have a were best -- robust medical system is

being able to develop new options as we move forward is part of our strategy in the mideast generally and everywhere. thank you. rep. gibson: thank you. i greatly appreciate the panelists. thank you for your commitment to our nation. general dempsey in your opening remarks you laid out a case for continued forward presence and put some passion behind that. some of us, myself included, have been arguing for thinking and acting differently certainly recognizing the need for some forward presence, particularly with naval forces with open ceilings and access to markets. in places like korea there's going to be a need