job to figure out what we need to defend the country. and then they send the bill to congress and expect us to salute and write the check. but that's not what article 1, section 8 says. it says it's congress's duty to raise and support, provide and maintain, make rules for the government in regulation of the military forces of the united states. and the men and women on our committee, on both sides of the aisle, take that responsibility very seriously. as a matter of fact, as many of you all know, most of the issues we grapple with, we do so on a bipartisan basis. now, that doesn't mean that everybody agrees with every judgment call, but by and large, people try to find the right answer for the country. now, some of the calls we have made in the last few years that disagreed with the administration proposals, things such as retaining an aircraft

carrier, not retiring the a10, keeping both the u2 and the global hawk when we have a severe isr shortage. those things in hindsight looked pretty good. today, we have to make those judgment calls in a very constrained budget environment and in the most complex, difficult national security environment the country has ever faced. just think for a moment about the headlines of the last couple weeks or so. escalating tensions in the middle east between saudi and arabia lead to a greater chance, at least, of sectarian war. north korea tests another nuclear device while continuing to advance its missile programs.

reports indicate russia took down the power grid in part of the ukraine over the holidays. a british film crew comes back from raqqa with evidence that isis is vigorously pursuing chemical weapons, heat seeking missiles and remotely piloted-- remotely controlled vehicles. more evidence comes out about isis operatives who are already in the united states, and in europe. china lands aircrafts on these islands it has constructed out of the south china sea. not to mention iran shooting missiles in violation-- or shooting missiles at u.s. navy vessels and then, of course, yesterday taking 10 american sailors and their boats. if you look back just a few more weeks, we read about leaks about a russian nuclear torpedo that could devastate, of course, coastal areas. and about iranian hackers infiltrating the control system of a small dam less than 20 miles from new york city at the same time they were attacking the websites of u.s. banks. and, of course, the fbi helping stop four attempts in the last

five years by russian gangs to sell radioactive material to mideast extremists. who knows what the next two weeks or two months in 2016 are going to hold? the world is more dangerous today than it was in 2009. and despite the president's claim last night, that is not just hot air. that's the facts. that's reality. but it's also the reality that it's unlikely the obama administration is really going to do anything over the next year that's going to change that fact. and, probably not do anything that will abruptly change that trajectory. no president is irrelevant, but in many respects i think the country and the world are moving on. so all that means the next commander in chief, whoever he

or she may be, is going to inherit a whale of a mess on their first day. you know, we all follow the news cycle as it goes from crisis to crisis. but as charles hill writes in his book, grand strategies, those of us living through great historical events can rarely even glimpse the significance of what is going around them. see, i believe that those who look back on the events of our time will find that we are living through historic times, the magnitude and the consequences of which we cannot fully appreciate. but the question is, is it historic in a good way or historic in a bad way? what we know for sure is that the stakes are enormously high. no one can take the place of the united states of america as the primary force for good in the world.

and yet, history teaches us that no power stays on top forever. sometimes, there's a decline and sometimes it's a sudden decline. >> representative thornberry, do you want to know why we're in the most dangerous time? it's because your policies are keeping us in a state of perpetual war. when are you going to speak out about the cozy relationship between the united states and repressive regimes like saudi arabia, egypt and israel? are you going to call for an arms embargo against saudi arabia who buys billions of dollars of weapons from us? saudi arabia is turning a blind eye while weapons, recruits and money goes to isis. i hope you're going to speak out against saudi arabia tonight, sir, because it's time to reevaluate that relationship. it's also time to evaluate the relationship between the united states and egypt, another repressive regime. saudi arabia and egypt are both repressing their own people and they're using american weapons. we are sending weapons to every side of every conflict in the world right now so we can only blame ourselves for this being such a dangerous time. your policies are perpetuating

endless war, sir. take a stand against endless war. chairman thornberry: somehow, don't you just think at the national press club that fits in in some ways? i kind of think so. i mean, i tell you, any of us in any of our businesses have to appreciate the first amendment. >> it's time to take a stand against saudi arabia, sir, and the silent relationship. chairman thornberry: and then again, it's always nice to turn off the television and change the channel from time to time. my point is no country has stayed on top forever. max boot looked at the last 500 years of warfare, and he found that many super powers failed to take advantage of revolutions and military affairs and it had a drastic effect. he writes, "the end can come with shocking suddenness, even after a long streak of good fortune. countries able to take advantage of these changes have been history's winners, while those

who have fallen behind have usually been consigned to irrelevance or oblivion." well, no country is better positioned to continue to be one of history's winners than the united states. but we also can't assume that it's always going to be so. we have to take deliberate decisions to insure that we'll still be able to be this unique force for good in the world. and for congress, that means that we have to provide the funding and the capability and the authorities needed to be able to defend the country. and to oversee the activities of the executive branch. i think there are two primary characteristics that describe the military capability that we need. and they are strength and agility. we know from sports that you can't do with one and not the other. you have to have both. strength is crucial.

churchill's insight into russia 70 years ago has a wider application today, i think. he said, "from what i've seen of our russian friends and allies during the war, i'm convinced there's nothing they admire so much as strength, and nothing for which they have less respect than for weakness, especially military weakness. we cannot afford, if we can help it," he said, "to work on narrow margins offering temptations to a trial of strength." now, there's a lot of people that think that's exactly what's going on in the world today, that we are offering temptations for a trial of strength. and that's part of the reason the world is so chaotic. military strength requires both quantity and quality of capability. the obama administration, for example, argues that a ship today is more capable than a ship 20 years ago.

well, generally that's true. but a ship can still only be at one place at one time, and we need enough of them to protect our interests and fulfill their missions all around the world. we do not have enough of them today. nor do we have enough airplanes, nor do we have enough soldiers, et cetera. building a strong military requires money. last fall's budget agreement does not provide enough money for defense. but, i agreed with those who believed that it was better to accept less than is required in order to be assured that it would be there. after the budget brinksmanship of the obama years, budget stability, even if it's just two years, counts for a lot. so i'm disturbed at rumors that the administration may not keep to the agreement in the budget submission that it will send to congress in a few weeks. that agreement was that for fiscal year '17, $573 billion would be available to meet base

defense requirements. and that the oco account, the overseas contingency account, would receive no less than $59 billion with the exact amount to be decided depending on world events. well, that agreement was reached two weeks before the paris terrorist attacks, and the pace of our military operations is much greater than it was then. but rather than ask for more money to cover the costs of the accelerated level of operations, it is-- the administration may be considering, it seems, lowering the base amount and not asking for the increase oco. they do that, that cuts people, that cuts weapons, that cuts research, that cuts military capability. guaranteeing a minimum level of defense spending was the key to getting last year's defense budget.

the terms were clear to everybody and everybody ought to stick to them. at the same time, our committee will not relent in our continuing oversight of how our money is spent. waste and inefficiency drain military strength and erode political support for it. so in addition to vigorous oversight, we put a high priority on reform, which i'll return to in just a moment. of course, what we spend the money on, what we buy, is crucial. that gets me to capabilities. we, of course, have to make sure the men and women engaged in today's fight have what they need. but we also have to take steps to make sure that we have what we need for the fights coming on ahead of us. i'm paying particular attention to the third offset efforts to cyber, to modernizing our nuclear deterrent, and to special operations. the president said last night

that no nation dares attack us or our allies because they know that's the path to ruin. well, that's been true, and it's been true for a long time. unfortunately, that's changing. our committee has spent more time over the last year on the issue of our eroding technological superiority than it has spent on any other issue. as you know, deputy secretary work and vice chairman silva are advancing a focused push known as the third offset, to make sure that in the future no state is willing to take on america. i applaud their efforts, but no one should be under the illusion that a handful of technological breakthroughs, even if they come, are going to guarantee our dominant position for many years ahead.