representative deutch: if i could just ask mr. szubin to put provide to us our breakdown of the $7 million that has been released. the money that has been released every few months $10 billion, $20 billion, $50 billion of the frozen money was released at one time, where it has gone in iran. where it would go under the permanent deal. would it go to benefit the revolutionary guard. chairman: we go to the representative from texas. is that it is mr. coleman: mr.

secretary, section 123 of the atomic energy act requires all significant agreements must he be approved by both houses of congress. last year, congress approved two such agreements. one with south korea and one with great britain, our allies. in this case, what we are dealing with is the leading sponsor of terrorism. the position of this administration is that should not be subject to approval by the u.s. congress. i don't quite understand that distinction. can you explain that to me? mr. blinken: the issue is, what is the best form of the agreement in order for us to have the flexibility we need to make sure iran is living up to obligations and to reimpose sanctions quickly if it is not. what we are seeking -- the issue here is whether this is a legally binding agreement or not.

if it is legally binding, it would be subject to the rules of international law, which can be quite burdensome. having a nonbinding agreement gives us the flexibility to step back sanctions immediately. with regard to whether it is a treaty or not and subject to the advice and consent of the senate, the book of vast bulk of international agreements we have made, under republican and democratic administrations, are not treaties and are not subject to the advice and consent of the senate. i can go through the list. we have everything from the missile technology control regime which has been very successful in creating voluntary export licensing. the security guidelines. senator: i appreciate what you are saying but i think we are treating our allies as different from state-sponsored terror and

the american people should be weighing in on this deal. icbm's. this concerns me greatly. this has been off the table. the intelligence community and the pentagon in it's an annual report said that as early as 2014 this year they may have -- 2015, this year they may have , icbm technology missile ranges that could potentially reach as far as the united states of america. and the ayatollah supreme leader says that to limit this program would be a stupid, idiotic expectation that they should definitely carry out their program and should mass-produce, why in the world isn't this on the table? does that not concern you about their intent? mr. blinken: the missile program is absolutely a concern. that's why we have in working

been working vigorously around the world to push back against proliferation. the effort whether there is , agreement or not, that effort will persist. sanctions will continue. the scope of this agreement, if there is one, is the nuclear program. that is what has been agreed to. it is not a missile agreement. there are aspects of this that are critical in term of iraq's capacity to make a missile and we are focused on that -- senator maccoll: because that is the delivery device for a nuclear warhead and it makes me question their whole good faith analysis. if i can say when i read their own words, the president who you say is taking a different tact and trying to be a peacemaker,

he says in a geneva agreement, world power surrendered to the iranian nations. they say the centrifuges are spinning and will never stop. when prime minister netanyahu gave his speech to the joint session of congress, iran was blowing up a mock of the uss nemits in the red sea. you have enter extraordinary challenge but i have to question the good faith on the part of iran. mr. blinken: you are right, it is not a question of good faith -- by the way, whether it is president rouhani or the foreign minister or any others, it's not because we think they are good guys and like the united states. it's that there are some people who are more pragmatic about what iran needs to do and they believe that negotiating entry

an agreement and getting some relief is what makes the most sense. not because they like us or have good intentions. the other thing i would say is that there are statements made on a regular basis by iran's leaders on all sorts of issues. in some instances, some of the statements are made for domestic political purposes. we have a tendency to see iran as a country with no politics. it has very intense politics. there is a lot of politics going on right now between those in iran that want an agreement and those that don't. some of the statements you're seeing as objectionable or abhorrent are designed for political consumption at home to push back. senator mccaul: i hear death to america on an ongoing basis regardless of politics and that

is concerning for us. we go now to davidson cellini of rhode island. mr. cellini: thank you for being here and giving us insight on this important issue. i am hopeful that the ongoing negotiations will create an ongoing agreement. and as our chairman and ranking member said many of us have questions about the details of the final agreement. we will express to you what some of those concerns are. as my colleague said, guaranteeing that the actors will behave in a certain way is always difficult. we have no guarantee of that. so we want to make sure it is difficult for them to violate the agreement that we can detect it if they do and that we have an opportunity to respond. that is the best we can do other

than imagining we can control the decision of a lot of people. with respect to that, last year the defense department released a report that found the u.s. government systems for detecting small enterprises or covert facilities are inadequate or more often do not exist. in that context, how will we know and what are we doing to ensure that we will learn if iran is pursuing a covert program after the sunset of a comprehensive agreement? the additional protocols and addresses, isn't that a fair question? we are not particularly good in general and with respect to iran in general, what are the -- in particular, what are the protections? mr. blinken: you make an important point and i'm well aware of the science report. we are factoring in their recommendations as we work on and think about any agreement

with iran. i think it underscores with absolute necessity of having the most intrusive, significant monitoring access, transparency regime anywhere, anytime anyplace in the world. in terms of what happens in perpetuity, it is about the very least, the combination of the additional protocol. the storehouse of knowledge that will be built up by the exceptional transparency measures we believe that all of those things taken together will give us the ability to detect efforts by iran. to break out or sneak out. the report underscores the absolute essential nature of the components. rep. cicilline: would you speak for a moment about what you see as the scenario if no agreement is reached? there has been a lot of discussion about the urgency of

additional sanctions. to the extent that that happens, do you foresee that would prevent the development of the nuclear weapon? the goal here is not to impose just pain on iran, but to impose conditions such that they don't develop a nuclear weapon. that is the ultimate goal. i wonder if you would speak to the alternative of a good, comprehensive agreement. what do you likely see even if additional sanctions were imposed if these talks follow part? do we prevent a nuclear iran? mr. blinken: it depends on how an agreement is not reached. if it is clear that iran is not able and will not make a reasonable agreement, then clearly that calls not only for sustaining existing pressure but adding to it.

in an effort to get them to rethink that unfortunate position and to bear down on all fronts in its effort to acquire technology for a nuclear program and the resources. if on the other hand, we are at the end of march, very close with an agreement on many key elements and not all of them, we cannot put the whole thing together. i can see a circumstance where it might be useful to take the time we have until june. we have to see where we are. the third possibility is that for whatever reason, we are perceived as having been responsible for the failure to reach entry agreement. or at least there is enough mud in the water to create that impression. for that to happen, which cannot and must not, that would make it more challenging. not only to add more sanctions and pressure but to sustain the sanctions we have.

it is important to keep remembering that this is not just about us. the power and the efficacy of the sanctions that congress has produced and that we have been implementing is exponentially magnified by the precipitation -- participation of other countries in the world. if that goes away the power of the sanctions will. rep. poe: i have a lot of questions and i think you can answer many of them with a yes or no. they are not gotcha questions but unless i ask you to explain, don't explain the answer, if you would. the 10 year agreement, or however long it will be, is the deal that the sanctions and penalties will be lifted after the agreement is over? or do the penalties come to an

end? mr. blinken: congressman, it would be phased. we would insist on iran demonstrating compliance and certain sanctions might be suspended, not ended. and after more compliance, sanctions would be ended assuming congress agreed. , on the international front, we would be looking at demonstrated compliance by iran. and then suspension and ending. if iran didn't do what it was supposed to, we would have snapped back provisions here and internationally. rep. poe: the purpose of this is to prevent iran from getting nuclear weapons. would you agree that israel is concerned about iran in the united states? -- and the united states as well?. mr. blinken: yes.

rep. poe: the icbm issue is not even being discussed as this part of this agreement? mr. blinken: that is correct. rep. poe: the supreme leader has said he wants to get rid of israel and then take on us. he calls us the great satan. one way to get to us is icbm's. correct? mr. blinken: that is correct. rep. poe: they are not needed to eliminate israel. they have others that can already do that. mr. blinken: that is correct. rep. poe: we are not talking about trying to prevent icbm's. all we are trying to do, if i understand, is to keep them from getting technology. mr. blinken: what we are trying to do -- apart from this agreement -- rep. poe: is that correct? mr. blinken: the contours of this agreement go to the nuclear program and united nations resolutions regarding that program. that is what needs to be satisfied. those are the terms of the negotiations. separate and in part from that

we are working very hard to prevent iran from getting the technology. rep. poe: that's what i asked you, yes or no. isn't it true that iran is pursuing the development of icbm's in their country? mr. blinken: i'm sure that is true. rep. poe: so they are building the missiles and we are not trying to stop them except we don't want them to get the technology? mr. blinken: that is what they need to develop it. anything that technology from other countries. rep. poe: reclaiming my time. they are developing intercontinental listing ballistic mr. blinken: they are trying to do so, correct. rep. poe: we are not dealing with the issue at all? mr. blinken: we are, it is just not part of -- rep. poe: excuse me sir. we are trying to prevent nuclear weapons and at the end of the day if this agreement is signed and delivered, they will get them eventually. and then they may have the capability to send them to us.

i think this is a long-term threat to the world. especially the united states and israel. and peaceloving countries. iran gets nuclear capability. assume this. would you agree that saudi arabia would get it next? turkey? egypt? who else knows, to balance the power? over in less middle east. mr. blinken: it significantly increases the likelihood which is why we are trying to prevent them from getting one. rep. poe: just a couple more questions. the 2015 worldwide threat assessment, put out by the director of national intelligence, you said that this report focused on isis. if it is a worldwide assessment. worldwide. wouldn't you think it would

mention hezbollah? mr. blinken: it remains designated and a focus of our activities. rep. poe: but it is not mentioned as a worldwide threat in this report. that confuses me. if the federal government has a report that reports on a worldwide threat assessment of terrorism. we leave off the state sponsor of terrorism, iran and we leave off their puppet causing mischief, hezbollah. this seems confusing. would you recommend that the intelligence agency have enter a an addendum to this worldwide report? mr. blinken: i can recommend we tell you we are pushing back every single day -- rep. poe: you think they ought to add to the report that hezbollah and iran are terror threats to the world? mr. blinken: i need to go back and look at the report. >> thank you for being here today. it does sound like the one thing

we agree on is iran should not be able to get a nuclear weapon. i have a couple questions. if i could just state them and then you can answer. my first question is, if there is no deal how long would it take iran at this point to have a nuclear weapon? it is interesting -- i hear the frustration of summary of my colleagues about not trusting iran. i think no one trusts iran. if we do not get a deal, is the alternative, the realistic alternative, a military operation? what would that look like? if there was a military operation, how long would that delay iran from getting a nuclear weapon? what do you think would be the

interim collateral damage? i'm sure you have discussed this, what is the scenario of not having a deal? just to add to that, you have said if there is no deal then we will increase sanctions. i am assuming that you have made the calculation that we have taken them -- this is the time to get a deal. you can respond to those. mr. blinken: thank you and i think you raised important questions. with regard to the breakout time, this is something we can best deal with in a classified setting, but i can tell you broadly this. currently, the breakout time is a matter of a few months if everything went just right. of course, even under the interim agreement we would see that immediately. that is where we are. if there is no deal, that is

where they would be. presumably, under various scenarios, they would then speak to increase the number of centrifuges and increase the other capacity, move forward and move forward on iraq. because of all of that the breakout time would drop even further. what are the alternatives? i think that is a critical question. at the end of the day, any agreement reached, people will have to decide whether the agreement holds up, makes sense, advances our security. it will also be important for those who would oppose the agreement, if there is one, to say what the alternative would be and how it would be achievable. those are important questions because we are not operating in a vacuum. a lot of it depends on why there would be no deal. if it was clear that iran would not make an agreement, and the

international community recognized that, we would be in a position not only to sustain the sanctions but increase pressure and sanctions. if that didn't happen. if iran started speeding to a weapons capacity and bomb, then the military option has always been on the table and would remain on the table. if military action were taken, it could set back iran's program, but again it is important to understand that because iran has the knowledge we cannot bomb that away or sanction that away, at some point they would resume their activities and would probably go underground. we would loose the benefit probably of the international sanctions, regime and pressure. it would be worse than it would under an agreement. rep. frankel: what would be the ramifications -- especially

in the region -- if all of a sudden there was a war with iran? what will be the consequences to israel? what would you expect? mr. blinken: first of all, if iran were in a position where it was rushing to a nuclear weapon. many of the concerns about what other countries would do would be front and center. it would be very tempting for other countries to feel they needed to pursue a nuclear weapon to protect themselves. that is exactly one of the reasons we're trying to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon. in terms of israel, it faces an existential threat. that is one of the reasons we're trying to prevent iran from getting a weapon is in defense of our ally israel. rep. frankel: would you expect it? mr. blinken: i think they would feel further emboldened to take action and wrote region,

-- in the region including , against israel. >> mr. duncan is recognized. rep. duncan: thank you madam chair. this is a very informative hearing. yesterday we had a hearing as well. mr. deputy secretary, do you believe that iran is present and active in the western hemisphere? mr. blinken: yes. rep. duncan: do you believe their influence is steady and increasing as general kelly may say or is it not? mr. blinken: i think they are trying in various parts of the world to position themselves and take advantage of the openings that they have. representative duncan: the state department has report that says the threat is waning. are you aware of that? mr. blinken: i am. rep. duncan: are they still on the state-sponsored terrorist list? mr. blinken: yes. rep. duncan: they are still aiding and abetting organizations like hezbollah? mr. blinken: yes. rep. duncan: what's going on

-- to change with this agreement, as to their spot on the list of states sponsoring terrorists? mr. blinken: nothing. rep. duncan: so we are negotiated with the country that is refusing to quit exporting items to terrorist organizations? mr. blinken: we are negotiating to prevent the development of a nuclear weapon which would further embolden those activities and whether or not there is enter agreement it will -- there is an agreement, we will continue to take actions rep. duncan: iran has that you just cited. continually violated obligations and sanctions, what makes us think they will not violate this? mr. blinken: because of the penalties they would have to pay. the reason they are at the table now -- rep. duncan: do we all of a sudden think it will be legally binding on them? how do you think they view that statement? mr. blinken: i think the issue is not whether it is legally binding, the issue is whether it is clear and it is be, that if they violated there will be consequences.

it does not matter if that is legally binding or not. sanctions will come back and total force. rep. duncan: north korea has the same sanctions and they violated those. they have the bomb. mr. blinken: with regard to iran, the reason they are at the table is they spent years by letting their obligations and -- file eating their obligations and thanks to congress we exerted significant pressure and now faced with the pressure are seeking to make an agreement. rep. duncan: i think the pressure worked and the sanctions worked. mr. szubin talked about that. let me move on. in april 2014, john kerry said the obama administration said they would consult with congress about the final agreement and he says, we would be obligated under the law and what we do will have to pass muster with congress. we will understand that. yet, secretary -- deputy secretary lincoln and undersecretary: indicated that

-- and undersecretary colin indicated that the obama administration would not submit a potential agreement to congress for a vote. so what is the difference between what secretary kerry said in 2014 and what is being said now? mr. blinken: i don't think there is a difference. the secretary is exactly right. in our judgment, we consulted extensively throughout the duration at more than 200 hearings, meetings, calls and everything. if there is an agreement, we will go to that in great detail with congress. as we have been clear all along, the agreement at some point will require the lifting of sanctions and only congress can decide whether to do that. so congress will have a vote. indeed, that sort of sword of damocles, hanging over their head we think will make sure they are good on their commitments.

rep. duncan: i don't have a lot of questions. they have been asked. >> thank you so much, although there is a vote the subcommittee and full committee will come back, that we would never break without the opportunity of recognizing mr. connolly for his five minutes. representative connolly: unfortunately i have to begin by chastising my friend. my friend, the chair, who is truly my friend, referred to the president having a temper tantrum about prime minister and netanyahu and my friend from ohio said there is no president who has done more to damage the u.s.-israeli relationship. i cannot let that go by. a foreign leader has insulted the head of state of the united states government. it is not a temper tantrum. it didn't start with president

obama, it started with bibi netanyahu. you can decide for yourself whether it was appropriate for him to speak to a joint session. but the process is beyond dispute. it was an insult to us this government. friends don't act that way. i would say to my friend from ohio, it would come as news to perez, the outgoing president of israel, who gave president obama the highest award the israeli government can give for his support of israel, at some point does the partisan rhetoric stop? where are your loyalties with respect to the prerogatives of this government and our country? the shameless way that mr. netanyahu has conducted himself deserves reproach and i think

the president has shown restraint. i say this as somebody with a 35 year record of unwavering support of israel. i'm not a critic of the israeli government, but i am a critic of how this prime minister has treated my president. everyone's president. i cannot sit here and listen to the waving away of bad behavior that is an insult to my country. we have one president, whether you like him or not, whether you want to take political issue or not. fair game. when a foreign leader insults him, that should not be for game and should never be apologized away. it damages relationships long-term. it puts a divide where there was never a divide in public opinion in my country and i worry about that long-term. i hope you do to.

let me say, mr. deputy secretary, it seems to me there are five issues that congress has to be concerned about. the broad x essential question, are we better with the deal or without? i would argue the same prime minister of israel has never supported any agreement with iran, even though we are aware we are. he would like zero centrifuges a complete rollback so there is no nuclear capability and so would i. but i don't know anyone who can achieve that realistically. if those are your goals, the only option is what has euphemistically been called the kinetic option. if your not willing to accept any nuclear capability. i'm not sure the american people support that. i'm not sure that the israeli people support that. do you agree with that analysis deputy secretary?

mr. blinken: i would agree that as we said earlier iran has knowledge of the fuel cycle. they know how to make a bomb, if they choose to do it. we cannot bomb that away, it is knowledge. rep. connolly: i think there are five issues. if we move on. let's accept that. we need an agreement and we need to seek the best agreement we can. with respect to my colleagues an -- and congress, including myself there are five issues , that have to be addressed. the administration will have to convince us that you have addressed efficaciously. number one, what capabilities are left in place? number of centrifuges, something we can live with, and something to worry about. two, cheating. the inspection regime is all-important. if there are holes and drove the -- in the inspection regime, i

don't see how you will get any confidence in an agreement. how to we face the limits, assuming an efficacious agreement and how expeditiously can we impose them? the worry is we might be ok but our allies may not. fourth, a time frame. there is a lot of legitimate concern that it is too fast. that iran can quickly rush to nuclear capability under the reported terms of the agreement. finally the expiration of an agreement. the timeframe that people are concerned about. it is almost an open invitation. thank you madam chairman. madam chairman: it is not my temper tantrum to cut you off, we are out of time. rep. connolly: i know. madam chairman: we will get to

recess briefly and then get to the most amount of members we can get to before the witnesses to part. with that the committee stands in recess. >> tonight, representatives of buzz feed, cocker discuss -- gaw ker, discuss modern media. >> not every story needs to get the same amount of traffic. that is the most important thing to understand, for us, for me. what i think about most is the story reaching the people it needs to reach. if we are doing a story on chronic fatigue syndrome and it goes to 60,000 people and you do a quiz on moments that restore your faith in humanity, and he goes to one million people, that

is ok. people who read the chronic fatigue syndrome are e-mailing you come asking for translations. there are so many different metrics we can measure success on thinking everything about traffic is detrimental and bad for business. >> do you have expectations for how well certain kinds of stories should do you have? >> i have a general idea what a success looks like depending on the story. but we don't have traffic goals. >> that was part of the discussion held on modern newsgathering and dissemination at the university of chicago. you can see the entire event at 9:25 p.m. eastern on c-span. tomorrow, on washington journal douglas shaw discusses the

latest in the iranian nuclear negotiations. then thomas hunger forward of the economic policy institute looks at the republican house and senate plans. then the for center for -- plus your phone calls, facebook comments and tweets. washington journal live sunday at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. next, testimony from ashton kutcher carter. they look at the ongoing dangers of isis and u.s. relations with russia and iran. this is three hours.

>> we ask unanimous consent that members can participate in this event. by way of explanation, i say that one of the committee members has tentatively been appointed to another committee and his replacement has tentatively been named. mr. russell from oklahoma. it has not been ratified by the republican conference yet. if mr. russell is with us today without objection, non-committee members will be recognized at the appropriate time. let me welcome our distinguished

witnesses to today's hearing. secretary carter, thank you for being with us. you have been in this room in a variety of capacities over the years but this is the first hearing since you are 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 and i want to say again, all the committee members appreciated your participation in our treat about a -- in our retreat a month ago. it was extremely helpful and meant a lot and we are very grateful for that, for being here today, and for your many years of service. as you all know, this committee has done things a little bit differently this year. rather than start out talking about the president's budget, we

have spent the last two months looking at the national security challenges we face around the world. i think that is put us in a better place to be able to look at the administration's budget requests and a number of other issues before us. i would say for me, one of the key takeaways from the last two months has been the growing threat to that technological superiority. we have had classified and unclassified sessions on that and to me, it is one of the key challenges we face. as i mentioned, mr. secretary, as i was perusing my look self -- bookshelf, i came upon a brilliant addition called keeping the edge, managing defense for the future edited by ashton carter and john p white. there is a particular chapter

talking about the technological edge. i had made some notes in it. it said that two of the things we have to do to maintain a technological edge is to align our practices with market forces and send secondly, remain the top on defense systems. i wonder how we are doing these days. i think that is very relevant for today. i had a meeting to talk about the challenge 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. mr. smith shares my concern as we -- as all the members here. that is one of the topics we

want to talk to you about. there are many others. we have had several sessions on that with a lot of concerns with the wording that has come to us. i know that members will want to ask questions about that and other topics. before we get to those, let me yield to the distinguished ranking member for today. the distinguished gentlelady from california, miss davis. davis: i want to send our best wishes to the ranking member adam smith. we all know that he has been through a difficult time and we wish him a quick and speedy recovery. i want to ask unanimous consent that we put his remarks into the record.

general dempsey, this will likely be her last time before this committee. you are probably going to have an excuse to get back here next year. i'm sure you're not too broken about about not coming back. we'll miss you are thoughtful discourse and care of our young servicemembers. i bet you would rather have waited until after the -- was complete before coming up and speaking with us. i think it presents a great opportunity to help shape the budget during a difficult time. the expertise and insights will be airy well received. sequestration is obviously in the forefront of everyone's minds but we have to remember we are still engaged in conflicts and battling suicide and sexual assault and retention and recruitment issues here at home. these are a few of the discussion points we face while looking at the budget.

have to look beyond defense to the entire budget. we realize that other cuts will affect the department of defense for often than we realize. just yesterday the secretary's and service chiefs spoke about those who considered going into the service. often 75% did not meet the requirements today. we have to be mindful of that. we must also ensure that this budget is in line with our strategy. we cannot address conflicts around the globe of our strategy is not in line. we should not be finding peaceof fixing these issues in our budget. we believe in rolling our sleeves up and addressing together sequestration as a whole. i look forward to both of your statements today as well as the opportunity for an honest and open dialogue. thank you again. >> thank you for being here.

your full written statement will be made part of the record. please proceed. >> thank you all. thank you for having me here today. it is a pleasure to be with you once again. i have had the opportunity to speak to many of you before but this is my first time testifying as secretary of defense. i know that all of you on the committee, including the 23 veterans, share the same devotion that i do to what is the finest fighting force the world has ever known. and to the defense of our great country. i thank you for that and hope my tenure will be marked with partnership with you

on their behalf. i'm here to present the is it for the defense for this fiscal year. i strongly support the president in requesting a budget above the artificial caps, above sequester levels. next year and in the years thereafter i also share the president's desire to find a way forward that upholds the fundamental aspects of the 2013 bill. i supports his attempts to me to any bill that locks in sequestration. the administration is proposing to increase the defense budget in line with the projections submitted last year. it will give us the resources we

need to execute our nation's defense strategy. strategy comes first. that is the appropriate way to think about the budget. but, i want to be very clear about this, under sequestration which is set to return in 197 days, our nation will be left insecure. as you and college have said sequestration threatens our military readiness the size of our war fighting forces, the capabilities of our air and naval fleets, and ultimately the lives of our men and women in uniform. the joint chiefs have said the same. the great tragedy is that this corrosive damage to our national security is not a result of objective factors, logic reason

. instead, sequester is purely the fallout of political gridlock. its purpose was to -- compromise on our long-term fiscal challenges, compromise that never came. this has been compounded in recent years because the defense department has suffered a bully, the worst -- doubley, the worst of both worlds. we need your help with both. i know the ranking member smith and others are dedicated to move forward like i am and i appreciate the dedication. we at the pentagon can and must do better at -- there are significant savings to be found across the dod and we are

committed to pursuing them. at the same time, i have to note that in the past several years painful but necessary reform -- eliminating overhead and unneeded infrastructure have been denied by congress at the same time that sequestration has moved. if confronted with continued obstacles, i do not believe we can simply keep making incremental cuts. we would have to change the shape and not just the size of our military significantly impacting parts of our defense strategy. we cannot meet sequester with further half measures. as secretary of defense, i will not send troops into a fight with outdated equipment, inadequate readiness, or ineffective doctrine. everything else is on the table

including parts of our budget that have long been considered inviolate. this may lead to the decisions that no americans including members of congress want us to make. i'm not afraid to ask difficult questions. but if we're stuck with sequestration budget cuts, our entire nation will have to live with the answers. instead of sequestration, higher due to embrace the alternative. -- i urge her to embrace the alternative, building the force of the future. equipped with new technologies, leading insider and space, being lean and efficient throughout the enterprise. showing resolve. attracting and

recruiting the best americans to our mission. that is the alternative that we can have without sequestration. mr. chairman, the world in 2015 is more cockaded than anybody could have predicted. the president has proposed an increase in defense spending over last year's budget. it is responsible, prudent, and essential for providing our troops with what they need and fully deserve. thank you, and i look forward to your questions. >> i'm not ready to let you go. dowd anti-, thank you for being here and please make any comments you would like to. general dempsey: appreciate the

opportunity to provide you an update on the armed forces and to discuss the defense budget for 2016 and i will add, it has been a rare privilege to have represented the men and women who serve around the world. article one, section eight. if this is my last hearing, i have thank -- i thank you. if not, until we meet again. i will defer mention in my opening statement of the many security challenges we face because i'm quite confident they will be addressed in questions. i will say the global security environment is uncertain. we are at a point where our national aspirations are going

to exceed our natural resources. we have heard congress letting clear. to determine the minimal requirements we need. this is the answer. in my judgment this -- 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 the budget authority decline. i reporting to you today, there is no slack, no margin left for error. funding lower than pb 16 and elect the flex ability to make intern -- and the lack of ability to make internal reform -- does not mean that it disappears

in its entirety but we have to make adjustments to the way we do business. you may decide that is a good thing. i will certainly be willing to have that conversation with you. for the past 25 years, the u.s. military has secured the global -- the globe, we assured our allies, responded to crises and conflicts. by maintaining our presence abroad principally. it has been our strategy to shape the international environment by our forward presence and building relationships with regional partners. one third of our forces for deployed -- are forward deployed. there have been certain capabilities that have operated half the time deployed and half the time back at home. it puts a significant strain on the men and women who serve in those particular specialties.

sequestration will fundamentally and significantly change the way we shape the security environment. we will be, at the end of the day, 20% smaller and our forward presence would be reduced by more than a third. we will have less influence and to be less responsive. conflict will take longer to resolve and will create more casualties and cost more. and age where we are less certain about what will happen next, but are certain it will happen more quickly, you will be further away and let's ready then we need to be. sibley stated, sequestration will result in a dramatic change in how we protect our nation and promote our national security interests. members of this committee our men and women are performing with extraordinary courage character, and professionalism. we all them and their families

clarity and predictability on everything from policy to compensation, health care, equipment training, and readiness. settling down in certainty in our decision-making and getting us out of the cycle we have been in, one euro time, -- one year at a time. we will be able to maintain the military the american people deserve and frankly expect. i'm grateful for the continued support for the men and women in in uniform and a look forward to your questions. chairman: we have mr. michael mccourt available to answer questions. mr. mccourt, i will warn you that audit came up several times yesterday with the service chiefs and is somebody else does not ask about it, i'm

going to at the end, because there is concern that some of the defense agencies are going to be the holdup, rather than the services. we will get in that as appropriate. mr. secretary, i'm 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 in the department. thinking back to what you wrote 15 years ago as the chairman just said, our security environment is incredibly more compensated than we could have imagined in the year 2000 when you wrote those words. it seems to me, even more than efficiency, some sort of reform, especially reform and how we acquire services, is needed to make the department more agile. there is no way we are going to pick what is happening. if it takes a 20 years to feel

the new system -- build the new system, there is no way we will be able to meet the threat. the need for agility is a higher priority in my mind and the-- than the need for efficiency. secretary carter: think that is very wise. we cannot keep pace with technology and cannot turn technological corners faster than a typical program duration now in the department of defense , which lasts years and years we will not be the most modern military area and it is not just a matter of saving money. it is a matter of being the best. the word agility is a perfect one. back when that was written, it was even apparent then, 15 years ago, that the era where the

technology of consequence was developed within the department of defense and within the united states, it was apparent then that that era was coming to an end. now a lot of technology to vital -- a vital importance to defense is out there in the world. we need to be the fastest and the first to have that in order to keep up with and ahead of our opponents. i could not agree with you more. chairman: let me ask but one area of reform. number of people are worried about the reductions of strength, especially for the army and marine corps. if one looks at the pentagon, you have not seen commiserate reductions in the number of folks who work there. there's interest, including from a number of people coming out of the obama administration, to streamline the bureaucracy in the department and then out some of those layers which add

time that affect this agility we were talking about. is that something that is on your radar screen that go is there a chance we can work together to give you some authorities to move folks around but have the effect of sending that out and lowering the bureaucratic hazards. secretary carter: i would welcome and appreciate your help. a lot of that is on us. in many cases, you would benefit from legislative help -- we would benefit from legislative help. if all we're doing in a period straightened budget is -- it is unjustifiable. we have got to get to the

headquarters, these offices set up once upon a time, seemed like a good idea at the time, but have lost their purpose or their way or their vitality. we need to be aggressive with ourselves and rigorous. i would very much appreciate your help in working with you. thornberry: to look for to working with you. let ask you one question, when you are at of the -- at the retreat, he said the budget was of the lower edge of what it takes to defend the country. the president has requested $612 billion when you put together. it is still your opinion that this is the bare minimum? how would you describe how that

figure, $612 billion, needs the national -- needs the national security neither of the country for the coming fiscal year? 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 we 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? 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: is there 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 -- our excellent industry, so we depend upon our industry, and the incentives that we give them to provide what we need are a included in contracts and other relationships is another place that is critical to think about in the area of acquisition. then there is compensation, 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 base 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 ones 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 it 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 -- pounsinf -- pounding money down an 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 down 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 being 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 for nine more years continue to spend billions and billions of dollars in a country that we have very little accountability 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 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 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 overseen when they 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.

on the 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?" that's a whole different atmosphere. and so in partnership with him over the next couple of years, our objective is to stand security forces up on their feet so we can have a very strong -- small 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 probability of being successful, and the president is a strong ingredient within that. 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 free to add anything at the end. rep. bordallo: thank you mr. secretary, and we appreciate your questions. as i mentioned yesterday, 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? 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-term

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. it is wasteful. 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 funds 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 strategy, 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 and 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 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 abe will be visiting the united states shortly. this is an opportunity for japan

japan to become a -- to help us to maintain the peace in the asia-pacific region, but the guidelines are global in scope. 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 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. do you agree with that? sec. carter: i do. rep. forbe: 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 didn't do 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'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 -- for defense is two things -- 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: then 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: 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, 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 saying, 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 to tell us 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 view you have, 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 forward in defending our country and remaining agile. 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

the bill against isil, so i thank you both for your presence here today, and i asked general austin about the united states having to 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 does iran's engagement, iraq's engagement to confront isil complicate our efforts to ensure a pluralistic

order? as we know, it was the maliki government's unwillingness that allowed the opening for isil so how do you see this complicating our efforts going forward, and general dempsey, how does this complicate our military efforts? 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 obviously 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 success 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

does 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 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 i believe 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.

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: yes, 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 commend you, in regard to your visit to afghanistan you confessed a concern about a drawdown and said it should be a

conditions-based. 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 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 ghani and ceo abdullah, and what that -- and their willingness and ability to do that, and what that could mean for the political development and the

coherence of afghanistan. 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 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 your many, many years of serving our great nation. mr. mccourt, i would like to chat with you a little bit about the proposed budget that is upcoming. the house budget committee chairman has proposed boosting the fy 16 defense budget with an oco allocation. is this as useful as a base budget, or is there something that congress needs to be mindful of?

comptroller mccord: both are useful for what they are intended. we do not need the additional dollars, but they are both useful to us. it needs to be in the base budget. rep. duckworth: so if you had your druthers, you would have that funding? comptroller mccord: absolutely that is where we asked for it. that is where we have identified the needs. this gets back to the earlier discussion of sequester. if it is in the base budget, it is the basis 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 spend it efficiently, 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

sequestered. rep. duckworth: general dempsey, do want to speak to that in terms of readiness? general dempsey: we have been trying to dig out of a readiness hole, 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, which you know better than most. 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 -- in manpower. you cannot shed it quickly enough, you cannot shed excess equipment quickly enough, you can't terminate external contracts because of the penalties involved. you take it out of readiness. 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 spent in wasteful and inefficient ways. specifically, 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 manpower reporting application in dod. under your own documentation, i believe the goal was to have 95 compliance 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 -- on the ecmra when you are going to use the accepted army

methodologies, and when you will insist on compliance from the agencies to ensure that inventory is used to inform and review decision making i what -- decision-making when 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. but the general point you are raising is our tradecraft and , excellence and the acquisition of services, and i will just say something for everyone's benefit, that you know, which is 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 in 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 all very pleased and very happy that you're in your position, you do have very difficult times and issues, as the chairman was indicating, and the worldview that we see in front of us. we need some plane answers and talk on the issue of this budget. chairman density, as you were walking in, we had a brief conversation about this. let me tell me where you are and tell you why we immediate your -- need 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, by oco, 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 with oco 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. the national defense authorization act is not marked up until december. your fiscal year begins in the fall. tell us why a base of 523 with

an oco of 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. rep. turner: one more thing, to

jump in, because you said that point before. the president has said he will veto. if we pass a budget that has 523 and send you an authorization act that is a base of 523 with oco of 90 plus billion, is that within that veto threat? sec. carter: i think what the president meant 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: yes, 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. him him sec. carter: congress makes its own decisions with my advice. 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. but 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'rourke. rep. o'rourke: thank you, mr. 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. i think you'd 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 multi-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, the -- 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 -- defeating 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 strategic objective. him him rep. o'rourke: if i can

interrupt there -- 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: well, 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 whims of the

different sectarian factions in iraq. we should not depend on iranian-backed shia militias in that 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 defeat. that's our strategy. chairman. gen. dempsey: in the interest of time, i'll take this for the

record, because i do think that strategic advantage we have is the coalition. i think that will eventually be the path to enduring defeat. but i'll take it for the record. rep. o'rourke: thank you both. rep. rogers: thank you for being here. i want to start with a parochial issue. the program that you're famous is replacing the combat vehicle which is maintaining at the army depot in my district. 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 -- illegally 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 inf 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 i have had those conversations with my counterpart. rep. rogers: this was for secretary carter. i was pleased after you were approved by the senate in your new position to see you publicly announce 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 inf treaty? sec. carter: our response is twofold. one is to a diplomatic one which is to try to get the russians to come back in compliance with the inf treaty not my responsibility but an important part of it. on the military side, we have begun to consider what our

options are. the inf treaty, it's a two away street. we accepted constraints in return for the constraints of the then soviet union. it is a two-way street. we have to remind them that it's a two-way street, meaning that we without an inf 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 inf treaty, counterforce options and countervailing options, all of those are available to us. we're looking at all of those. the russians need to remember, this is a two-way street. rep. rogers: i appreciate that. there is a site we are currently constructing in romania with the capacity to defend itself

against the intermediate range missiles that they are illegally testing. sec. carter: defenses are in a category of response that we can consider. rep. rogers: thank you very much. that's all i have, mr. chairman. rep. takei: 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 called for the rebalance of the shift to the pacific. 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 -- want to second 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. and in our budget and our multi-year budget plan we are able to sustain it. but 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. rep. takei: thank you, mr. secretary. the other purpose of this hearing is to talk about the president's request, the aumf request.

so 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, called limitations, it says 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? does it refer 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 of the aumf and that it's supported widely in the congress. to get to the provisions of it the aumf 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.

and that is -- 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. because we don't forsee having to conduct another campaign like iraq 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 are the two things that we need most. chairman, you want to add anything to that? gen. dempsey: there is no doctrinal 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. wittman. rep. wittman: 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 but i want to follow up, secretary carter, 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. and 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 in 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 iphones. we can't take for granted anymore that we're at the cutting edge. we have to fight our way to the cutting edge again. 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. rep. wittman: general dempsey, 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? perspective, too, on how do we gen. dempsey: i align 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 comb