i take a view of national defense and national security that is that takes in to account the fact that to protect ourselves, and as part of security, we need the department of homeland security -- >> i'm not saying that. but i'm saying you don't necessarily need the internal revenue service -- >> we need our law enforcement agencies. i think each of those budgets can be looked at in their own terms. >> mr. secretary you are the expert on defense and what we need is that testimony today. and what bothers me is when you'll come in here and say that you'd rather have a crisis in national defense, which is what the president's saying, by the way, than to cut or have a cap on any nondefense spending that could be in anywhere else in the government. and i just find that a travesty. let me just say this -- >> i think what the president's saying, congressman, and which i agree with, is that we need relief from sequester across the board. it's no way to run -- >> but you're the expert on defense. and we may argue on irs or epa but what we need is when you come in here as secretary of defense to

the national defense panel explained why. because of the highly constrained and unstable budget environment under which the department has been working the quadrennial defense review is not adequate as a comprehensive, long-term planning document. thus, the panel recommends that congress should ask the department for such a plan which should be developed without undue emphasis on current budgetary constraints. i endorse this recommendation. in the meantime, though, even if we can't specify a precise dollar amount we can identify the critical needs on which to spend the additional money. first, you're military does face a readiness crisis, from budget cuts and a decade of war. we must act immediately to get our forces back in fighting shape. from live fire ranges to flight time and so forth. second, and related our military is shrinking rapidly to historically small levels. this decline must be reversed. end strengths of the army and marine corps the number of platforms in the air force and the navy. third, we must also increas

s national defense. and i don't think it's asked often enough how does all this activity over there help our national defense? how does it make us more safe? i think it's at least a debate we've got to have. are we safer because of what we're doing over there? >> steve. >> that's going to be another segment at another time but the fact of the matter is those forces in the middle east are ultimately after the united states, europe and israel if you don't get them now they're going to come after us later. we should have learned that from the '30s. we should have learned it from the 1970s when we're weak we get in if trouble. >> bill. >> you can't be too fussy. are we going to refuse to buy saudi oil because some saudis were part of 9/11? >> hold on a second. emac i think the fact is that you can't be fussy if you have strong leadership at home. when fdr was in power nobody doubted his resolve to fight the nazis once he got into world war 2. we now have a president who doesn't have the same kind of resolve.

defense budget in line with the congress last year and we halted the resources to execute our nation's defense shouted you -- defense strategy, and as the secretary hash as the chair -- as the chair noted, we needed more. sequestration is set to return in 197 days, and our nation will be less secure. mr. chairman as you and your colleagues have said sequestration threatens the size of our fighting forces and the capability of our air and naval fleets and ultimately the lives of our men and women in uniform. the joint chiefs have said the same. the great tragedy is that this corrosive damage to our national security is not a result of objective factors and logic reason instead, sequester is purely the fallout of political gridlock. its purpose was to compel prudent compromise on our long-term fiscal challenges, a compromise that never came. this has been counted down in recent years because the defense department has suffered double the worst of both worlds, that is coupled mindlessly with sequestration on the constraints with our ability to conform. we need your help with both. i know that ger

the national defense panel explained why. because of the highly constrained and unstable budget environment under which the department has been working, the quadrennial defense review is not adequate as a comprehensive, long-term planning document. thus, the panel recommends that congress should ask the department for such a plan which should be developed without undue emphasis on current budgetary constraints. i endorse this recommendation. in the meantime, though, even if we can't specify a precise dollar amount, we can identify the critical needs on which to spend the additional money. first, our military does face a readiness crisis, from budget cuts and a decade of war. we must act immediately to get our forces back in fighting shape. from live fire ranges to flight time and so forth. second, and related, our military is shrinking rapidly to historically small levels. this decline must be reversed. end strengths of the army and marine corps, the number of platforms in the air force and the navy. third, we must also increa

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

i take a view of national defense and national security that is that takes in to account the fact that to protect ourselves, and as part of security, we need the department of homeland security -- >> i'm not saying that. but i'm saying you don't necessarily need the internal revenue service -- >> we need our law enforcement agencies. i think each of those budgets can be looked at in their own terms. >> mr. secretary you are the expert on defense and what we need is that testimony today. and what bothers me is when you'll come in here and say that you'd rather have a crisis in national defense, which is what the president's saying by the way, than to cut or have a cap on any nondefense spending that could be in anywhere else in the government. and i just find that a travesty. let me just say this -- >> i think what the president's saying, congressman, and which i agree with is that we need relief from sequester across the board. it's no way to run -- >> but you're the expert on defense. and we may argue on irs or epa but what we need is when you come in here as secretary of defense to t

the services, the men and women in uniform are the backbone of our nation's defense and they are under great strain. i'm certainly interested in the witnesses' testimony in how the department of defense will continue to manage this problem while a solution is not yet on the horizon. if you do not get the $38 billion of the b.c.a., and that's the president's request and senator mccain and i again are urging even more, what must be cut? and if sequestration is not avoibdable what else must be cut? and what is your timetable of beginning to implement these cuts. the services are focused on near-term readiness and they need to be, because they are actively engaged around the world fighting significant challenges to u.s. national security interests. in afghanistan, the commanding general of the u.s. forces, general campbell, believe he is has resources and authority he is needs for the 2015 fighting season but the taliban remain resilient despite coming under pressure on both sides of the pakistan-afghanistan border. operations against isis in afghanistan and syria continue at a pace that a

defense. approaching historic lows and it makes you pass it by 2019. to provide context, when reagan took office, we spent 5% of our national income on defense. and president reagan and congressional democrats considered that to be a lange daing rousely low amount. that is the point from which they started. if we spent 5% of our national income on defense today we would spend $885 billion on defense. further more trying to balance the budget through defense cuts is both counterproductive and impossible. first, the threats we face eventually are catch up with us and they did on 9/11, as they did in the late '70s. we'll have no choice but to increase our defense budget. we'll cost more o achieve the same instate of readness and modernization than it would have without the intermediate cuts. this is the lesson we learned in the 1980s and in the last decade. second we need a healthy growing economy to generate the government revenue necessary to fund our military and balance the budget and our globalized world, our prosperity depends heavily on the world economy, which requires global stability and order and who provides that? the united states mi

defense. approaching historic lows and it makes you pass it by 2019. to provide context, when reagan took office, we spent 5% of our national income on defense. and president reagan and congressional democrats considered that to be a lange dangerously low amount. that is the point from which they started. if we spent 5% of our national income on defense today, we would spend $885 billion on defense. furthermore, trying to balance the budget through defense cuts is both counterproductive and impossible. first, the threats we face eventually are catch up with us and they did on 9/11, as they did in the late '70s. we'll have no choice but to increase our defense budget. we'll cost more to achieve the same instate of readiness and modernization than it would have without the intermediate cuts. this is the lesson we learned in the 1980s and in the last decade. second, we need a healthy growing economy to generate the government revenue necessary to fund our military and balance the budget and our globalized world, our prosperity depends heavily on the world economy, which requires global stability and order and who provides that? the united states

yet i also want to highlight their support for the recommendation of the national defense panel which estimated that base defense spending for fiscal year 2016 should be $611 billion at a minimum. the national defense panel was a bipartisan group of imminent national security experts convened by congress to analyze the quadrennial defense review. they unanimously concluded that then-secretary of defense bob gates' fiscal year 2012 budget was the proper starting point to analyze our current defense needs for at least two reasons. first, secretary gates had already initiated significant defense cuts and reforms totaling $478 billion. it's hard to say given those efforts, that his 2012 budget had left much fat in the department of defense. secretary, secretary gates and the department submitted this budget in late 2010 and early 2011 or just months before the budget control act with its draconian defense cuts became law. that budget, therefore was the last time the department was able to submit a threat and strategy-based budget instead of the budget-based strategies we've seen over the

and we need to stand for a strong national defense and the defense of the homeland and we need to giveeople a sense that if we start growing our economy again the middle would start having rising income again. and what you would do to do that is offer compelling alternatives to the failed tax policies, the failed regulation policies, a broken education system and making sure that people know we're on their side to rise up. it's good to oppose the bad things but we have to start being for things. and here's the deal. there are a lot of -- obviously there are a lot of committed conservatives in this room. that's why is it a spectacular gathering. there are a there are a lot of other conservatives that haven't been asked. if we share if we share our enthusiasm and love of our country and belief in our philosophy we will get latinos and young people and other people you need to win to get 50. >> governor. let me -- every art -- article i have read deals with you and conservative issues. >> i heard about it. >> it has to do with immigration and common core. let's directly deal with this. yo

voting on a huge leap in this budget and i think the american people want to know where the national defense leader is coming from, as well. do you believe the nation's debt is a greater issue than climate change? as our commander in chief has stated? >> i think they are both serious problems and there are other serious problems that are not knows two and that we have to deal with all of those strategic challenges at the same time. you're naming two of the problems. >> i'm naming what the commander in chief said as he puts forth a budget that you guys have been defending here for three hours now. i'm just saying he says the greatest threat to our nation is climate change. and we're trying to make an argument that says, you know the greatest threat to this nation and trying to rally people and understanding is that we have an issue of debt that an admiral went on the record to say was a serious consequence and a threat to the survivability of this country. did you agree? >> i think that to the extent that the deficit drives a budget behavior like the year to year struggle with sequester that

defense. approaching historic lows and it makes you pass it by 2019. to provide context, when reagan took office, we spent 5% of our national income on defense. and president reagan and congressional democrats considered that to be a lange dangerously low amount. that is the point from which they started. if we spent 5% of our national income on defense today, we would spend $885 billion on defense. furthermore, trying to balance the budget through defense cuts is both counterproductive and impossible. first, the threats we face eventually are catch up with us and they did on 9/11, as they did in the late '70s. we'll have no choice but to increase our defense budget. we'll cost more to achieve the same instate of readiness and modernization than it would have without the intermediate cuts. this is the lesson we learned in the 1980s and in the last decade. second, we need a healthy growing economy to generate the government revenue necessary to fund our military and balance the budget and our globalized world, our prosperity depends heavily on the world economy, which requires global stability and order and who provides that? the united states

one is now teaching at national defense university.m wondering if you have insights. >> it does not work for me. i wish it did. but i heard about the chilean. i don't know what the colombian and the professors. i am heavily involved in human rights. i meet with human rights groups in washington every three to four months, a large group at the kerry center. sometimes they asked me about specific cases. someone else high up and honduras and give me situational awareness. it is it is a good dialogue. when i travel to various countries, just about every time i go down there to any country i we will have a discussion for a couple of hours with local human rights groups. i never know what i we will get, but they all have specialties. two people that were very involved coming off guard. it's a big deal the human rights in general. good questions about it. the 1st time i have ever sat down and had a long conversation with people that were experts in that field. field. women's rights, another couple of representatives. colombians. i did not kno

new techniques, new procedures, new capabilities that are able for us to provide the proper defense for this nation, using a variety of capabilities to include current missile defense assets and other capables. cyber and other things that have to be integrated into this that enables us to deal with these problems. we're on a path we can't sustain. and the threat, missile defense threat is going, so we have to woman up with a more cost effective means dealing with the issue. that's the basis for the letter. >> general can we twice put that in the ndaa and go through the funding process for a year or would you prefer we try to get a study on that as soon as possible? >> i think we need to do it as soon as possible, ma'am. >> okay. my second question, is in regards to where each service is in fully integrating women into the military. this has been a big deal from my standpoint for a long time. there's about 15% over the military compliesed of women over 200,000 women have dedicated their lives to serve our country and have died while serving on the front lines. so it's woman's history month and equal

the services are the backbone of our nation's defense and they are under great strain. i'm interested in the witnesses testimony on how the department of defense will continue to manage this problem while a solution is not yet on the horizon. if we do not get a $38 billion the president's request -- senator mccain urge even more. what must be cut? if it cannot be avoided, what else can be cut and what is your timetable? as i stated earlier, the services are focused on near-term readiness and they need to be because they are actively engaged around the world fighting significant challenges to u.s. security interest. in afghanistan, general campbell believes he has the resources and authorities he needs for the 2015 fighting season, but the taliban remains resilient. operations against isis in iraq and syria continues at a pace that seems to be rolling back the territory and the time and space needed. this critical campaign must be unabated if it is going to be successful against a very dangerous enemy. the fight will be harder each and every day, especially as iraqi forc

ideas that national defense should be based on security obligations and are on our national defense strategyomestic spending, a lot of it should be done state and local levels, which is what the house budget is trying to do. steve all those functions back to their appropriate levels. in fact, defense spending has been falling. it is now below its average historical level and domestic spending both on entitlement and other domestic programs, has been going up. that type is purely political. there was no reason that to need to go up or down together. host: our focus is on the republican budget plan and reaction from the white house. we are here with the heritage foundation and tom herod -- tom hungerford. karen is joining us. good morning. caller: good morning. nobody is discussing entitlements. we can talk about potholes, we can talk about medicare, but nobody is talking about entitlements. nobody -- there are no politicians who have the courage to address the entitlement budget. there are people on social security who are disabled from age 38 for a bad back and there are people on social sec

it strengthens the national defense. improves economic growth and opportunity for hard-working families. it slows the rate of spending growth. to preserve social security by reducing spending and other areas to fully offset social security's rising deficit and encourage our nations leaders to begin a bipartisan bicameral discussion on how to protect social security and avoid the across-the-board social security benefits that occur under current law. it protects our seniors by safeguarding medicare forum insolvency and extending the life of the medicare trust fund by five years. it ensures medicaid savings medicare savings under the president health care law dedicated to medicare instead of seeing those changes go to other programs and more overspending. it continues funding for children's health insurance programs chip and creates a new program based on chip to serve low income working aged able-bodied adults and children who are eligible for medicaid. it increases state flexibility in designing benefits in administering

are we going to elevate that above a condition base national defense? we should not elevate and august 2011 vote over the conditions of security that faces the country. i took that as the point of the letter, and i recommend it to all my colleagues. the back-and-forth has made me think about my position. it's a question about the issue of ground troops. in listening to the chairman about this, what i've realized is that my concern is not really about language, and it's not really about the constitutional allocation of power. it's really about the definition of the mission. we have heard in the last two weeks, three weeks, in meetings with the foreign relations committee by king abdulla of jordan and from qatar last week about the balance against isil in the region. both of them said to us essentially u.s. ground troops isn't a good idea because this has got to be our fight against our terror threat. we want your help. we want you to be deeply involved, but if it gets pitched against -- as the u.s. or even the west against isil, then it takes on a fundam

admiral mullen a few years ago said he believes the number one national defense issue in our nation is the debt in our country. do you believe that the debt this nation is carrying nearly $18 billion as we are sitting here having budget conversation is more of a threat to this nation's nation security than climate change? >> there are a number of serious dangers to the future of our country of which -- >> i don't know you well. i'm trying to be getting your perspective as we are voting on a huge leap in the budget and i think the people want to know where the national defense leader is coming from as well. do you believe the nation's debt is a greater issue than climate change? as our commander and chief has stated? >> i think they are both serious problems and there are other serious problems that are not those too and we have to deal with those strategic challenges. you are naming two of the problems. >> i'm naming what the commander and chief says as he puts forth a budget that you have been defending for three hours now. he said the greatest threat to our nation is climate change a

admiral mullen a few years ago said he believes the number one national defense issue in our nation is the debt in our country. do you believe that the debt this nation is carrying, nearly $18 billion as we are sitting here having budget conversation, is more of a threat to this nation's nation security than climate change? >> there are a number of serious dangers to the future of our country of which -- >> i don't know you well. i'm trying to be getting your perspective as we are voting on a huge leap in the budget and i think the people want to know where the national defense leader is coming from as well. do you believe the nation's debt is a greater issue than climate change? as our commander and chief has stated? >> i think they are both serious problems and there are other serious problems that are not those too and we have to deal with those strategic challenges. you are naming two of the problems. >> i'm naming what the commander and chief says as he puts forth a budget that you have been defending for three hours now. he said the greatest threat to our nation is climate change

reporter: my question is about one of the units, the national defense university. my organization published yesterday findings that the center -- two professors that ombia,een -- in colu and what is now teaching at the national defense university. i am wondering if you have any thoughts on that and if you have any thoughts about the vetting process. i wish it didn't work for me, but i did not hear about the chilean. i do not know about the colombian, and i do not know how the professors. i am very heavily involved in human rights. i meet with the human rights groups here in washington about every three or four months, and spend a couple or three hours talking to them. they share their concerns. sometimes they will ask me about specific cases. i can pick up a defense minister in guatemala or simply high up in honduras and can you give me some situational awareness on that. dialogue.od when i travel to the bears countries, just about every time i go down there, to any country, i will have a discussion for a couple hours with local human rights groups. i was just in c

the difference between those two bills is going to be how much we're willing to spend for the national defense of this country, to defend the grittest nation the world has ever known. and in addition, one of the things that will be clear is not that we will be spending what we need to defend the country, but will be spending the amount we have to spend to keep from putting our national defense in a crisis situation and a devastating situation to the men and women who serve this country around the globe. just two points i would like to leave members with as they cast their votes and the first one is this, the difference in the amount of money we will be spending in national defense if the budget were a dollar, would be equal to half of this penny if i could cut it in two. half of this penny. yet as small as it may seem, it makes the difference between a crisis in national defense and devastating situation to our men and women in uniform. last thing i would like to everyone with when they cast their votes is this, it will not be about the men and women who make speeches in here but about men and

defense folks more money. something to keep our nation safe. the president says i believe in our budget, we will put $566 million in our budget for defense. what the president knows is that number is fiction. you talk about a gimmick, the president does not lay out a path at all to deal with the sequester camp. to deal with the law of the land that says that number will be 505 hundred $23 billion unless the law is changed. which is why we positively, honestly sincerely bring about appropriate increases for our men and women who are in harms way. if this house actually stuck with the president's number, and the president laid out to change the law, that number would snap right back down to $523 billion dollars. that is why we believe it is an appropriate to lay out the path. we do that in our budget. you talk about gimmicks mr. chairman. the president's budget is full of gimmicks. as i mentioned before, it isn't increasing the debt beyond what the eye can see. we have a positive budget. i am pleased to yield to my colleague, mr. woodall. the chai

admiral mullen a few years ago said he believes the number one national defense issue in our nation is the debt in our country. do you believe the debt this nation is carrying, nearly $18 billion, is more of a threat to this nation's national security than climate change? sec. carter: there are a number of serious dangers to the future of our country. representative: we are going to be voting on a huge leap on this budget. you believe that the debt is a greater issue than climate change, as our commander in chief has stated? secretary carter: i think they are both serious problems and there are others that are not those, and we have to do with this challenges is at the same time. you are naming two of the problems. representative: i am saying he says the greatest threat to our nation is climate change, and we are trying to make an argument that says the greatest threat to this nation in trying to rallying people is we have an issue of debt that an admiral went on the record to say. do you agree? secretary carter: i think to the extent that the deficit drives budget behavior, like the y

so what about the fact that i hear from some defense hawks that they should -- that national security is good and defense spending is part and parcel of that. you don't want to give that up. as you go in, congress sets up the issues for 2010. >> i think they will make a mistake if they have that argument hinge on money. these are decisions about strategy and i don't think anyone really -- really most people do not disagree with fighting isis. this is not something that requires us to wreck our finances and our economy for the long term. >> well brad, look i think that republicans are going to be in a bad place next year in hillary clinton or whoever the democratic candidate says i'm the hawk on national defense, these guys have smaller numbers. >> all right. guys, we've got to go. thank you very much. the biggest problem would be letting the budget fail so they can overcome harry reid in the senate. >>> democrats are threatening academics and organizations that dare question their climate change. that's after the break. mouths are watering, and stomachs are growling. or is that just m

defense? we are spending 20%. no other nation spends as much. i wish i was in the defense industry.y are making all the money on this. the amount of money we are spending on defense to defend isis. are we trying to say that's going to be more than fighting the soviet union at its peak? someone needs to do a cost analysis. i think the total cost of fighting isis is there in the money we are spending. >> japan does not have to fight isis because we do. >> why japan, united kingdom, germany. they all have miniscule amounts compared to what we are spending. it's not on our shoulders to once again be the world's policeman. we can't afford it. >> i agree. >> the allies have never stepped up to the plate. >> we do eventually get to a higher tax to pay for those costs we borrow. we are going to have to pay for it down the road. the current president made the tax code so progressive most people do not have a skin in the game paying for rolls. they pay payroll taxes. we would have to go back to the clinton era tax increase below 250 to get everybody paying for the defense budget. that's how i

the nation's first line of defense. presence means we respond faster, we remain on station longer, we carry everything we need with us and we do whatever missions are assigned by our nation's leaders without needing anyone else's permission. we've always known america's success depends on exceptional navy and marine corp. article one of our constitution which you coated, mr. chairman and enshrined in this committee room authorizes congress to raise an army when needed but directs it to provide and maintain a navy. from the first six frigates to our growing fleet of today to afghanistan, sailors and marines have proven the founders wisdom. american leaders across the political spectrum have understood the vital significance of c-power. we deploy in peace just as much in war and we have boosted our own and the world's economy. that is why our national defense strategy is focused on the maritime domain and that provides the best value for peace, prosperity and security. and i want to join secretary mchugh in thanking this c

our budget also strengthens national defense. our federal government's primary role -- number one constitutional responsibility is the defense of the nation. by providing our men and women in uniform with $575 billion in our base defense budget, we are able to ensure our military has the resources it needs to meet the challenges of the 21st century. mr. chairman, in 1962 discretionary programs made up a majority of government spending. today it's the reverse. so-called mandatory programs like we see right here, are on autopilot and this makes up 2/3 of the budget. as you can see, these programs are on a clock. we can see that social security disability insurance goes bankrupt in 2016. social security retirement for americans all across the country goes bankrupt in 2034. and of course medicare isn't too far behind that. actually in front of social security and goes bankrupt in 2030. the clock is ticking, mr. chairman, and we need to do something sooner rather than later. this is very predictable and it's very preventable if we act

what does the president request has the space budget for national defense? >> how about i give you the army number? >> to someone here have a total number for national defense from the president and his budget? >> 561. >> 561 as the base. how much for overseas contingency operations? >> for the army its 20 billion. >> i think it's very close to 50 billion 48 a plebus number. >> how about 51 billion does that sound about right? that would give us a total ban of 612 billion. does that sound about right for oco and the president space budget request? now the budget control act has a limitation base of 523 billion so the president is proposing a budget that is if my math in my head is correct $30 billion more than what the budget control excess is permissible. does anyone have an explanation for how he can just disregard the budget control act of 20 lebanon throughout a budget that's $38 million more in its limitation? >> i won't speak to the law but you asked if i could perhaps help on this. i can tell you in discussions that the osd level the president we have

what does the president request as his base budget for national defense? >> how about i give you the army number. >> does someone here have the total number for national defense nor the president and his budget? >> 571. >> 561. >> 561 is the base? >> and then how much for overseas contingency operations? >> again for the army it's 20 billion, so -- >> i think it's very close to 50 billion, 48 i believe is the number. >> i have it as 51 billion, does that sound about right? >> it sounds about right. that would give us a total of 612 billion, does that sound about right? the budget control act has a limitation on base. 523 billion, the president's proposing a burgdget that if my math is correct, about $38 billion more than what the budget control act says is permissible. >> do you have any information how you can disregard the budget control act of 2011 and throw out a budget that's $38 more than the limitation? no one? >> i won't speak to the lie, you directed. you asked if i could perhaps help on this, i can tell you in discussions, at osd level the presid

we need national defense. thursday chewing out his signal colleagues for reckless spending in the name of defense. speaking in favor of an amendment he had proposed to cut tens of billions of dollars from the budget. marco rubio had his own amendment that would raise defense spending without any spending cuts to pay for it. >> the national security of our country is the predominant obligation of our government. it is the one thing that the government can do. >> then there was ted cruz who didn't know whose side he was on. cruz was clearly torn. the senators stood quietly at the well of the senate chamber reading the text of the rubio amendment and checking his smartphone. cruz gave a thumbs up sign siding with rubio. neither of those amendments from cruz or rubio passed. in a way that's not important. the larger question is who ends up winning this fight within the republican party. is it rubio, the hawk who wants to pour more money in defense or paul the budget slasher who didn't think the pentagon is necessar

top defense and national defense priority right now. just because we're seeing these positive developments happening in tikrit on wednesday does not mean that the pentagon believes that the iraqi military is fully capable of fighting it's fight by itself. they are already looking at bringing in more u.s. forces to help provide training and support for these troops. part of the reason why they need this legal authorization is to basically codify, put into writing exactly what it is that these u.s. forces would be able to do, partly in order to have legal cover and partly to get political cover. they want to make certain barbara, that people here in the united states, who frankly are tired of war under the very limited mission that the obama administration wants these troops to have. one other point they also want this legal authorization because as we heard from general dempsey and the secretary of defense ash carter, they don't want the next president in 2017 to be dealing with the kind of open-ended war which they say barack obama was