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 for land

forces there for the near-term at least. but that when we rely on this, as we have since the end of the cold war, we end up with free rider problems and friends and allies that did not -- do not fully ante up to what they committed to. i have been arguing for a peace through strength approach, particularly the restoration on the global response force capability. we deal with nationstates and transnational actors. i'm talking about the former not the latter. this idea of deterrence, deterrence being defined by capability and will. here is where i get to the point on the global response force. we have the service secretaries and chiefs here yesterday. they gave a response to this. i'm interested from the secretary and chief as it

relates to restoring the global response force and how you see that factoring into our posture going forward. sec. carter: i will start. we do have something called the global response force. we provide carefully for just the reason you describe. namely, it is the most ready force. it is the one that has the greatest deterrent value because it has global reach and is highly ready. one of the things that is concerning about this whole budget drama of sequester year after year and its effect on readiness is if it continues it is going to affect our readiness, even at the g.r.f. level. that is not good for deterrence.

it is not good for the picture of american strength so necessary to avoiding conflict in the first place. gen. dempsey: you touched on two things near and dear to my heart. one is the g.r.f. we do have to restore its readiness. because of increasing demand and reducing supply, we have to reach into it and send it forward, which is not the intention. but we are forced into that position on occasion. there is the issue of presence. we have our forward stationing right. we are looking at how we can be less predictable to our adversaries, more reassuring to our allies, and maintain readiness through a thing we are calling dynamic presence. we are very much interested in pursuing bad idea. sequestration makes this -- both

of those almost impossible. rep. gibson: i appreciate those responses. even the vision i am laying out requires the world's strongest military deterrent to those who would do us harm. this vision also includes american leadership. it is a different conception of power and how we would array it it would look for contributions from our friends and allies at the level we would expect, and also recognize the moral strength of our country as evidenced through diplomacy commerce, and trade and in the way we are able to strategically maneuver our forces with a real capability. that strengthens the hands of our diplomats that will allow us to reach a level of security we are striving for. thank you very much for everything you do for our servicemen and women and their families. i will yield back. rep. courtney: thank you for your service.

when historians write the book on this administration, one of the overlooked achievements was the new start ratified on a bipartisan basis. in the wake of it, we have heard a lot of testimony about the fact that triad is going to change as a result of realignment the treaty created in terms of the leg of the triad that will carry the heaviest burden. that is the sea-based deterrence about 70% according to navy witnesses. in the wake of that and aging out of the existing ohio fleet they made it crystal clear the ohio replacement program is at the top of the list because the timing even with the president's robust funding for design work,

which is another reason we should support the topline, there is no margin for the late -- delay in terms of making sure we will be able to implement new start. mr. secretary, i was reading your testimony and others. we have been hearing about this for years what the impact is going to be on the shipbuilding account. last year's defense bill, when we created the sea-based deterrence fund, we thought it would use well-established precedent which was an effort to take pressure off the shipbuilding account for a once in a multigenerational investment, missile defense, etc. i wonder if you could talk with us about what you're thinking is. there is no question something is going to give when resources are needed to build those vo

boats if it has to all come out of their. -- there. sec. carter: thank you for that. the triad is part of our future planning. nuclear weapons are not in the news much, thank god so they are not the answer to the isil crisis. but they are a bedrock of our security. we are going to need a safe, reliable nuclear deterrent as far into the future as i can see. we need to provide for that. the sea-based leg is essential because it is survival on a day-to-day basis. that has long been a tenet of strategic ability. it is true the ohio class replacement is expensive. we are trying to give the cost down like all our other programs as much as we can. we have to pay that bill. i think it is more collocated --

complicated than how we label the money. the money has to come from somewhere. we are going to have to make difficult trade-offs, particularly in the decade between 2020 and 2030. that is just a fact of life if we are going to have an ohio class replacement. as they said, it was the highest priority. they are right. it is something we have to do. we have to find room in the budget. there will be trade-offs that will not be alleviated by calling the money this or that. gen. dempsey: the only other thing i would add is the joint chiefs and i firmly believe the triad, all three legs, are necessary to make our deterrence credible and survivable. just because it is an

unfortunate happenstance of time that the three legs are all requiring modernization at some level over the next decade, but we have been kept safe. this is our strategic deterrent responsibility and we are going to have to find a way to do it. rep. courtney: no quarrel with your comment. when you look at the size of the legs it is a funny looking stool because one is longer than the others. general, thank you for your service. the first time i met you was in iraq when you were in charge of retraining the iraqi forces. i know you are probably more passionate than anyone about trying to read bolster that force. we had a national guard unit lead a few nights ago -- leave a few nights ago out of hartford. the expectation was the reserve force was going to stand down as the troop drawdown took place. for some people, it was jarring to still see national guard

forces going over. i hope you're keeping and i'll those guys because it caused a lot of dislocation for the families to have a 60-they call it -- 60-day call up when people's expectations changed with the drawdown. i yield back. rep. franks: secretary carter, some of us were surprised at your appointment. i have to say it was a pleasant surprise. i am gratified you are where you are. i think it is a good thing for the country. sec. carter: thank you. my wife and i were surprised also. rep. franks: as you know producing fissile material is the most challenging component of developing nuclear weapons. i know you also know that once the 4.5% enrichment level has been reached, about 75% of the work on enrichment has been done to gain weapons grade material.

requiring iran to dismantle its mechanism to enrich uranium or produce plutonium was the centerpiece of nearly a dozen u.n. security council resolutions. we considered that in many ways the whole ballgame. in direct contradiction to that reality, mr. obama's interim agreement with iran astonishingly provides a predicted protocol -- protective protocol to enrich uranium. if you will forgive the political importunity of the question, do you believe a long-term agreement with them to enrich uranium or produce plutonium is in the best national security interests of the united states? sec. carter: that is an excellent question. i think it is the key question for such an agreement. does it provide insurance

against breakout in the development of a bomb by iran? i'm not involved in the negotiations. i can't discuss an agreement that has not been concluded yet. but that has got to be an underlying principle. i think that is the underlying principle with which negotiations are conducted. i associate myself with the phrase that no deal is better than a bad deal. the only other thing i would say is for me and our department, we have some other obligations associated with this. one is to continue to deter iran's other detrimental behavior in the region and protect allies and partners, to include secondly our critical partnership with israel as a

very strong ally. that is important. the third is our general presence in the gulf. those responsibilities reside to us and are also related to iran and iranian behavior. those are responsibilities that fall on the department of defense and that we take seriously. i know the chairman does also. rep. franks: i wish you the best in everything you do. general dempsey, let me express personal and collective gratitude for the whole country for the gallant service you have offered to the human family. this has been an amazing thing you have done, and we are grateful to you. with that, i always ask you a tough question. gen. dempsey: can i go on for 25 seconds thanking you for the kindness? [laughter] rep. franks: what is the current

cap on troop deployments in iraq? i think it is around 3100. is there additional justification for that or is it an arbitrary policy decision? in your best military judgment, do you believe that policy represents the best policy to expeditiously defeat isis? gen. dempsey: my military advice on the best and most enduring way to defeat the islamic state is through our partners with a coalition and using our unique capabilities whether they be training or precision strikes or working to build institutions, so that the iraqis understand, and other regional stakeholders who have more to lose and gain by the defeat of isil, are in the lead. therefore, that number is not arbitrary at all. it is purpose built to that

effect. rep. franks: i will yield back. thank you both. rep. newton: mr. carter, first of all, i want to thank both of you. general dempsey, i appreciate your service to the country, particularly the uniform you wear of the united states army. it means a lot to me. secretary carter, first time i get to meet you. where i am perplexed is what is going on in iraq today. we have the general of the force leading the charge. i get our reluctance to have boots on the ground. my kids have been there. i don't necessarily want to see them go back. i hate to see iran has taken the lead ind, particularly when you go

back to the history with us. when i was there, we had five servicemembers killed the night i was there by an advanced i.e.d. supplied from iran. now we are allowing them to take the lead. we had our forces in iraq, the drawdown. we had american troops being killed and ambushed because of the status of forces agreement particularly as it related to iraq. they kept us from hunting capturing, or killing these guys killing our troops. we know where they were laying their heads at night. the fact is these are the same people taking the lead now in iraq. do we think we will see a different outcome of the iranian regime today than what it was

then? i don't know how ghani is going to operate in that with the iranians are saying we will give you back your country. how do we deal with that? sec. carter: that is a very good question. what defeated the iraqi forces last summer was sectarianism. if the fight against isil becomes purely sectarian and not an iraqi fight we are not going to -- rep. nugent: isn't it going to turn back into a sectarian fight and have iran providing leadership and training to the troops that will push isis back out of iraq? sec. carter: it is a complicated situation. in many places, the iraqi security forces, including with

sunni elements and the support of sunni tribes, are participating the recapture of ground. in other places, it is our air power and iraqi security forces entirely. in tikrit, you are right. there is a heavy presence of popular mobilization forces which are shiite and sectarian in organization and getting support from iranians. that is concerning to us. it is a very mixed picture. beside we are on is the side of the iraqi government operating in a multi-sectarian basis. that is the only way we will have success. rep. nugent: i don't disagree with that. when you talk to the forces that were there in 2011 and the training with the iraqis, it was evident then we had good brigades in the iraqi military and then we had some that were

sectarian split off that were incompetent. i think that is what we saw happen. i think that is the remarks you have heard. having an enduring force would have prevented it, i don't know but we what have had a better chance of preventing it if we have been there to keep pressure on the iraqis at the time. i want to make sure we don't do the same now in afghanistan. sec. carter: i will say something about afghanistan. may be the chairman wants to say something about iraq. fortunately at the moment, we have a different situation in afghanistan. a bilateral security agreement in place that is welcomed by the government of afghanistan and a partner in the government of afghanistan in the national unity government that is not sectarian in nature. that is welcoming of the american assistance and

training so it is a very different situation from iraq. as i said earlier, we may well be achieving our objectives in afghanistan in a way that a few years ago when i was working on that campaign i would not have predicted we would get as far as we did. it is a very different situation fortunately in afghanistan today from iraq a few years ago. rep. nugent: general, i would love to hear from you, but i have been gaveled back. dr. wenstrup: it says the use of special operations forces to take military action against issa leadership -- issa leadership. this is the proposed aumf.

is that include capture or is it kill only? sec. carter: that includes capture. dr. wenstrup: we talk about strategies of war. i had visions of how we could form multiple coalitions and work together with command and control, good versus evil. i think that is the message the world should hear. when it comes to holding, i have some ideas about holding those recapture and how we try them and involve the nation of incident whether isil or the global war on terror, and the nation of origin. are they going to be part of the process? my question is, if we capture what do we do with them? sec. carter: thanks for that question.

let me go back to the logic of capture. obviously, our objective where possible is to capture rather than -- dr. wenstrup: have we been capturing anyone in the last couple of years especially since we reengaged in iraq? sec. carter: our coalition partners have been capturing. they have been doing that entertaining. -- and detaining. in afghanistan, they are detained by the afghans subject to afghan law. dr. wenstrup: our special forces are to capture and kill. if we capture, what are we doing with them? sec. carter: it depends on the circumstances and location. the willingness of the host country to take custody of them, to prosecute them. i'm not an expert on this.

you would have to talk to the justice department about that. since these -- your question concerns captures outside of u.s. territory, there are laws respecting that. dr. wenstrup: are we capturing and then hands-off, we turn them over? are we involved with what may happen? the collection of intelligence is what i'm getting at. can you answer on what our current posture is? sec. carter: the answer is it depends on the circumstances of the capture. to get to the point you are making which is interrogation and intelligence value that is an important value to us. it is important whatever the ultimate disposition of the detainee is that we have the opportunity to interrogate and

debrief. that is very important to us, whatever the ultimate disposition of the detainee is. the chairman can answer that if he wants to. gen. dempsey: this is an important enough question i will have my legal team work with the secretaries and provide you with a longer answer for the record. i will say in places where we are in support of the host nation, for example iraq, we are literally in support of them. they will do the capture operation. they will give access for us to conduct an interrogation as well as sensitive site exploitation which is where you get more. when someone is a direct threat to us or the homeland, we have conducted operations with the department of justice represented. those individuals, there have been a handful have been brought back to the country for trial. dr. wenstrup: i appreciate that

answer. could i ask you to finish this sentence for me? publicly stating we will not use ground troops, although i may agree with the policy of using troops, but publicly stating we will not use grounds troops -- ground troops is a good idea because -- if you could finish that sentence form the. sec. carter: i am not sure what you are getting at. dr. wenstrup: i'm wondering why we are saying in the aumf why would say that. sec. carter: thae aumf says in the campaign against isil we have a wide range of authorities to wage that campaign, including those we anticipate necessary to conduct the campaign.

there is one limit to that, which is an afghanistan or iraq-like long ground campaign. that is not foreseen so the aumf does not request the authority to conduct that. dr. wenstrup: that does not explain why it is a good idea, but thank you for your answer. i yelled back -- i yelled back -- i yield back. >> it brings back to my mind the issue of gitmo pr. do you support the president's plan on the issue of gitmo? do you support the president's proposal to close it by the end of the year and transfer the terrorists back to u.s. prisons? sec. carter: thank you for that question.

i don't think the president has a plan to close gitmo and returned the detainees to this country by the end of the year because there is a law that prohibits that. the president does have the stated intention to close gitmo. i am in favor of the safe closure of guantanamo bay. rep. walorski: does that include the u.s. prison system? do you support them coming back to the u.s. prison system? sec. carter: there has to be some final disposition. that is an option available. just a moment. it is now for bitten by law to do that. rep. walorksi: this president has been known to override the law. what is the other alternative?

if the u.s. prison system is not the final destination, where would they go? sec. carter: i think we need to work with those of you on capitol hill to find a lawful disposition for people who cannot be transferred or released safely from guantanamo bay. the reason i think it is desirable to close gitmo although i realize now it is unlawful to transfer people to the united states, is i think it still provides a rallying point for jihadi recruitment. i think that is unfortunate. we need to find a way to safely close it. that needs to be lawful. that has got to be done in cooperation with you. rep. walorski: this committee

has undertaken the transfer of the five in 2013. based on a review of this important subject, will you commit today to continue the department's engagement in ensuring all the requested materials provided and work to require all requested information is provided? sec. carter: you bet, commerce woman. rep. walorski: our president said in his state of the union address is the number one threat is climate change. admiral mullen a few years ago said he believes the number one national defense issue in our nation is the debt in our country. do you believe the debt this nation is carrying nearly $18 billion, is more of a threat to this nation's national security

than climate secretary carter: there are a number of dangers -- representative: we are going to be voting on a huge leap on this budget. you believe that the debt is a greater issue than climate change, as our commander in chief has stated? secretary carter: i think they are both serious problems and there are others that are not those, and we have to do with this challenges is at the same time. you are naming two of the problems. representative: i am saying he says the greatest threat to our nation is climate change, and we are trying to make an argument that says the greatest threat to this nation in trying to

rallying people is we have an issue of debt that an admiral went on the record to say. do you agree? secretary carter: i think to the extent that the deficit drives budget behavior, like the year-to-year struggle with sequester that we faced, that is a challenge to our national security because of the challenge to our national defense. i think we have threats around the world that are very dangerous to us. i think to get back to an earlier line of questioning the strength of our nation depends upon other instruments of national power that our military power. i think the strength of our nation pens on our ability to educate people and have scientists and engineer. there was a discussion of our scientific base earlier. there are me agreemen any agreements

how we can strengthen our country. i appear for alan's a view that looks at all these issues. chairman thornberry: mr. zinke. representative: mr. secretary can, i thank you for taking this chapter we have heard the testimony of general abbott's izaid and others, and both have said, it is not a snowball's chance in hell that our operations are going to degrade and defeat isis. given the recent success of our iran, they have embedded

commanders in their force even though it is a sheer force which has great remic -- shia force which has great ramifications. i was never a flag officer. i was a deputy commander of special forces in iraq. but i have always in my career looked at protection of our troops and making sure they have the right equipment, training, and rules for engagement to win decisively on the battlefield. having said that, if we are to him embed, and if we are going to look at general abizaid's and general conway's senior vision, we would not embed with

just a few. an individual who is captured will die a heinous death. embedding is going to take a forced package of relative weight, and we will have to medevac. we will have to bring him at and it will be a u.s. the salinity summer close. if our guys get pinned down, that is american armor, american forces that we do not want another somalia war or benghazi. and we have to have a logistics arm to make sure our allies we are fighting with, sunnis and kurds, directly, and the centralized government have the ammunition, food fuel, everything it takes to win because now we have committed. my question is, to the current authorization -- do the current authorization come as proposed does it allow the flexibility for you should the decision come

to embed -- does that authorization that you are asking, does it include the flexibility to embed that package to win? secretary carter: thanks for your service and thanks for bringing what is evidently a great store of knowledge to this committee. so thanks for that. the answer is, yes cap. the president, when he first described the aumf he enumerated a few things that were specifically permitted by it which include many of the items on your list. the answer is yes. rrepresentative: thank you, mr. secretary. i yield the remainder of my time. representative: thank you, mr. chair, but not least. i will talk about airpower since

it seems like over the last 15 or 20 years we have diverted a little bit away from technology, put it to a little bit different phase of different exploration. now we are in a phase of flying the wings off an aircraft after 40 or 50 years and not going on to the next generation, and it seems to me to be a quicker phase to stay up with technology. everyone has talked about the iphone today, and i have a 16-year-old at home that does not know anything different. in the time of the 1950's when we had five or six fighters through the program, and the century series and and eight-year program now we are looking at sixth-generation fighters that will go through 2050 or 2060. is that a concern that we can do

something quicker. we always talk about how we acquire things i get through the acquisition phase quicker. if we could do that, with technology say, we could do a sixth-generation fighter today it would be more advanced than our raptors in the air. but how could we do that in a quicker phase of 15- to 20-year. --20-year period and fly them for 40 or 50 years? secretary carter: if we do not have agility's and all our programs take 15 or 20 years to develop, we will not have the best military in the world. on the other hand, but in addition, it is a case that aircraft remain in our inventory for a long time. they're not disabled aircraft. there continually modified armaments are changed, and so

forth. but few realize, but i am sure you do, that 70% of the cost of a military system is not buying it in the first place. and so as we talk about acquisition reform and cost control, as we again -- begin this morning discussing, we must pay attention to sustainment costs. in the fifth-generation aircraft, f-35, and so forth, we are trying to be very attentive to sustainment costs because they are going to be the lion's share of the lifecycle cost of the airplay. representative: i do not argue with you, but in the phase of an aircraft before fifth generation we are talking about armament and how we could change the aircraft. some of that with with these onyx.

today it is changing yearly with the advancement of what aircraft can be come how we detect them how far they can get into the battlefield without being seen. those are the things that our young airman should be worried about, because the advancements are coming so quickly. for about 50 years, those advancements were not there. if we were faster than you and could shoot first, then we beat you. secretary carter: i'm with you and i'm very concerned we keep up in the electronic warfare field, which i think you are referring to. in that, some of our potential opponents have made advances in that area, enabled by the spread of technology around the world so if we are going to keep the advantage that we have had, we

need to keep up in those areas. so i completely am with you. representative: i am just going to say that if there is some way we can do this in dod, companies do this all the time, and we talked about one today that talked about how quickly they can get in into the field because the quicker they get it out there, the quicker they make money. the quicker we can do that in dod, the quicker the war fighter is safer or is ahead of the technological curve. we have seen that with the young soldiers on the field, where they are able to see the enemy where they could not see them. i would ask that we do something like that in dod that might replicate what they do in private industry. secretary carter: there are a number of initiatives that have that intent, and i would be pleased to provide you with more information on them, but i think you are on to something that is

terribly important. it is one of the areas where we are trying to make investments and we need the funding to make those investments. representative: thank you, mr. secretary. and, general, thank you, and i appreciate your service and commitment to our country. chairman thornberry: representative mcsally? representative: i was a masters of public policy graduate, so you were one of my instructors. good to see were again. secretary carter: thank you. you make me proud. representative: i look forward to working with you. i want to talk about search and rescue capabilities in iraq and syria. i was 26 years in the military an a-10 pilot, and ran a joint

rescue center in operation some of the watch and the early dayhs ofs of the afghanistan war weird if they get shot down, we are able to rescue them quickly. also in the environment we as seen with the fate of the jordanian pilot, to be able to immediately be overhead to locate and protect them while we are moving the forces to pick them up. we have got to get them right away. i have gotten a brief and will get a more detailed brief tomorrow by the joint staff on our posture, but i'm concerned. we will have to talk more classified about our capability and posture and whether it is limited by the 3100 person on the ground limitation, because we have to make sure, especially guys flying single-engine airplanes, that if they have to

eject, we would do everything it takes, and sometimes it takes tremendous resources to protect them so we can get them out. can you speak to that, and i would like to follow-up. secretary carter: i will speak generally, because, as you know full well, thank you for what you did, we need to talk the details about this in a classified session, which we can do. but in general, it is not 3100 minute that in any way paces the search-and-rescue effort. it is time and distance, and we are very attentive to that. i do not want to say more here, but you can imagine what i mean. very intended -- very attentive to that for our era operations over iraq and syria. chairman thornberry: thanks. speaking to you about combat

search and rescue, is like talking about nuclear issues sitting next to a nuclear physicist. i will do so nevertheless. we are not limited. the bomb does not limit our ability. you know generally where we are postured. my staff will articulate that tomorrow. if we think the mission is high risk, we can put the package airborne as part of the air tasking order. we are attentive to that. you will find our staff relieve your concerns tomorrow. representative: i wanted to follow-up on the a-10 issue. this was dealing with our allies, related to the aggression that we have seen come out of russian, and we have a-10's deployed to iraq and syria. the president's plan requires mothballing them. i asked secretary yesterday if

that was a budget decision, and she said yes. i wanted to hear if that is a case, because we have heard different armaments over the last two years, all over the map, that if you have the resources, would you keep the a-10 flying through its lifespan 2028? secretary carter: i agree with the secretary. it is strictly a budgetary issue. we are squeezed on all directions, and we are doing our best to get the country the defensive needs for the amount of money that we have. the a-10 is a very proud aircraft and has done a tremendous amount for us over the years, and we have tried to find common ground with those here on the hill. and very important to me, which is not a money issue, is to make sure that are close air support from the air force to our ground forces is a real and enduring

capability. i am it is. the secretary said the same thing yesterday. general dempsey: we have got aircraft providing closure support from the apache helicopter to the b-1. we are faced with a budget issue and try to make sure we keep enough capability that can operate in contested and uncontested airspace. representative: thank you. for the record, i have a question i will be following up with. we are talking about making sure that women can be fully integrated into all jobs in the military, but i want to hear if there are deployment positions that are male-only positions. we've seen issues pop up in gitmo. there are specific decisions in saudi arabia that were male-only. i would like to follow up on if you have mail-only positions in the military. thank you. chairman thornberry: thank you.

i want to come back on the audit issue, because we had two service sectors yesterday that said the biggest appended to them achieving -- to meeting the deadline in 2017 for their service to pass a clean audit was that the fence, finance accounting service over which they had no control. are you aware of the problem, and and are you going to fix it? mr. mccord: thank you, mr. chairman. we have a lot of hard work to do on audit, and we're making good progress. you probably heard both of those thoughts yesterday. issue become -- an audit is a team sport had intercourse the military department to work with service providers. the second way is it requires the collaboration of people throughout the department, people who do audit as a primary fraction is a primary responsibility, but requires

decisions of the personal community, people who do not think audit is not my primary job to work, and we cannot make it work the cause it requires information from those systems. it is much like if the secretary were to turn to general dempsey and ask him to a company a task and some up a task for some it would require people in a different sphere, all the things that support. very much the same with our audit task. it requires financial managers that i am in charge of, but the statistician and that community that own the information across the department. for the spec to the issue yesterday, desk with was the issue yesterday, it is an entity of itself. as reporting entity can it has passed clean audits 15 times in a row. they are doing contracting for all the military departments to get people on contract to do the

independent auditing. in the role of the service provider, they have had four areas where they have had a clean audit, which is their bread and butter areas of military, civilian, paying contractors, and dispersing. the issue that came up where they did not pass was called financial reporting, the most involved complex spread across the whole department issue. they were given 10 areas where they did not -- where they were examined, and there were nine that do not pass. they were given 12 items to work on. 10 will be done by the end of this year. two will require more time. this is why you do audits, just to make a military -- to find out where you are good and where you're not. i wanted to say that -- is a capable partner. they have a problem here financial reporting is not strictly an -- issue.

this is one of the real hard parts of honest for us. chairman thornberry: all this talk about budget up here, and this makes a big difference. and those of us who believe we need to spend more on defense if we cannot improve the accountability for how we spend that money it makes our job much, more difficult. i appreciate how complex this is, but as an editorial comment, it makes a big difference in getting budget support. if we can meet those deadlines for an audit. if we cannot, it undermines that effort. i know you know that but particularly in the middle east budget discussions, is very much on my mind. mr. mccord, let me ask you, you have heard some of the discussion about where we can use oco four.

my understanding is there is omb guidance and perhaps some department guidance that helps direct the uses for oco funds versus base funds. my understanding and my member is that congress can also designate oco funds for sure meant -- for procurement. am i on the right track here. ? mr. mccord: yes. there is an agreement between omb and the department of defense. i was involved in negotiating that early in the administration. we felt it needed to be tighter than it had been when we got here. that agreement dates to 2010 and has got geographic aspects to it, things that happen in this country, things that happen in countries not in the agreement may not be, and we have had modifications to that. you are correct in that congress plays a role in general. oco funding has to be designated

by congress and the president has oco, emergency spending, and that procedure was followed by this and other administrations. both parties have a voice, and you mentioned f-35's that have been an issue of contention. if you months ago we requested to buy some are placed aircraft that were destroyed at condo hard -- kandahar. there was division and remains division on these questions. chairman thornberry: would you do me a fair and would you or your folks a bit to us in writing an overview of how oco works now. as you all all said, this is not the best way to run a railroad, and i hope that we can have a different method of funding the department as we move down the many steps ahead in the budget

process. if we end up with a substantial amount of oco to make up for, then i want to understand what all of those restrictions administrative or legislative may be, because those are things that we can obviously address in the authorization ill. i do not know how this will go. i just want to be ready. you can help us in understanding that. i would appreciate it. mr. mccord: we would provide that information. secretary carter: mr. secretary --chairman thornberry: mr. smith has introduced legislation along be with me that would require legal assessments beat writers ukrainians so they can defend themselves, so they can do some thing about these tanks and armored carriers that are pouring in from russia. we've been told in our previous hearings from the administration witnesses, every day that the white house dithers about this, more equipment is pouring in for what i presume is going to be a

renewed offensive at some point. can you help me understand what the timeline is for a decision from the administration on providing legal assistance to the ukrainians? secretary carter: yes, thank you, chairman. two things. the first is you are right, our support for ukraine as it tries to create a place for itself in europe situated as it is between europe and russia, is very important. and i know you are asking about the military side of it, but the part i would preface though, that is principally a political and above all economic challenge , because the economy of ukraine is in serious trouble. and so i think the assistance of western countries to the economy of ukraine is the most important thing. it is not my responsibility, but

i just want to say that is the most important thing. we are supplying military assistance to the ukrainian military. the president just made an announcement about a week ago about a military systems in a number of categories, vehicles, so forth, that will be of material assistance to the military. there are also under consideration, and yes, under consideration, some additional categories of assistance which are defensive, lethal assistance and those are being considered. i think they should be considered. i have said that before. but it is a couple get a decision that involves other kinds of assistance we are giving and the paramount facts which is that we need to support the ukrainians politically and economically, and in particular our nato partners and european allies need to support ukraine

economically. in the end that will be the key to keep what we want, which will be an independent to find his own way and is not pushed around by the russians. chairman thornberry: i do not disagree with you about the points of financial assistance but what concerns me is while we study to death and gus do not provide them the means with which to defend themselves against armor, among other things, and artillery attacks and so forth, the positions in the eastern rebel-held area are strengthening. and last point is countries around world are watching how reliable a friend we are. and i am concerned that this has tremendous dutch rental effects -- tremendous detrimental effects him encouraging putin and discouraging countries from being friends of the united states. i do not think that is a good way to go. i realize that this has turned

into a white house call. last point, there's tremendous bipartisan support in both the house and senate for providing this assistance. and i really think the administration is isolated on this issue. that is also something that is not good for the country. unless you have something you want to add, i will not cut you off, but -- secretary carter: i would simply say that, sort of a personal observation, i was in budapest in 1994 when the agreement was signed, that the russians have fire related. so i am very alive to the possibility that we had then,

and i think still need to stick up for, of an independent ukraine able to find its own way politically and economically, is the only thing i would say in the first instance. it is terribly important that occur. the other thing i would say is nobody ought to mistake that ukraine is a very, very important country to us. it is not a nato ally, and i just want to make the point that as far as nato allies are concerned, that raises a whole other set of issues, that i hope anyone who is considering encroaching upon a nato ally takes very seriously. chairman thornberry: i hope so too. i will be traveling to that region shortly and talking some of those folks about it. secretary carter: thank you for doing that. chairman thornberry: thank you all, for being here. secretary, will come back. general dempsey, you are going to miss us when you're gone. thank you, all, with being here.

with that, the hearing stands adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> earlier today at the white house briefing, josh curtis said there is no indication the islamic state have any operational link to a string of suicide bombings in yemen. secretary ernest said the group often claims responsibility for attacks for propaganda value. here is more. mr. earnest: united states strongly condemns the bombings that killed over a hundred and left hundreds of others wounded. we express our condolences to the families of the victims. we deployed the brutality of the terrorists who perpetrated today's attack on you many --

yemeni citizens. political instability threatens the well-being of all yemenis. today's attack underscores the terrorism that affects all yemenis, and no one group alone can get front -- can confront the challenges facing yemen. as relates to your question i can tell you we cannot at this point confirm the veracity of the claim of these extremists that they are affiliated with the islamic state. the -- we have seen these kinds of claims in the passed from other groups. it appears these kinds of claims are often made for the perception that they have, that benefits their propaganda efforts. there is not at this point a clear evidence of an operational

link between these extremists in yemen and isil fighters in iraq and syria. a similar thing could be said about the claims about isil's role in the attack in syria this week. what is clear is the united states in our correlation -- and our coalition partners are very aware of just how are dangers the ideology and tactics of isil are. and we have taken -- we have built this coalition and taken the action that we have, that includes a robust military component, for the safety and well-being of the american people and citizens across the west. but what is also true, as is evidenced by today's attack, his people in the region, including muslims, are also in danger because of isil's extremist

ideology and brutal acts of terror. so that is why we have succeeded in building such a diverse coalition that includes governments from the region to take the fight to isil and to limit the kind of threat that they pose, not just to the united states, but to countries around the world. reporter: we have not seen this before. what does that say about the president's goal of degrading and defeating the islamic state? mr. earnest: it is plausible that the reason -- we are talking about this incident just hours after it took place. we have seen other groups claim affiliation with isil purely for its propaganda value.

we are still investigating to determine whether or not there are command and control structures in place that may provide some evidence to substantiate the claim that isil was involved in these attacks. at this point there's no indication that there is an operational link, but that is something that is still being investigated by our national security personals. >> that was some of the white house briefing with josh earnest. you can watch the entire briefing online at www.c-span.org. >> the house and senate are out today, and next week both will take up their 2016 budget plans. live coverage of the house is on c-span, and the senate on c-span2. tonight we will head to i want to hear from martin o'malley. he will be added democratic

party dinner in davenport. our coverage starts at 9:00 eastern. >> here are some of our programs for this weekend. on "book tv," saturday 10:00 p.m. eric foner. sunday night at 10:00 the rise and leadership of isis in the middle east. saturday morning at 9:00, and throughout the day on c-span3 the abraham lincoln symposium, live from ford's theater. sunday evening at 6:00, a visit to the national museum of health and medicine to view items from their civil war collection including our class -- including artifacts. find complete schedule at

www.c-span.org and let us know is think about the programs you're watching. call us, e-mail us, or send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. >> on the next "washington journal," fred burton discusses security concerns at u.s. embassies. then daniel mitchell looks at the current tax code and proposal to reform it. after that, efforts to restore voting rights to felons. plus your phone calls on facebook -- phone calls, facebook comments, and tweets. >> next, a discussion about the first family detail and current

reform proposals for the secret service. this is about an hour. host: after two days of scrutiny of secret service by lawmakers on capitol hill, we welcome to our desk an expert, author, and former investigative reporter, ron kessler. mr. kessler, these allegations of aged misconduct stemming from the secret service alleged drinking and driving incident. this as director joseph clancy's first big test. how do think he did in those hearings this week? guest: you know, he came across as pathetic. he had all the wrong responses. he started claiming that there was a culture of drinking in the secret service. there isn't. in this case, they went to a party. they should not have gotten into a government car. they should not have gotten into the compound. that is not common among the

agents. the agents overall are brave and dedicated. the problem is the culture within the management. the management has this attitude of covering up, of laxness, of corner cutting. and agents who report problems or threats are punished. and in turn, those who pretend that everything is fine are promoted into management. as one example of the culture of fear, when gunshots were fired at the white house in 2011, a uniformed officer reported that. but then her supervisor said no, it is just a construction site noise. she said later she was afraid to pursue that because she feared that should be criticized by management. that is the culture. clancy represents that culture. he is from within management. you saw that when he testified a few months ago on the hill. on the house side about the fact

that the secret service issued a statement when gonzalea, the intruder, got into the white house. host: the fence jumper. guest: the fence jumper. the secret service said at the time that he was apprehended at the door and he was not armed. that was a total lie. they knew very well that he penetrated the white house and that he was armed. he was asked, is anybody going to be held accountable issuing those lies? and he said, no, those were not lies. that he was asked, how do in error? he admitted that he didn't even know how this arose. so that is the culture that is leading to all these coverups. host: clancy saying, not that nobody is going to held accountable for this latest incident, but that the investigation is ongoing to what exactly happened there some pushback from him especially yesterday in that senate hearing, about the

reporting of a gate-crashing was exaggerated. that it was a cone that was tapped by a car. what we know about the facts of that incident from march 4? and when will this investigation that he is having conducted be completed. guest: "the washington post" has had it exactly accurate. host: an organization used to work at. guest: that is right. not always right, but in this case they are. these two high-ranking supervisors went to a retirement party, presumably drank. went into this compound -- the white house compound in the middle of a crime investigation where there was a suspicious package that had been thrown in. they thought it was a bomb. they drove their car into this area and hit a barricade. you know, clancy is making a big

deal out of, well, some media organizations -- not "the washington post" but others -- said it crashed into the barricade. so what? it is a minor discrepancy. he should be focused on fixing the agency, not whether the media got something a little bit wrong. host: the agents drinking in cartagena was a story you broke before you were a full-time author writing about these issues. that was april 2012. we are all most three years we are all most three years later, and drinking among agents continue to happen. why hasn't that changed? guest: and going back five years, you have the party crashers at the state dinner. that was also part of the systemic problems because agents and officers feel that they will not be backed by management if they turn someone away. it turned out that these glamorous people shouldn't have been on the guest list. they turned them away. and they feel that they will not be backed by management.

the answer to your question is one person is responsible for all of this. and that is barack obama because every time one of these things happens, he says he has full confidence in the secret service. he should have replaced the director at the time when the salahis their intrusion, along with the third intruder. another story i broke. and brought someone in from the outside. that is what this panel of four really highly respected individuals recommended. it was his own panel recommending they bring in some of from the outside who will not be part of this culture, who will shake things up who will not be beholden to interest with him. for example, one of these supervisors who was involved in this incident is a longtime colleague of clancy that had been on the presidential detail together.

and clancy, you know, really has no idea, as far as i can tell, of what needs to be done. host: just one of the statements from the white house this week backing up agency management and showing their confidence in clancy. here is white house spokesman john earnest. [video clip] >> clancy is someone who has a sterling reputation inside the secret service, but also outside. he has set a very high standard for himself. that positions him well to serve as a leader for that organization and to implement some of those changes that he has a knowledge are badly needed. host: can you talk a little bit about director clancy's background, for those who are less familiar with him and his history? guest: well, he had been an agent for a most 30 years. and he became head of barack

obama's protective detail. that is when obama, you know developed trust in him and understand, of course, that he felt -- that obama felt positive towards him because he protected him. that doesn't mean that he knows how to manage the agency. clancy has put out the word that he removed some top managers who were part of this whole culture. host: a very high-profile time right around the end of last year when it happened. guest: in fact, the real story is that he replaced them with -- with managers who have the same culture. one of those i had interviewed for one of my two secret service books. and he made her assistant director. i have never, never come across anybody more pathetic in a position of responsibility literally. she shouldn't have been in charge of a drugstore. i have done books on the fbi

the cia, and the secret service. and i was just appalled. she was so afraid to say anything to me that the p.r. person had to answer most of the questions. what can of the manager is is that? you cannot imagine how screwed up this agency is. all of these incidents are not accidents. when clancy was appointed by obama, i did an op-ed saying obama guarantees more secret service problems. and that is what has happened. host: the two books you have done on this, the first family detail in the president secret service. some of the 20 nonfiction books about the secret service. that you have written. ron kessler is with us to talk about the committee hearings this week and the latest incident at the secret service. the phone lines are open. joe is up first. new york. joe is an independent.

joe, good morning to you. caller: good morning. i am very confused. i have been aggravated about a story that happened, i don't know, a year or so ago. a woman was in a car, and she got confused and bumped into a gate near the white house. and she made a u-turn and went the wrong way. she was chased down the street. it was live on television. we see the secret service and the washington police shooting at her car. she was shot dead. the time i turn on the 6:00 news, the story had vanished. i am indicting that only the secret service, but the news media for not following up on that story. how close did they come to killing her child? if it is a crime to run into a gate of the white house, how come these two secret service agents were not shot? guest: this woman, you know, had mental problems.

she went barrelling into the barricades at the white house at a high rate of speed and then continued towards the capital and 80 miles per hour. agents feared that she would be -- she had possible explosives, and they simply he couldn't take a chance. she was using lethal force namely her vehicle to cause a threat to the white house and to the capitol. that was followed up on, but you know, it is unfortunate when people resist arrest or threaten something as sensitive as the white house. you know, we don't want another assassination. and that is what is involved here. agents tell me because of the corner cutting, it is a miracle that there has not already been an assassination. that is a real danger. host: you talk to these agents a lot.

how would you respond to anne myer on twitter who says i think it is a lack -- it is a moral issue due to lack of respect for the documents of the white house. guest: these agents are brave and dedicated. they would take a bullet for the present, even for hillary clinton. let me tell you, in the book, i go into detail on what these people are like behind the scenes. hillary is so abusive to agents. being assigned to her detail is being considered a form of punishment. host: what are some examples from your book? guest: she would just fly into a rage over nothing, criticize agent, even if the limo goes over a bump. it is just a nightmare working with her. and yet, yes, they will take a bullet for her. on the other hand, barack obama and michelle are very considerate of agents. this is a nonpartisan book. so that tells you something about character. character is very important when

it comes to, you know, hiring someone, choosing a friend. you never hire someone who treats people so badly. and, of course, when choosing the president. instead, voters focus on how they smile on tv, how they promise, which they usually break, as opposed to what they should be looking at which is their track record. host: phoenix, arizona. line for republicans. tom, good morning. caller: good morning. i have a question about the incident with a guy jumped the fence and ran into the white house. he got inside, came in contact with the first secret service agent. and from what i understand from the reporting, that agent was basically tossed aside. pardon me? host: that he was tossed what? tossed aside? caller: tossed aside. and they continued on into the white house. when they came in contact with the second agent, that is when

they were subdued. the first agent, were they fired or were they promoted? guest: no action has been taken so far as i know at this point. and that is a problem. in the case of the intrusion there was just a series of screwups, which do illustrate the laxness and corner cutting beginning with the fence which is only 7 1/2 feet high. it doesn't have a curvature at the top, which would make it difficult to jump. it has a horizontal bar at the bottom, which makes it easier to scale. that is an example of secret service laxness. and then once this individual got in, the walkie-talkies were so outmoded that no one could hear anything. they were talking over each other. the acoustics were terrible. and then you have a uniformed officer with a k-9 unit -- one of whom i interviewed for one of

my books -- and he was on a cell phone talking on a personal call. obviously, he should have been probably fired. but at the same time, i think that reflected the fact that management cuts corners. so he figured, i can do whatever i want. the same as the agent to hire prostitute. host: amid all this, the secret service requesting a $1.9 billion budget in 2016. that is an 18% increase. do you think they need it and that they can spend that money wisely? guest: they definitely need it. that includes money for the new campaign, which means protecting all these different candidates but also $80 million for upgrades to the white house security, for example, and training. the secret service has this attitude, as part of this terrible culture, of we make do with less. so they haven't been spending

money where they should to keep things at the right level. as opposed to the fbi, which has increased its budget immensely. hey, the result is we have not had a successful terrorist attack since 9/11 because the fbi does have a good culture would never tolerate this kind of cover-up. i have proposed in my op-eds appointing a former high-ranking fbi official to run the secret service. but, of course, obama went with an insider. host: i want to get your specific thoughts on the $8 million that is in there to create a replica of the white house for agents to turn on. is that needed? guest: oh, yeah. that is long overdue. the fbi and the military do it all the time. they have these fake towns where arrests are made. if they don't have the white house itself, they are really spinning their wheels. host: kelly, oceanside

california. the line for independents. kelly, good morning. caller: good morning. i do think that the blue line is going to always protect the blue line, regardless of who is in office and what is going on. that is pretty much my statement. as far as protecting the border of the white house to prevent people from jumping the fence, i have been at junkyards or whatever, and they have electric fences at the top of those places. so if they can protect a junkyard with an electric fence, they should be able to protect the white house. host: before we let you go, you think that bringing in somebody from the fbi isn't going to make much of a difference here in your opinion? caller: i think it needs to be an appointed position. something that is appointed from outside of law enforcement. host: ron kessler?

guest: to say that the blue -- what is it, the blue line -- that is just prejudice. that is like saying all blacks are criminals or all jews are whatever. you know, to just have a blanket statement like that about people who risk their lives to protect is really reprehensible, in my opinion. host: stephen is up next. texas. line for republicans. stephen, good morning. caller: yes, sir. i am just trying to figure out -- i did not vote for him, but nobody should be put in the position they are put in. but he did choose the secret service man to cover him protect him, however the way it works. but i do not know if it is going to take outside sourcing, as far as navy seals if secret service

can't do it. why can't they all work together? i have a lot of respect for the secret service, but i cannot understand why everybody wants to throw secret service under the bus. i mean, everybody is stressed. the secret service is on 24/7. host: ron kessler. guest: as i said, agents say it is a miracle there has never been an assassination. and that is how important it is to fix the secret service. really, in assassination nullifies democracy. i lived through the jfk assassination. i was in college, and i cried for days. it was a terrible blow for the country. that is what is involved here. when it comes to who should run it, an outsider, such as a former fbi person, i think is better than a military person

because former fbi already knows federal law enforcement. a military prison would be an improvement over clancy, but you know, there will be a very steep learning curve. host: the caller brings up the alcohol issue. your thoughts on director clancy talking about agents using this as a coping mechanism and how they need to be helped to find other ways to cope? guest: i think those part of clancy's coverup. trying to blame everything on stress and having thinking problems. you know, every organization has some people who engage in excessive drinking. these agents, you know, when to a retirement party. they drink the way all of us do. but then the problem is they got into a government vehicle, went into the compound, they were belligerent, essentially disrupted a crime scene. so it goes far beyond drinking.

and by claiming that there is a cultural problem involving drinking, clancy is diverting attention from what he should be focusing on, which is this corner-cutting culture and the fact that it took five days before he even learned of this incident, and that was through an anonymous incident. that shows the cover-up mentality continues. that agents are afraid to report problems. and, you know, this hearing seems to be predicated on the idea that clancy has just taken over. that is not true. he has been acting director since october. on day one, he should have taken action to make sure it is very clear that anybody who does not report problems or bad news or threats is going to be removed. it doesn't mean they have to be fired necessarily, but certainly removed. but he didn't do that.

what he did was he appointed these new people at the top. the house appropriations hearing on this, a congressman who was on "washington journal" earlier this week. here is a bit of their exchange. [video clip] >> when you say i had to set the example, dude, you don't have to in their trust. you are their boss. they are supposed to earn your trust. and they have not earned your trust. and the way to earn your trust is you hold them accountable. and then the others who aren't of their driving through barricades and drunk in hotel corridors and overseas locations, those guys know that they are going to be held accountable. so i have gone on for a while and i am not reading you, i'm

not berating this culture that has been fostered there. if you like to respond, please do. >> thank you, sir. we have had incidents, obviously, in the past. and previous directors have -- after due process -- have moved these people off jobs. they are gone. cartagena is an example, where i believe we lost 10 people. they were terminated to there is an indication that -- or there is a history where we will discipline people. but again, i cannot do this on day one. i am frustrated that the agency is taking this hit, and rightfully so, but i have to allow this due process to take place, and then that will be our first test. our first indication of are we serious about holding people accountable. maybe, as bad as it is to say this, maybe it is good that it happened early in my tenure so we can set a tone as we move forward.

host: we want to get back to chris' comments it's there that the agents themselves do not trust director clancy. do you think that is true? guest: yeah, and the fact that it took him five days to tell them what happened shows the culture of retaliation against anybody who reports a problem. clancy's response is because. >> clancy's response is ridiculous. he mentioned cartagena. in the case of that, with hiring prostitutes, the secret service put those agents who were not high-ranking, the way these were, on administrative leave. that meant their guns were taken way, the badges, their credentials. they were not allowed access to secret service buildings. their vehicles were taken away. where in this case, you have high-ranking -- host: was that at the direction of the former director? guest: mark sullivan, yeah.

whereas in this case, what did clancy do with these high-ranking people? one of them he was on detail with for years. he did not put them on administrative leave. rather, he put them in other as a weapons, their credentials their vehicles. that is the double standard. i said you failed his first test. host:, st. louis missouri, lime for democrats. caller: this is that unless there is an incident 72 hours later, they eliminated to three of what more incident throwing it? -- eliminate the tape.

what more incident is there then throwing it? they have the license number and they do not explain her background and who she is. host: truly clear, the package was not -- to be clear, the package was not a long. -- a bomb. guest: it is another indication of the cost-cutting not to upgrade to surveillance cameras that store information for months. on the other hand, -- host: host: and are the actual tapes? guest: they are, you know, videotapes. which i am not surprised about because, you know, everything in the secret service is so decrepit through the decrepit.

the going back to the intrusion -- decrepit area. y did. the secret service turned it off. can you imagine a bank manager turning off the alarms in a bank? everywhere you look, it is just a mess. unbelievable. host: brookhaven, pennsylvania. ken is on a line for independents. good morning ken. caller: how are you doing? host: good. turn your tv down and talk to us through the phone. caller: ok, i will turn the tv down a little bit. my question is -- the to secret service men who were accused -- two secret service men who were

accused of driving drunk and running into a barrel, ok? i understand that. why have not the drivers of a car been busted for to you i -- for dui., serving for six months or more, and losing their license and all that? host: it brings up the question of whether a sobriety test was administered at the time. and the question surrounding the decision by a high-ranking officer not to do that. guest: right. officers wanted to arrest the two agents and give them a sobriety test, but according to the "washington post," which is very accurate, a high-ranking supervisor overruled them and said, no, just let them go home. another example of covering up. absolutely egregious. and with the -- the incident involving agents going in, it is

-- you know, on top of all that, why did the woman who had the suspicious package getaway? and was there -- was that in part because officers were so preoccupied with these agents who were disrupting things? you know, there are so many questions and so much suspicious activity surrounding this. and clancy's responses are so egregious that i think there should be an fbi investigation into what happened, given the fact that the grid have been obstruction of justice by the officers who said don't arrest them. given the fact that there is a raised -- erased tapes. host: so who is following up on those questions that you are asking echo is congress -- asking? is congress going to hold more hearings down the road? guest: congress is

investigating. they are doing a very good job. in addition, clancy gave to the inspector general of the dhs the apartment of home executed to investigate. but they don't have the same powers the fbi has. and i think, absolutely, an fbi investigation is called for here. host: fort pierce, florida. bill is on our line for democrats. bill, good morning. caller: good morning. my question involves, being an organization that has been around for a while, generally these problems don't pop up from nowhere. how, in your opinion, how far back to these problems go check of -- do they proceed -- problems go? do they proceed the obama administration? guest: they do. they started in 2003 when the department of homeland security took over the secret service. it is hard to really explain how it happened, but dhs had been

more political. in addition, the leader was not the right leader. mark sullivan has the same attitude. i interviewed him for one of these books, and he has an attitude of we make do with less. and turnover is bad. but look at iraq. look at the soldiers we sent to iraq. they had to sleep on the floor. how can you compare a secret service agent who can make tremendous amount in the private sector with some young guy in the army? that is the cultural attitude, again, that is just a mess. and mark sullivan diverted agents rum protecting the president -- from protecting the president to protecting his own assistance in southern maryland. the secret service has no legal authority to protect its own of -- agents number one. and number two, admits the present was unprotected, including when he lifted off in

marine one. one of the functions is to look for snipers as the helicopter takes off good and what did clancy say when he was asked about that at the hearing on the hill? he was asked, you know, what you think of this? and he said that did subtract from the security of the present. how could somebody, anybody, say something like that? host: do you think the wider public is watching the secret service here and is concerned about this? here is a treat this morning, no one cares. move on to an important subject. guest: i think people do care. first of all, they are fascinated by the secret service to begin with. they are silly fascinated by what our leaders are like in my book. in addition, i think people understand that this is one of our most important agencies. protecting the president.

protecting the vice president. they engage in all the corner cutting that come in my book has not hit the press yet. for example, the sicker service under pressure from white house staff, both under bush and obama, and other campaign staff, letting people into events without screening. it is just like letting passengers into an airplane without metal detection screening. again, the secret service what spend that money for enough screens -- screeners come and the political people said, we have to let them in. we do want to offend all these possible voters. sure enough, the managers, again, that the agent, but the managers ordered the agents to let them in. you can have terrorists go in with grenades and take out the president or the vice president. that alone is a scandal. no, nobody -- obama keeps saying he has confident in the secret service. and continues to defend these

directors. host: another bill from virginia beach, virginia. a republican. bill, good morning. caller: hi, good morning. i am calling -- i guess i have some really sympathetic feelings towards the members of the secret service. primarily because they have to deal with personalities and politics to the point that they have to stay perfectly neutral. i would think that the average person would never qualify to be a secret service representative. guarding a member of congress or a member of the white house staff. and the president. you made a comment, mr. kessler a short while ago that some secret service agents might consider being on the staff

regarding hillary. my consider that to be a punishment assignment. and i am just wondering -- my concern is that i am wondering if the attitudes of people in politics and -- in some cases could be arrogant? or unforgiving? and possibly taking guest: sure. that is exactly the point. if you don't looking these things, we will suffer. if you look at richard nixon, before he was engaged in today's ethics controversy -- we got watergate. in the rest of our lives, we look at the elusive character, and we don't deal with people like that.

in the case of hillary, she shows arrogance in the way she treats arrogance, in the same way, she decided to put all of her government e-mails on her personal server. incredible erick bennett. that can only be magnified when selling gets into the white house and they amass all of this power. host: you bring up the server issue. she said in that press conference and the u.n., when she was asked about it, that it was at home protected by the secret service. is the secret service qualified to do data protection? guest: no. they are very good at investigating that sort of thing, involving cyber crime financial crimes. she was referring to the fact that this service protects their house. well, that is not the issue at all. nobody thinks that someone will physically steal the server, or do something to the server.

no. it is cyberattacks. she was diverting attention from the real issue in that case. the caller mentioned the pressure, the difficulty of dealing with these people. as one example, and again this -- when dick cheney's daughter was under protection, she would try and convince them to take her to restaurants. they are not taxi drivers. they have specific duties to protect people. they refuse, as they should have. she threw a fate and got her detail leader -- a fit, and got her detail leader change. the uniformed officers at the white house, saying, we should let them in, even if they are on the guest list. host: a question from twitter

what do you expect barack obama to do? trash the secret service that guard him and his family? guest: you bring in an outsider to change the coulter. someone who is not holden. it is not a big deal. it should be a matter of course. obama, is either in denial, or has colossal mismanagement -- and added to that ms. manages things. he doesn't understand management, and other words. it is egregious. i wrote this op ed. more problems now that he appointed clancy. the first problem happened to we factor clancy assumed directorship, and believe me there will be much more in the future. host: that is in "the washington

post" from march 15. keith is up next on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. i just think until the secret service can get their problems worked out, they need to bring in some military ops, or something. something they already have that won't cost any money. transfer them there and let them be several lines of security until they get all this figured out. guest: that certainly would be an improvement as to someone in charge, from the military. look at the former fbi director, he came from a marine background. the previous director would punish agents who brought him bad news or is agree with them. that's why you had one general after another under him.

even a case where he refused to implement polygraphs, which would have the issue some -- have stopped the issue some seven years later. then, another came in and he was having a meeting with the head of intelligence, and she lied about a specific spy case and how to handle it. what did he do? he removed here right away -- removed her right away. that sent a message. when you meet the director, he will not put up with coverups. host: jodi arias -- jody asks is the department of homeland security the problem? guest: i think switching them back would cause more chaos.

what is needed is a strong leader who understand how serious these issues are, how important this job is, who will stand up to anybody to protect the president. that means both standing up to obama and to members of congress who think that the secret service should get more money. that's just penny wise and fullest. the new budget is $1.9 billion per year, roughly the price of one stealth bomber. what could be more important than protecting the president. host: kerry is up next on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: i have been listening for about a half-hour and i think that people out here in michigan, and in the rural areas, we could care less about what mr. -- the gentleman there on your site is talking about this morning.

how did he -- did he cover the hearing yesterday? host: would you like to talk about your expense in the field. d? guest: i have interviewed a number of agents, both former and current. i went out to a training center along with my wife, a former "washington post" reporter. interviewed mark sullivan, a k-9 unit, as i mentioned before, a dog who discovered dynamite in a washer where racks for the presidential limousine are washed. i've been on this for some time. one of my books led to the sessions over the abuse of

director. host: the car totagena story. you are the author of about 20 books on the secret service and cia. mine for independence, matt, good morning. caller: i have read several of your books. i'm a history buff. i want to say that straight up. as the conversation of gun on -- i watch the whole thing -- i've come to realize that the easy way to bring government is -- great government isbreak government is complicated. the secret service had a wonderful reputation.

i have a relative who is an atf agent. very good at his job, highly trained, highly sophisticated. he barely ever drinks. i also have a brother who has taught israelis how to shoot rockets out of the sky. my home security system does not use tapes. nobody ever brings up -- and it is important -- the white house is like a museum. it is historical. there's a reason for that. there is an antiquity act that protects it. if we want to move into the smithsonian, i would agree with that and put up a fence. if we are going to destroy any more of our country, just remember the white house is an museum. host: how do you protect and working museum? guest: i think there is mythology that somehow improving the security of the white house is going to infringe on some

artwork or deny access to the public -- the public to the president. of course the public does not have access. it much more important that we protect the occupant of the white house. this can be done in a fairly unobtrusive way. certainly, beginning with increasing the height of the fence and having curvature, a horizontal bar on the bottom. many things that can be done, many of which were in the report by the four-person panel that president obama ignored when they said he should get an outsider to leave the secret service. -- lead the secret service. host: the people on the panel where the outsiders? guest: two had served for bush and two for obama. host: in the secret service?

guest: no. one was an associate attorney general under obama. another one was joe hagan then pushes deputy chief -- bush's deputy chief of operations. very impressive. i have rarely seen such good public service, in terms of the report they turned in, and the issues that they covered. obama just the door them. host: line for democrats. caller: good morning. my theory is what these gentlemen are trying to do is maneuver obama's people out of position, so they can put their people in. host: does is go with conspiracy theories, or no? guest: my book is nonpartisan. i cite a number of republicans including mary cheney and how

she went to get her agents to take her to restaurants. another item that is very relevant is back when reagan was president, the secret service did not want anyone near him when he left the washington hilton. his own staff, all republicans, obviously, overruled the secret service. they don't in fact have authority, but the secret service caved as they usually do, and said no, let people and to see reagan as he came out of the washington hilton. sure enough, someone was able to get within 15 feet of reagan totally unscreened for weapons, and that is how reagan almost lost his life, because of his own white house staff. host: kevin is up next. go ahead. caller: the man just asked a question and you turned around

and said, is this another conspiracy theory. i would like to ask you real quick, what is the definition of a conspiracy? guest: to say that i am trying to get rid of obama people just has nothing to do with any evidence or the subject. i don't know what that means. we are talking about the security of the president. we are talking about some sort of political issue, whatsoever. host: let's go to another kevin staten island, new york. caller: good morning, c-span. thank you for taking my call. i really appreciate the program. mr. kessler, i'm sure you're very familiar with the event in cartagena. guest: i actually broke that story in "the washington post." caller: i have a solution to the problems. why won't they put paul or read

in charge -- paula reed and charged? i think you know that when you are part of the old boys network, it is difficult to enforce the rules. she, as a female and an officer that holds people to high standards, help those officers in cartagena to the standards that they need to be held two, and the marines. i think one of the solutions would to put her in a position in charge. guest: clancy did that. she named her assistant director . at the same time, even though she did an exemplary job on cartagena, she is part of this culture, i have interviewed her she is not someone who actually make the major changes that really are needed in this agency. host: you go through, in your

newest book, about potential replacements. you actually name people that you would like to see as the head of the secret service? one of these outside people? guest: i think if i started naming people, that would be the kiss of death. a lot of people in the secret service management just hate the revelations that i have brought out. part of the same culture, they think anybody who criticizes them is to be ignored. i've got a lot of e-mails with swearwords from some of these people. i do have a particular person or mine, a former fbi high-ranking agent who helped to turn around the culture of the fbi, to make it more prevention oriented. we have a track record of

actually changing the culture. he knows how to do that. i mention that, when the four-person panel interview to ed me. they were interested. i know they did consider fbi people. in the end, that was not their role. the role was to give guidelines. their chief recommendation was bring in an outsider. again, obama ignored that. it is his own life at stake. it is the lives of his own family members. i wonder if he recognizes danger. host: just one piece from ron kessler's column in "the washington post" -- obama ignored the chief recommendation of his own four-person panel. in turn, he turned to clancy, a

career agent who are her earned his trust. tough words from ron kessler march 15 if you want to read it. let's get in making. -- mickey. caller: i think is very great that mr. kessler is on there this morning. a lot of people don't know these situations, alcohol, hitting the bars in front of the white house. it should be something that should be out there. i personally did not know that. if it was anybody else, and any other town in the united states, if somebody had been drawn, and ran into anything, they would be -- guest: absolutely. caller: that is not a fair

assumption of what we pay our secret service for. guest: in my book, i reveal the dishonesty that the secret service and in. that of course is relevant to this cover-up mentality. for example, in the secret service, when members of congress come out to visit their training center, the secret service puts on the senate is to show how great the agents are. they find the explosives, and they are presented as spontaneous. in fact, they are rehearsed secretly beforehand. of course, the secret service claims credit for a rest -- arrests that the police make. additionally, the secret service will ask agents to throw out there scores on physical

fitness, of course they all cost themselves. this is dishonest. to have an agency, engage in dishonesty means that you will have dishonesty all across the board. host: one must question for you. mark sullivan left, julie peterson that, now clancy will leave. wild and wonderful wants to know, how long would it take an outsider to get up this be before start fixing the problem? guest: overnight. they understand how to change the culture, how the attitudes develop, and how to change them. that means removing people who are part of the culture. the fbi would never put up with this kind of full business, -- foolishness, believe me.

they have an exemplary record, a record of success. why not take advantage of that. ? host: hitter as a what is coming up on c-span. the >> here is a look at what is coming up on c-span. martin o'malley is speaking at a gala. >> the director of the national economic council discussed the obama administration agenda at breakfast hosted by "the christian science monitor." brian deese was also very to talk entry questions.