it will keep the number closer to $70 billion total in oko. i don't think we'll get near $90 billion, there just isn't enough to spend it on the things needed. >> and to just add a quick note. one of the attractive things in theory about adding oco money especially on a budget resolution stage is you don't have to do a political trade of one for one of plussing up domestic discretionary you have the advantage oko is in effect, not restricted by the caps, there are complex ways in which it is. you can sort of put money there and the cap will rise along with it and you act as if you have that more money and you don't have to have the tradeoff. there are ways everyone could agree to go along, that even though oko is not was not really meant to be long-term modernization funding, if you say black is white and white is black and then appropriators, the administration and then the white can be black in the case of oko and it can be used for anything but once you get away from the people that need to put together a budget resolution for that tallies

it will keep the number closer to $70 billion total in oko. i don't think we'll get near $90 billion, there just isn't enough to spend it on the things needed. >> and to just add a quick note. one of the attractive things in theory about adding oco money especially on a budget resolution stage is you don't have to do a political trade of one for one of plussing up domestic discretionary you have the advantage oko is in effect, not restricted by the caps, there are complex ways in which it is. you can sort of put money there and the cap will rise along with it and you act as if you have that more money and you don't have to have the tradeoff. there are ways everyone could agree to go along, that even though oko is not was not really meant to be long-term modernization funding, if you say black is white and white is black and then appropriators, the administration and then the white can be black in the case of oko and it can be used for anything but once you get away from the people that need to put together a budget resolution for that tallies

and to the extent it's in oko. it does have some adverse effect on our national security capabilities. would you agree with that? >> yes, sir, i did earlier. it presents some challenges. >> secretary mavis, would you agree with that? >> yes it would be better to be in base. >> secretary james would you agree with that? >> yes. >> does anyone have an idea how much worse our national security would be? >> the worst is if we don't get this fixed through some mechanism. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary mavis i was happily surprised to see you devote so much time to power and energy initiatives in your written testimony. your comment about fuel being used as a weapon particularly struck out to me, i felt that there's a strategic imperative to energy use in the department of defense. in 2003 and 2007, dod put out numbers that said 80% of all supply trucks on the road in iraq and afghanistan -- over 3,000 americans troops and contractors were killed in fuel supply convoys. every time we talk about energ

chairman oko, mr. secretary, they are restrictions. if we don't lift those restrictions then it doesn't get passed until december and your fiscal year begins before that. won't you have a quarter of a year where you can't use the money? >> yes, if this is done without an appropriation that is in line with it, you're right, we would have that problem. and i think your earlier point that the question about whether this approach being proposed by the house committee would be acceptable to the senate, to the president, the uncertainty about whether this would work is another one of the problems with that approach. >> so you have 40 more seconds if you want to tell the congress why they shouldn't do this, you should do it now because otherwise you'll be facing this. >> i'm not going to tell the congress why they shouldn't do it. the congress makes the own decisions decisions. my advice is that we need to fix our base budget because you build the institution through the base budget and you respond to contingencies with the fund called other

i'm sure that we i couldn't quote you the figures we also have at present certain things in oko, which probably more specifically belong rightfully belong in the base budget. my plea to you would simply be i don't know how to fix this if the use of oko, if it's allowable or you can find a way to make it allowable, or this gets us over the hump, i'm in favor of getting us over the hump. >> i would just add the real issue for us because we are really in a dire place as far as needing to recap tallize and modernize the air force. the problem is that you can't count on it over time, for long term investment or modernization, which is one of the problems we have. anything is better than nothing, however. >> and i appreciate that fact. the problem is if we take those caps off, the other caps come off, and then, you know, we begin a downward spiral in our budget. this is being creative by using oko fund ss for our military, but considering all the parties involved, it seems the best approach to take. with that, i yield back, thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman. one of the things that comes u

about the level of aid to syria and how it's tracked so that it ends up in the right hands.r&z<',qa9jf+okór recognizing myself, as soon as they come for five minutes each for our opening statement i will then recognize any other members seeking recognition for one minute. we will then hear from our witnesses and without objection the witnesses' prepared statements will be made a part of the record and members may have five days in which to insert statements and questions for the record, subject to the length, limitation in the rules. before i begin my opening remarks i want to take a moment to offer our most sincere condolences to the friends and family of kayla mueller. our thoughts and prayers are with them in the most trying of times. kayla was taken hostage while doing humanitarian work in syria, which is the subject of our hearing. helping those who -- who are in such dire need of her help and all of america mourns her loss, and the family's loss. the terrorists have proven time and again, that they have no respect for human rights, that is why we must redouble our efforts to defeat t

we rely on oko, frankly, because appropriations aren't on time. so, we need multi-year authority to do multi-year tasks. and we need to get the resources to respond to this kind of thing. about $7 billion in oko and we're putting a fair amount of that into afghanistan, iraq, pakistan and syria, humanitarian assistance, counterterrorism partnership, countering russian pressure. we have $350 million. so, that's how we're bolsterring ukraine, moldova, georgia, to actually go after this. it's not enough. i'm just telling you bluntly. it's not enough. and they're spending hugely on this vast propaganda machine which people believe in the places they get them because there's nothing countering it. according to people in many of those states, we're the problem. russia is there defending russian-speaking people. there's no sense of russian transgression across the border. the people in russia don't even know how many soldiers are dying. this completely hidden from them. we need to be able to counter this and tell the story. >> my point exactly. thank you,

closer to $70 billion total in oko. i don't think we'll get near $90 billion, there just isn't enough to spend it on the things needed. >> and to just add a quick note. one of the atrktive things about adding money at a budget resolution stage is you don't have to do a political trade of one plus one. you have the advantage, it is not restricted by the caps, there are complex ways in which it is. you can sort of put money there and the cap will rise along with it and you act as if you have that more money and you don't have the tradeoff. and even though oco is not considered to be long-term modernization money and if you say black is white and white is black and then white can be black in the case of oako and it can be used for anything and for people that need to put together a budget resolution for a tally you'll have problems. mackenzie explained how there is a potential for a democrat-republican coalition that does not like unjustified oako and if the pentagon doesn't need it it is a problem. and the omb can say we

we're requesting extra money for that in the oko budget and we're requesting funds for afghanistan toe sure that our success there can stick. so those are three -- i don't know if they're the most important things, but they're very important things and there are other reasons why we're requesting the amount of money that we think the country needs which is above the sequester level. >> so general dempsey, do you generally agree with those top three? i'm going to get to a couple other questions rnls i'm concerned about european security for reasons we talked about earlier. and in particular because -- it's not just about russia. it's what russia has done, as i mentioned, start a fire of ethnicity and nationalism. it may burn out of their control. and so european security for the first time in 20 years concerns me. secondly the threat network as i mentioned that runs from afghanistan afghanistan, park stan to all the way to boko haram. we've got to deal with them in the ag gre gait. we've got all kinds of tools. but we've got to keep pressure on the entire network. and the last one is o

oko reha bon t direroam we veostallobyyis,om al c bbst ery d cit hlrygtoet i shedo eiikg. arannet, u cid niur ma inre whisha t tng iee t hole ftewhe. i'ad a e-isng ndiofr 19ith brenanend deled ra rais i' g reuto arhris veotor tauf w ania crptuel n th me ad do. m fri, omr et, maacses. kn iwod veeenbeer ofto sayin aschet.nd m ucheno who mecathovag i'rey ch messha i' g a t of pobms delod omths. i' jt cio watye veou b sof u culd hlpe wth y meinou lkehr mbe t erarpele o ter tat vehea pbl tt ha. 'moitohaa ons kryswr. >> fst ipogi f t lo ofo th. ls at aerbl l ve ge roh se i soantoexesmy coerabt e ril ju dil juesou end h diict osarfou. un keyooefity d edom mic eme.ty- t e fful i iyore messy suti i y dot veny co ofou ha, ifalyw. fliddino eandth diidroamnd t foab ce t. isasad oiolfofoab at. athefrdleca a esn at tt ke tethhe diidxpsi i ey pamecaovagp 8%f port bu a i w opon. so i y kee an 10 o eportli -hasf ou $1000 -y fli at pbay urator- yocatve aly f aor y bsy ou t cereonhe de ehae.an ferais fdelcng he's m aic the e may,a cmmit al cte tououthni cotrth rei se adtialunngitnt afrdleara

and would you and your folks commit to -- submit to us in writing on efr view -- an overview of how oko runs now. this is not the best way to run a railroad. and i hope we can have a different way of funding the department as we move down the many steps ahead in the budget process. if, however, we end up with a substantial amount of oco with gaps in the base i want to understand what all of those restrictions, administrative or legislative may be, because those are things that we can obviously address in the authorization bill. i don't know how this is going to go. i just want to be ready and you can help us in understanding that. i would appreciate it. >> certainly will provide that information for the record. >> mr. secretary last question i've got is about ukraine. mr. smith has introduced legislation along with me that would require lethal assistance provided to the cranans so they can defend themselves sand do something about the tanks pouring in from russia and what we've been told is that we're studying it. well every day that the white house dithers about this, more equipment is

we are not going to build -- as my colleague said -- we are not going to build a px with oko funds. do you believe that the army can buy back strength with these funds? general austin: i do not, senator. claire mccaskill: can the navy address the shortfalls in shipping? general austin: no, ma'am. claire mccaskill: i think we got to be -- and i know we don't come to this is clean hands with democrats, because we don't come a we have engaged with gimmickry also -- i know the chairman wants to face this head-on and i know it is a challenge in a political environment. but i did want to bring it up but we have obviously not met the challenge with the government as it is currently configured. i want to specifically ask you general austin, but something troubling to me. i have been told that there has been a determination that operation freedom sentinel is a new contingency operation. you see it as a new contingency operation? general austin: it's a continuation of our efforts senator. in terms of the types of things we are doing, we continue to train and advise and assist the afghan secur

van hollen: the gentleman is right a about this oko slush fund. and the chairman is right, i did support the oco money at the level requested by the president and the joint chiefs of staff, our military commanders. it was higher a couple of years ago because we had tens of thousands more troops in after began tan -- afghanistan. the gentleman may rethat we brought a lot of troops home. as a result of twheark don't need as much money in our war account, the overseas contingency account. so what i did mr. speaker, is exactly what our republicans -- our republican colleagues on the budget committee said we should do at that time. in other words, i opposed increases above the levels the administration and military commanders say were needed to carry out those operations. yes i did support a budget level at the level the president and our military commanders said was necessary. but as mr. mcclintock said, the republican budget does just the opposite. it does what we said we would not do and i say we, republicans democrats alike. so it's important to he

this amendment is not the oko amendment. i'm talking to senator toomey about that. that is this is the fund to be set up to help was our overseas diplomatic facilities. benghazi is an example of wish we had better security. the world is getting more dangerous by the day. i think we just closed our embassy at least temporarily in idonije. i'm the senate of the foreign ops subcommittee on appripriations and we have put 5 hnt 4 billion in for embassy security. construction maintenance and world side security protection. 46.4 above the budget request. we set aside 25 million as a source of fund inging to address emerging security requirements. this deficit neutral reserve fund would allow us to look throughout the government and try to find a bipartisan approach to put in more money in a diplomatic security, something i think we all understand we need. and it does allow not just spending cuts, but revenue, if we can work out a, an agreement acceptable to all of us. god knows what's coming our way overseas and to those who are in the diplomatic core. you earn your pay as

--oko amendment. this is a deficit neutral reserve fund. set up to help us with overseas diplomatic facilities. benghazi is an example of, i wish we had had better security. the world is getting more dangerous by the day. we just closed our embassy temporarily in djibouti. working with senator leahy on appropriations we have put $5.4 billion in for embassy security. 46.4 billion above the budget request. we also set aside $25 million as a source of funding to address emerging and immediate security requirements. this deficit neutral reserve fund would allow us to look throughout the government and try to find a bipartisan approach to put in more money in a diplomatic security, something i think we all understand we need. it does allow not just spending cuts but revenue if we can work out an agreement acceptable to all of us. god knows what's coming our way overseas and to those who are in the diplomatic corps. you are in your pay as much as any member of the military and dangerous circumstances. this amendment will try to make your life a l

it is money being spent for i sold and afghanistan and on the horn of africa so oko is committed to the here and now. you cannot rob peter to pay paul. senator reed: another way to approach the problem, how better to manage the strategic risks if we have sick we strip -- sequestration in place. i have submitted the chairman's risk assessment. what we have been doing is increasing risk over the past three or four years. what i would tell you now is if we don't get funded at the 16 level or get the reforms inside of the budget because it is $4.4 billion this year but a cruise to $40 billion. if we don't get that strategy will have to change. if you ask me how i managed the current strategy it is unmanageable. senator reed: thank you. >> secretary carter you heard the answered you agree with it? senator carter: i do. >> i miss the opening statement that i think it is worthwhile getting on the record again. looking at the clapper statement over the last half-century of intelligence, i have not experienced a time when we were beset by more crisis. he repeated that and just last week had gene

we saw this with al qaeda and groups around the world that were pledging support and right now b o okoarams but as they expand the operations, that alliance becomes more important to watch, and it gives them a base of operations in other places. so we have to look at and be mindful of the expansion of these alliances, but operationally right this minute there's not very much going on between the two. >> but at some point do you see isis giving them resources such as money and weapons subpoena trying to facilitate the transfers and if so, is there targets to try and stop them in the process of. is that where the military might shift? >> so that's what the great men and woman are looking at and the partners around the world are looking at. that exchange of information and the exchange of ideas and exchange of personnel tactics and even operations. in the future as they move and as isis continues to expand, that becomes more and more likely, but we're definitely watching those links very closely. >> the white house they have been reluctant to call isis because they say that using the term

van hollen: the gentleman is right a about this oko slush fund. and the chairman is right, i did support the oco money at the level requested by the president and the joint chiefs of staff, our military commanders. it was higher a couple of years ago because we had tens of thousands more troops in after began tan -- afghanistan. the gentleman may rethat we brought a lot of troops home. as a result of twheark don't need as much money in our war account, the overseas contingency account. so what i did mr. speaker, is exactly what our republicans -- our republican colleagues on the budget committee said we should do at that time. in other words, i opposed increases above the levels the administration and military commanders say were needed to carry out those operations. yes i did support a budget level at the level the president and our military commanders said was necessary. but as mr. mcclintock said, the republican budget does just the opposite. it does what we said we would not do and i say we, republicans democrats alike. so it's important to he

we don't need $36 billion or $38 billion in extra oko, we need that in the base budget. they are both useful and both have restrictions in law and in regulation. >> so if you had your choice, you'd rather have the dollars in the regular budget as opposed to oko funding? mr. secretary, do you want to speak to that? >> absolutely. that's where we asked for it, that's where we need