tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN March 22, 2016 9:00pm-12:01am EDT
that israel must never be an issue that divides americans, but a great cause of liberty that unites americans. my friends, two weeks ago, i visited yodfat in northern israel. it was there, 2,000 years ago, that the romans began their military campaign against the jews. i'm holding in my hand right now an exact replica of an arrow found at yodfat -- one of thousands used by the romans in their war to crush jewish independence. yet two millennia later, the
jewish people are once again free and sovereign in our ancient homeland. and in rebuilding our land, our state, our economy, our army, our science, our culture, we've achieved remarkable successes. but it's true we also face great challenges. we are in fact today witnessing two contradictory trends. first, the positive trend -- everyday, high-level delegations land at ben-gurion airport. they come from america. they come from europe. increasingly, they come from asia, from africa, from latin america.
as many of them confront the rise of militant islam and its accompanying terrorism, they come to israel to strengthen their security. they wish to learn from israel's proven security and intelligence capabilities how to better protect their own people. but they also come to israel because they want to upgrade their economies with israel's technology. and for good reason -- israel's know-how is powering the world's computers, navigating its cars, protecting its bank accounts. it has led to breakthroughs in treating multiple sclerosis, parkinson's, alzheimer's. it helps farmers around the world yield more crops, produce more milk, conserve more water. so, for all these reasons, the world is coming to israel.
today we have diplomatic relations with 161 countries -- more than at any time in our history. and by the way, there are not that many countries left. there are only about 200 countries in the world. but alongside this positive trend, there is a second, negative trend. while israel is embraced by a growing number of individual nations, there are those who seek to malign israel among the nations, and especially in the united nations. at the u.n., israel, the middle east's only true democracy, is slandered like no other country on earth. at the u.n., israel is subjected to consistent, systematic
discrimination. only israel is permanently scheduled for condemnation at the u.n. human rights council -- not iran, not syria, not north korea. only israel is hounded by u.n. bodies expressly established to delegitimize its very existence. only israel is condemned every year by 20 hostile resolutions in the u.n. general assembly. the un, my friends, has a shameful record of singling out israel for castigation and condemnation. so i have a question for you. why would anyone think that the un could decide on a fair and secure peace for israel?
yet amazingly, there are some who believe exactly that. they seek to impose terms on israel in the un security council. and those terms would undoubtedly be stacked against us. they always are. so such an effort in the un would only convince the palestinians that they can stab their way to a state. mind you, not a state next to israel, but a state instead of israel. a security council resolution to pressure israel would further harden palestinian positions, and thereby it could actually kill the chances of peace for many, many years. and that is why i hope the united states will maintain its longstanding position to reject such a u.n. resolution.
i was glad to hear the presidential candidates from both parties reaffirm this basic principle. peace won't come through u.n. security council resolutions, but through direct negotiations between the parties. the best formula for achieving peace remains two states for two peoples, in which a demilitarized palestinian state finally recognizes the jewish state. now, i know there's some skepticism about my views on this. so let me state unequivocally, and here's the acid test -- i am
ready to begin such negotiations immediately, without preconditions, anytime, anywhere. that's a fact. but president abbas is not ready to do so. that's also a fact. there is political will here in jerusalem. there's no political will there in ramallah. for the last 5.5 years, president abbas has refused to sit down and talk with me even for a minute. but that doesn't mean he's been silent.
he has helped inculcate a new generation of young palestinians with murderous hatred for israel. and my friends, this incitement has deadly consequences. palestinian children are taught to stab jews. they are taught that the goal of the palestinian people is not to establish a state on the west bank, but in all of israel -- in akko, haifa, nazareth, jaffa. now, what i'm about to show you is deeply disturbing. i think you have to see for yourselves what the palestinians are teaching their children. i want you to see the daily pledge of allegiance of palestinian children. take a look.
>> i am the palestinian child. cities.more all hours.ands are >> they preach to kill it israelis just because they are jews and children emulate the murderous videos online. >> this comes directly from the palestinian leadership. welcome every drop of blood spilled in jerusalem. >> the results, hundreds of terror attacks in the past few months. about half of the terrorists are under the age of 18. this fuels terror and prevents peace.
prime minister netanyahu: this is sick. it's inexcusable. my friends, that little girl wasn't born hating. she was taught to hate, as were the palestinians who murdered the american student taylor force, and other american citizens in recent months. you've already heard what an impressive young man taylor was, but president abbas's fatah movement praised taylor's killer as -- and i quote this -- as "a hero and a martyr."
now, that's not from hamas -- that's coming from abbas. and now the palestinians will spur even more terrorism by rewarding the families of murderers -- including those who murdered americans -- with a regular monthly payment. so the message they send to palestinians is clear -- terrorism pays -- literally. if the international community really wants to advance peace, it must demand that the palestinians stop poisoning the minds of their children. if the international community
wants to advance peace, it must address the true core of the conflict -- the persistent palestinian refusal to accept a jewish state in any borders. so there's bad news, but there's also some good news. while the palestinians are stuck in their refusal to make peace, others are moving forward. first, israel's peace agreements with egypt and jordan have weathered many storms. second, increasingly our other neighbors recognize that we have common interests. they understand that we face the same threats from iran and from isis.
now, i can tell you from a perspective of my lifetime -- this is a historic change. i believe it offers a unique opportunity to advance peace. and we are working every day to seize that opportunity. ladies and gentlemen, i am confident that over time the trend of embracing israel will overcome the trend of maligning israel, because ultimately freedom beats tyranny, and
ultimately, when vigorously defended, truth beats lies. so i believe that israel faces a future of promise. i believe that when we stand together, all of us, we can overcome all the challenges facing us. and of these challenges, none is greater than iran's unrelenting aggression. iran remains fully committed to genocide -- our genocide. its leaders loudly, openly, even proudly, they say and proclaim that their goal is to destroy israel. iran sends deadly weapons to
hezbollah in lebanon against us. it bankrolls hamas and islamic jihad in gaza against us. it seeks to open a new terror front on the golan against us. and it offers thousands of dollars for each palestinian terror attacks against us. so here's what i believe -- i believe that both those who supported the nuclear deal and those who opposed it can, at the very least, work together to stop iran's aggression and terror and hold iran accountable for its transgressions. since the nuclear deal, iran has continued to conduct ballistic
missile tests, in defiance of its international obligations. as you've heard, iran recently fired a ballistic missile with a hebrew inscription painted on it. it said, israel must be wiped out. so ladies and gentlemen, the writing is not on the wall -- it's on the missile. now my friends, an arrow just like this was shot by a roman soldier at yodfat. he was fighting to end jewish independence once and for all. but imperial rome is long gone and i am speaking to you today from our capital, jerusalem, as the prime minister of the reborn jewish state.
we have restored our independence. we have restored our capacity to defend ourselves. iran should learn this history and it should have no illusions. israel will defend itself mightily against all those who seek to destroy us.and iran should remember that today it's not only the enemies of the jewish people who have arrows. today, the jewish state can defend itself with powerful arrows of our own.
take a look. the arrow missile defense system is the product of americans and israelis working together. so i want to say again to all of you -- thank you, america. thank you, aipac. thank you for helping secure our common future, and a happy purim to all of you. thank you. ♪ >> c-span swat in journal live -- c-span's washington journal live every day.
democratic delegate eleanor holmes knowlton -- eleanor holmes norton on issues involving the d.c. metro. she will discuss the flint, michigan, water crisis. watch washington journal beginning live at 7:00 eastern on wednesday morning. join the discussion. after the belgium terror attacks, a house oversight subcommittee investigates terror threats. that is live at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 3. arizona voters are voting in their states primary. utah is holding caucuses for both parties.
later tonight, we will bring you speeches by some of the candidates. hillary clinton campaigning in seattle. sanders in san diego, california. joseph dunfordnd testified today on the 2017 budget request. secretary carter condemned the terror attacks in brussels. we will show you as much of this hearing as we can while we wait for primary and caucus results.
>> the committee will come to order. the committee meets today to receive testimony from the secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff on the national defense authorization budget request from the administration. numbermittee has spent a of weeks hearing from our military leaders, the intelligence community, and outside witnesses before asking the secretary to testify on the current budget request. what we have heard reaffirms the fact that the u.s. faces a wider range of serious threat than at any time in our history. the director of the defense
intelligence agency told the committee that the world is far more complicated, far more destabilized, far more complex than at any time i have seen it. currently serving senior managers have described the ability of the military to face those threats as minimally adequate. aviation units cannot meet mission requirements. with less than a third of army forces at an acceptable level of readiness. another is, less than half of the air force combat units are ready for a high-end fight. my own visits with service members recently leads me to
suspect that even these assessments do not tell the whole story. we often discuss readiness, but it is a vague term without concrete meaning for a lot of americans. i have heard firsthand from service mentors who have looked me -- servicemembers who have -- ed me in the eye of getting aircraft sent to the boneyard in arizona back and revitalized in order to fly missions. pilots who are flying well below the minimum number of hours required for minimal proficiency and flying fewer training hours .han those of adversaries of not having enough senior enlisted people to train and supervise the younger ones and those who remain working longer and longer hours. i have even heard firsthand from service members who had to buy
basic supplies and cleaning supplies and paper towels out of their own pocket because if they go through the military process, it will take three or four months. i expressed concern last week that there is a rise in class a mishaps which may be another indicator of a readiness crisis. last year, general dempsey testified that the fy 16 funding thatst was the lower edge was necessary to execute the defense strategy and we have no slack, no margin left for error or strategic surprise. the budget request from the administration this year is $18 billion lower on meeting those basic requirements and it is less than the budget agreement of last december. it seems clear that the same strategy we assume would have
out of iraq and afghanistan, where russia would be a friend, and where terrorism was confined to the jv teams does not continue to be valid. that is also the same strategy that has led us to cut troops, and training. both congress and the administration are responsible for this state of affairs. over the last five years, the president and congress have cut over half a trillion from defense and these cuts come at the cost -- at a cost. it is increased risk that a mission will fail or that we will lose a fight. our hearings have shown that this risk is real and there is evidence to prove it is going. the military is strained to a breaking point. our witnesses are in a unique position to help our political leadership and the american people understand the state of
affairs and i would say we would all be derelict in our duties if we tried to sweep it under the rug. on a final note, this morning, the news brought us again stories of tragedy in a terrorist attack in europe. the administration's budget request asks for more money to fight isis in iraq and syria and that is understandable and appropriate. i do not understand that the law the administration provide congress a written document laying out its strategy to fight isis. that document was due february 15 and we have received nothing. the world is growing more dangerous, we have cut our military too much. i believe it is up to the political leadership in this country to take the action necessary to enable our servicemen and women to defend american lives and american interest. the men and women who serve and
the nation deserve better than we are now. i yield to the distinguished gentlelady of california. >> i asked unanimous consent that the witness statement be entered into the record. we have received testimony from commanders, service chiefs, and they have given us their best military advice and it cannot be more clear. real andts we face are growing. this morning, the attacks in brussels claimed 26 lives and dozens were injured. our hearts go out to the belgian people. secretary carter, you have emphasized the budget request enters on five key challenges. dangerous north
korean regime, neutralizing iran's influence, .mrs. davis: in the midst of these challenges, we are searching for budget workarounds instead of fixing the underlying problem. the department of defense needs fiscal certainty to perform critical missions. you have asserted the fiscal year 2017 shortfall risk can be mitigated, but the dod is a comprehensive budgetary solution. we must remember the devastating harms inflicted by sequestration , years of budgetary standoffs, one actual government shutdown, and congressional overreliance have produced debilitating fiscal uncertainty. it is unclear whether the house will off a budget resolution
this year, the resolution passed last week raises more questions than answers. offer a net increase of roughly 18 billion to the defense based budget. it would do so by assuming that 23 billion of overseas contingency operations would be used for based budget purposes. it would not increase the top line of 74 million. my first question, which beneficiary would end up paying the bill? with the money come from the person requested from dod -- what the money come from the portion requested from dod? what it come from the state department -- would it come from the state department? posesdget resolution another open-ended question. it appears to allow the chairman
to adjust funding levels going forward on the basis of new information. at some point, supplemental funding could be used to circumvent funding levels. the dod, the congress have to make hard choices especially when it comes to balancing forced modernization to sustain readiness. harderhese issues become or easier? how would the dod prioritize its needs? most importantly, what poses the greatest risk to national security, provided funding -- levelsng funding at base
or providing funding levels lower than requested? when he to carefully -- we need to carefully consider the proposal as we work to build this year's defense authorization bill. we must give the department additional flexibility to adjust the health care and benefits structure. the president came to us with a budget that focuses on adapting to the threats we face today and it follows the law by conforming to the bipartisan budget act of 2015, including 582.7 billion dollars in discretionary budget authority for the department of defense. we must uphold our end. thank you for being here today. i look forward to your testimony.
committee is pleased to welcome ashton carter, the secretary of defense, general joseph dunford, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. german, welcome to the committee -- gentlemen, welcome to the committee. mr. secretary, you are recognized for any comments you would like to offer. >> thank you to all of the members of the committee. i want to begin by condemning this morning's bombings in belgium. our thoughts and our prayers are with those affected by this tragedy. in the face of these acts of terrorism, the united states stands and strong solidarity with our ally. we are continuing to monitor the situation, including to ensure that all u.s. personnel and
citizens are accounted for. we stand ready to provide assistance to our friends and allies in europe as necessary. brussels is an international city that has been host to nato and the european union for decades. together, we must and we will continue to do everything we can to protect our homeland and defeat terrorism. no attack will affect our resolve to accelerate the defeat sil.iffel -- i saw thank you for hosting me today. i am pleased to be here to discuss president obama's 2017 defense budget which marks a
major inflection point for the department of defense. as i will describe in detail, the threat from terrorism is one of the five challenges as has been noted the united states now faces and will in the future. in this budget, we are taking the long view. we have to because even as we fight today's fights, we must also be prepared for what might come 10, 20, 30 years down the road. last fall's bipartisan budget act gave us the much-needed stability after years of gridlock and turbulence. i want to thank you and your colleagues for coming together to help pass it. that budget deal set the size of our budget and with this degree of certainty, we focused on its shape,changing that fundamental but carefully
considered ways to adjust to a new strategic era and to seize opportunities for the future. let me describe the strategic assessment that drew up our budget decisions. it is evident that america is the world's foremost leader and partner an underwriter of stability and security all over the world. that is thanks to the unequivocal strength of the u.s. military. as we continue to fulfill this enduring role, it is evident that we are entering a new strategic era. it requires new ways of investing and operating. five evolving strategic challenges, russia, china, north terrorism arend now driving dod's planning and budgeting as reflected in this
budget. i want to focus on her ongoing fight against terrorism. the attacks in belgium remind us we must and will deal a lasting defeat. most immediately in iraq and syria and where it is metastasizing. we are continuing to help protect our own homeland. let me give you a quick snapshot of what we are doing to pressure and destroy isil. the iraqi security forces retook ramadi and are now reclaiming further ground and are simultaneously shifting the weight of their effort toward moz oh in the north. with our advice and assistance, iraqi and kurdish security forces have begun shaping and isolation phase of the operation to collapse the control of i
sil. that was the mission we cardinal was supporting when he gave his life over the weekend. providing critical protection to iraqi forces and coalition in northernisers iraq. our thoughts and prayers are with his family's and the other marines injured in saturday's rocket attack. their sacrifice will not be forgotten and our global coalition will complete the mission they were supporting. in syria, capable and motivated local forces supported by the united states have retaken the east syrian town. this town served as an apparent logistical and financial hub and a key intersection between syria and iraq operations. l, its so important to isi
so-called minister of war was involved in the defense of the town. we killed him. in doing so, the coalition campaign severed the last major northern artery. isil in syriaween and isil in iraq. in addition to local forces, 90% of our military coalition partners from europe, the gulf, asia, 26 countries in all, including belgium, have committed to increase their contributions to help accelerate the defeat. .e have increased strikes
we are addressing the most asked as we are- accelerating our overall campaign, we are backing it up with increased funding for 2017. requesting 50% more than last year. before i continue, i will say a few words about russia. russia said it was coming into syria to fight isil. but that is not what it did. instead, their military has only prolonged the civil war, propped ssad.sawed -- a clear, russia's entry into syria did not impact our campaign.
along with our coalition partners, we are intensifying our campaign in iraq and syria and will continue to do so until they are dealt a lasting defeat. two of the other four challenges reflect a return to great superpower competition. one is in europe, where we are taking a strong and balanced approach to deter russian aggression. we not had to devote a significant portion defense investment for nearly a quarter century. now we do. s in ther challenge i asia-pacific were china is fine -- china is rising, which is fine, but behaving aggressively, which is not.
meanwhile, two other long-standing challenges of threats in specific regions. north korea is one. our forces on the korean peninsula remain ready to fight tonight. the other is iran, because while the nuclear accord is a good deal, we must still determine iranian aggression and counter iran's influence against a regional friends and allies, especially israel, to which we maintain an unbreakable commitment. addressing all of these five challenges requires new investments on our part and new and enhanced abilities. we know we must deal with these challenges across all domains, not just the usual air, land, and see, but also cyber and space.
key to our approach is being able to deter our most advanced competitors. ability toe the make sure that anyone who starts a conflict will regret doing so. in our budget, our capabilities are readiness and our actions, we must be prepared for a high-end enemy. russia and china are most stressing competitors as they continue to advance military systems that seek to threaten our event to just. we see them in the south china sea, and in crimea, and in syria as well. this, dod has elevated their importance in our budgeting.
i have detailed how our budget makes critical investment to help us better address these five challenges. we are strengthening our deterrence posture by investing $3.4 billion for our european reassurance initiative. we are prioritizing training and readiness for our ground forces. reinvigorating the readiness and modernization of our fighter aircraft fleet. the arsenal plane as well as advanced munitions. in our navy, we are emphasizing not just increasing the number of ships, which we are doing, but especially with new weapons and high-end ships and extending our commanding lead in undersea
warfare with new investments in unmanned undersea vehicles and more submarines. it triples their strike capacity. we are doing more in cyber, .lectronic warfare ca build our cyber mission force and prepare for the possibility of a conflict that extends into space. dod will keep insuring our donovan's and all domains -- dominance in all domains. our budget seizes opportunities for the future. that is a responsibility i have to all of my successors. that is why we are making
increased investment in science and technology, innovating operationally, and building new bridges to be amazing american innovative system. we are building the force of the future because as good as our technology is, it is nothing compared to our people. in the future, we must continue to recruit and retain the very best talent. competing for good people for an all volunteer force is a critical part of our military edge and everyone should understand this need and my commitment to meeting it. a wood to america's taxpayers to spend our defense dollars as wisely and responsibly as possible, we are pushing for needed reforms and we need your help with all of them. from further reducing overhead and excess infrastructure to modernizing and simplifying, to .roposing new changes
acquisitions. i want to commend this committee and its leaders for your continued dedication and strong partnership with the dod on acquisition reform. we have taken important strides here. some of you, what you are proposing, would save us critical time. that is very important. i know this is just a draft and i appreciate you put it out there for discussion. i have to say in the current draft, there are some things that are problematic for us. i'm hopeful we can continue to work with you on your proposals to ensure dod has the
flexibility needed to apply principles and to address all of the diverse acquisition challenges. i appreciate your willingness to hear our ideas as well, including ways to make it easier for program managers to do their jobs and to involve service chiefs and accountability. -- in accountability. let me close. the defense department does not have the luxury of just one opponent. or the choice between fight, between future fights and current sites. we have to do it all. that is what this budget is designed to do and we need your help to succeed. i think this committee again for supporting the bipartisan budget act that set the size of our budget. our submission focuses on the
budget shape, making changes that are necessary and consequential. we hope your private. i know -- we hope you approve it. i want to reiterate that we been negated the difference in this budget -- mitigated the difference and this budget meets our needs. the budget deal was a good deal. losing that risk is stability this year and having uncertainty and sequester return in future years. that is why going forward, the biggest budget priority for us is congress averting the return of sequestration.
be $100 million -- $100 billion in looming automatic cuts. before andn this that same support coming together is essential today. to address the security challenges we face and to seize the opportunities within our grasp. as long as we work together to do so, i know our national security will be on the right path and america's military will continue to defend our country and help make a better world for generations to come. thank you. >> thank you, sir. >> good morning and thank you for the opportunity to join secretary carter in appearing before you. i want to begin by echoing secretary carter's comments.
i am one of two represents the extra narrates -- extra narrates -- extraordinary women and men of the joint force. the united states military is the most capable fighting force in the world. i do not believe we should ever send americans into a fair fight. we must maintain a joint force to ensure our allies and partners and overmatch any potential adversary. --s requires us to improve developed the leaders who will serve as the foundation for the future. united states is confronted with challenges from both traditional state actors and nonstate actors. the department has identified five strategic challenges. russia, china, iran, and north
korea continue to invest in capabilities. examples include russians actions in the ukraine, iran's influence across the middle east. the same time, nonstate actors pose a threat to the homeland, the american people, our partners and allies. such extremist groups would fundamentally change our way of life. as we contend with the five strategic challenges, we recognize the execution of our strategy requires we maintain credible nuclear and conventional capabilities. strategic nuclear deterrent remains effective, but it is aging and requires modernization.
we are also making investments to maintain a competitive advantage incapable -- conventional capabilities. we do so in the context of a fiscal environment that is hampered our ability to plan and allocate resources. despite partial relief by congress, the department has absorbed $800 billion in cuts and faces another 100 and sequestration. in sequestration. it has resulted in her underinvestment in critical capabilities -- nr underinvestment in critical capabilities. the fiscal year 17 budget begins to address the most critical investments required to maintain our competitive advantage.
possible, it addresses the departments five challenges. it balances three major areas -- investment and high-end capabilities, the capability and capacity to meet our current demands, and the need to rebuild readiness. in the years ahead, we won't need adequate -- we will need adequate funding levels to recover. continued cyber and space investment and the long-range strike bomber. it will be several years before we restore full spectrum readiness. i know the committee has heard from the service chiefs on readiness recovery. i'm satisfied the fy 17 budget is on the right trajectory, but it will take your continued
support. opportunity tohe appear before you this morning. sir.ank you, herereciate you being today. i think you are exactly right to brusselshe attacks in and you are exactly right to express sympathy for the victims. committee,n for this but for the american people, what are we going to do about it? section 12r's bill, 22 asked the administration to provide a strategy for how we were going to implement the president stated desire to degrade and destroy isis. it has been radio silent. we have heard not a word from
anybody. it is not just a matter for the department of defense. it is not just the military who will defeat isis. the requirement was not just directed to the department of defense. the you have any idea of when we will -- do you have any idea of when we will see a strategy? >> the brussels attacks reinforce our need to accelerate the defeat of isil. we have a strategy for doing so. the strategy report, the delivery is imminent. documentod plus others . the strategy is this -- and then i will connected to the brussels attacks. i was describing the campaign in iraq and syria, which we are accelerating. we're looking for more
opportunities to do so. we found opportunities and i expect this to find more opportunities in the future. is the parent tumor of the cancer. , that willxpel isil show there is no such thing as an islamic state. destroy isil in the places to which it has metastasized around the world. the brussels attack reminds us , it is committed we are necessary, but not sufficient. we need the intelligence, the homeland security, and the law enforcement.
and so do our partners. we have the strategy. we will produce the report based on that. we need your help. in that connection, finally, if i may add a note, we have before this committee and three other committees a reprogramming request that is relevant to our ability to carry out the campaign in both iraq and syria. according to the rules, we have to ask the permission of this committee and three other committees. we have done so. so far, we have gotten different answers from everybody. we need to get across the finish line quickly. we have to be agile. we need to be agile in this matter of reprogramming. i appreciate your help in that regard.
>> on the reprogramming, all of us would feel better about a reprogramming if we knew what direction we were going. in last year's bill, the request was, tell us how you're going to do this. as you want to move money around and a variety of other things, i'm sure there will be a lot of support. until there is some sort of coherent direction, i think it is harder to have that -- let me ask you one other thing. i know other members will want to explore that topic. you were right in expressing sympathy for the loss of the marine over the i'm getting an increasing number of questions about the truth cap levels which exist in both iraq and afghanistan.
as i understand it, there are some people for subject to the troops cap comment on that in for a short amount of time not subject to the troop cap. the argument days, if you're rotating people in every 30 days to keep below the truth cap -- people don'tan the have time to get acclimated to the environment. the other argument i have heard is that when you have these artificial truth cap's you don't break -- troo[p caps you don't have the put tension -- protection. my question to you, do you believe there is reason to be concerned that these artificial to increasedad risk for our service members? >> thank you, chairman. there arect to that
people are temporarily assigned. they are accounted differently as you well know. we do provide that to the committee. not in this that study. to get to the substance of what -- said about everybody iraq isy that is in properly trained for the mission. to force protection, that was, in fact, their mission. lpingthey were doing was he to protect the staging area where we are, and our coalition
partners are helping the iraqi security forces. the 2 --hat will cost constitute the development for us. that is part of the preparation for operations against mosul. if a protecting that position -- they were protecting that position. are sorry about the loss of a member in a combo chain that necessary task, but it was necessary. we needed to position them there. these security forces, in the end they will be the force that takes and holds mosul. and need to be trained, positioned. that's what was going on there. specific question of how we compromised force protection norther capabilities as a result of the force bgap?
i can tell he we haven't done that. i've engage with general mcfarlane on the ground asking that anything else they need. i will see him again this afternoon. to date, we haven't had any request that the of gone for the president with four capabilities that has been denied. nowe in the process right bringing for recommendations for increased capability as a result of operations in mosul and elsewhere so we can maintain momentum and accelerate the campaign. at this time, i don't have concerns that we have not what forces on the ground that it impacted our force protection capabilities or any of those things. we build the force from the bottom up with those in mind. chairman: i appreciate that. it makes no sense to me to put artificial troop gaps anywhere. i trust you to continue following this -- that follow this question.
myeral, you heard some of comment earlier about the readiness issue. let me offer a handful of other quotes on the record. our aviation units are currently unable to meet our training and mission requirements, primarily basic aircraft shortfalls. there's been testimony that less than one half of army forces are at acceptable levels of readiness. it is not an appropriate level for the american people would expect to defend them. of ouran half hour combat forces are ready for a high-end fight. she later said that air force is the smallest and least ready across our history. do you agree we have a significant readiness problem across the services that, especially for the wide variety
of contingencies we have to face? -- gen. dunford: the resources issues to address issue, then readiness. the readiness challenges we are experiencing are a result of several years of unstable fiscal environment as well as extort ordinarily high operational tempo. it'll take us some years to get out of the trough we are in right now. we have met the requirements from a physical perspective that the services have identified for readiness. we can't buy our way out of the problem, service chiefs probably identified to you in the case of the army, the navy, and the marine corps it will be 20 before thed fy address their readiness challenges.
it could be as late as fiscal .ear 28 part of that is operational tempo and resources. it is what you saw in your recent visit down to the second marine aircraft where the depo level maintenance has been backlogged. theould see this in all services. that same dynamic exists in each one of the services. is important for us, and you all, to continue to not only wants this issue but really understand what is happening. statistics are one thing, you ks eyeball to fol eyeball, and the sense of frustration and concern is very evident. thank you for your answers, i yield to miss davis. davis: i wanted to go back
to a second to the questions that i raised in the opening statement. i think we grapple with that here. i know we will be talking about co-funding down the line what his contingencies. you stated, equipment is one thing but training personnel and leadership are quite another. they take time. need to work this as best as we can. in the statement i offered, what you said that modernization and where yours trade-offs are going in the budget process. i'm wondering what the department trade-offs will not become harder or easier. if they are supplemented by base budget requirements within bipartisan topline?
is that helpful, what poses the greatest risk to our national security? providing funding for near-term o.c.o. requirement initially. the best of all possible worlds we would be funding the base budget at the level we need .o. for specific overseas contingencies. but that is not where we are right now. we have to be certain other budget requirements whether homeland security, whenever that may be, are also working well within our budget as we move forward. secretary carter: you're right. generally speaking the base and the o.c.o. budgets are -- have different managerial purposes. the base budget is for things that are enduring.
and o.c.o. is for the variable costs associated with urgent ongoing operations. that's still largely true, but it's not completely true. and to get to your question. one of the ways that we were able to mitigate the difference between what we last year planned to -- in our 17 budget and what the bipartisan budget agreement provided us, was to use some o.c.o., about $5 billion net, and that is one of the things that bought down -- brought down that risk associated with that difference. but there's only one way that we did that. we also benefited from fuel costs, different inflation indices than we expected. what we did with the remaining -- to get to your point, what do we do to accommodate the
bipartisan budget act, that $11 billion change, we took it out of some procurement accounts, some aircraft, and some smaller programs. we took it out of milcon. let me tell you what we didn't do to accommodate that difference between the b.b.a. and what we planned on last year. we didn't take it out of military compensation. any of our service members' compensation. we didn't take it out of readiness. the readiness recovery plans that the chairman has referred to. we didn't take it out of any of our major acquisition programs. stop any of them. break any multiyear contracts. and we didn't change any of our end strength numbers, targets, as a result of that. that's how we accommodated the $11 billion. that's the reason why the chairman -- that part we managed to mitigate and bring forward a budget that meets our needs.
our worry is in the future. and with the $100 billion cuts that we face. wherever they come from in the accounting, that is the biggest strategic risk to us. mrs. davis: general? general dunford: this year as we focused on capability enhancements, it was a result of three or four years of not addressing those and realizing that we were losing our competitive advantage against the peer competitors i mentioned, the russias, chinas, and north korea and iran. we knew were we not make those capability investments this year, if you look out three, four, five years we would not be where we needed to be. from my perspective it isn't so much force structure over modernization, it's trying to get within the top line we have the right balance between force
structure and capability with sufficient investment in tomorrow's force to make sure that the force that we have today and that i'm proudly able to say is the best in the world is the best in the world in 2021 and 2022. that's why i think the secretary directed us this year to make a slight course in speed direction in terms of how we are investing our funds to get better balance between today's fight and tomorrow's fight. mrs. davis: i think, mr. mccord, as well, i think what's maybe understandable in terms of the defense budget isn't understandable to folks looking at their budgets in other departments. that's partly where the rub comes. mr. mccord: that's correct. just one point on your earlier question. to get a marginal increase in o.c.o. this year without knowing we can count on it is suboptimal.
if we knew that it would be taken care of permanently, that's better. mrs. davis: thank you. >> mr. jones. mr. jones: thank you. mr. secretary, i'm going to take you in a different direction. totally different subject. i want to personally thank you and especially thank secretary robert work. i have spent 13 years of my life trying to clear the names of two marine he pilots who crashed a v-22 osprey in arizona on april 8 of 2000. your secretary carter, i want to thank secretary publicly because he did something that i could not get the marine corps to do, and that is to look openly and be -- evaluate the information that we had put together working with experts, many of those were marine pilots themselves. they were aeronautical engineers who came to the aid of saying that at the time if you remember
that commonsense -- secretary of defense cheney wanted to scrap the v-22 program. there was a lot of pressure, a lot of push by the marine corps to make sure that the v-22 was there for the future. when i reached out and found secretary work, he spent the time to meet with me and spent several hours, days researching all the information that we had put together, a team of experts helped me to put it together, and then he came back with his evaluation that the record needed to be corrected. that it was unfair to colonel john, pilot, and major brooks, co-pilot, whose wife brought this to my attention in the year 2002. i want to say today that you have brought peace, secretary work, and you, have brought peace to the families of john and brooks. i believe sincerely that john and brooks are now resting in their graves and they are
resting peacefully because of what you and secretary work have done. this has gotten national attention and i have talked to trish, connie, they are hearing from marines who are now retired. they are hearing from friends from years' past who said, hallelujah that now the truth is known and those two pilots will not take the blame for what was unfair at the time of the accident. i want to thank you publicly and thank deputy secretary robert work because the truth is now known that they were not responsible for that accident. it was a combination of many, many factors. i will give you a chance to respond and then i will yield back the balance of my time. secretary carter: thank you so much. i appreciate your saying that. i'm glad that the families are able to be as peace now. i will pass that on to secretary work, my excellent deputy secretary. i'm pleased to hear you say that
about him but i'm not surprised. mr. jones: thank you, sir. i yield back the balance of my time. >> mr. larsen. mr. larsen: you have an obligation, certainly a right to respond to something that former deputy director c.i.a. said yesterday in response to the question. said that isil is winning. based on two assessments. one, although there's less caliphate territory, they seem to be spreading their influence beyond the caliphate territory. then of course in direct reference to the attacks in brussels. i wanted to get your assessment about whether you think isil's winning, and if not, your assessment of the former deputy director c.i.a.'s comments. secretary carter: i'm not familiar with those comments. as far as the campaign is concerned, i'm confident that we will defeat isil. and that we have the momentum of
the campaign in iraq and syria. i gave you some of the details about that. and we are prepared to give you much more. we are doing more. we are actually looking to do yet more than that. and i'm confident that that will result in the defeat of isil in iraq and syria. as i said, that's necessary. it's not sufficient as the attacks in belgium suggest. let me ask if the chairman wants to add anything to that, but isil will be defeated. we have a strategy to do that. i'm sorry the report hasn't gotten to you. but we'll shortly and i'm confident that strategy will succeed. general dunford: congressman, i'm not complacent about the threat of isil and recognize the threat of isil, particularly over the last 15, 18 months. with regard to syria and iraq, in october, i appeared before the committee and at that time i think it was fair to say that isil had the momentum.
since that time, they not only have less territory, they have less resources, they have less freedom of movement. we have reduced the number of foreign fighters they are actually able to flow back and forth. frankly i think their native is -- narrative is less effective than it was some months ago. but this is a long fight and i'm confident in telling you that we have the momentum today. i'm also confident in the end state to secretary carter identified but this morning was another reminder there is a long fight ahead. it will require not only the military effort to deny sanctuary to the enemy, to limit their freedom of movement, build a capacity of regional partners, but require much greater cooperation amongst intelligence organizations from nations. it is over 100 nations that is have foreign fighters in syria and iraq with over 30,000 foreign fighters. so the cooperation of all those countries in the intelligence organizations, law enforcement officials, as well as the military coalition that would put together in iraq and syria and conducting operations elsewhere will be critical. it is going to take some time before we get there.
i am confident at least today we are having momentum in iraq and syria and taking actions outside of iraq and syria to keep pressure as we tried to keep pressure on them both the countries, it will be necessary we do the same thing transregionally. mr. larsen: move to the budget and talk about taking the long view. unfortunately for you, you don't get to be here for the implementation of the long view to help us deal with the actual long view. we have been having this debate a little bit. i'm wondering how you envision affording these incredibly expensive programs that we have outside, not just outside of this budget but outside of the five years and even 10. nuclear modernization is one of those but it's not the only one where we're going to be called upon if we have the fortunate success of staying here to resolve and solve.
secretary carter: well, we can afford all of those. wille assuming that we -- if to have there's instability or sequester, as the chairman said, we are going to have to fundamentally reassess our ability to meet our needs, not only in the long run but in the short run, and you're right. it will be future congresses and future administrations who carry that burden. i hope that they continue to give us budget stability as we've had now for two years. that's what the country needs. that's what our department needs. that's what, by the way, every department trying to administer programs needs and -- but if we snap back to the sequester cuts, we're going to have to reconsider all of these
plans. we need them and therefore we need the stability. mr. larsen: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. mr. forbes: thank you, gentlemen, for being here. general dunford, it's great to have a top uniform officer from the united states to be here. i'll direct my questions to you since i only have five minutes. i will ask the questions we've been asking all our officers before us, did you submit your written remarks to anyone for approval or review other than someone under your direct command before you had to come before us? general dunford: congressman, i did submit my remarks to the office of secretary of defense as well as the office of management and budget. no changes were made in my written remarks as a result of that review. mr. forbes: one of the things i heard you say in response to the chairman was you said your readiness concerns were based on an unstable fiscal environment . and one of the concerns i always
have, we wrestle with in this committee, is simply this. when we look at whether strategies driving the budget, the president's budget or whether the president's budget is driving strategy, is it strategy predominant or is the president's budget that is predominant driving the strategy? general dunford: congressman, this year i think it's fair to say within the top line we were given -- mr. forbes: for the last several years, is it the strategy predominant driving the budget or is it the budget driving the strategy? general dunford: i'd say if you go back to the last few years and look at sequestration in 2013, the fiscal environment has had a bigger impact. mr. forbes: when we constantly ask people that have come here, many people from the pentagon saying the budget is in line with the strategy, what you've been saying is the budget that's
been driving the strategy? general dunford: congressman, if i could give you a nuanced answer. here's what i'm confident in saying. today we have a defense strategy that causes us to defeat an enemy, to deny another adversary, protect the homeland as well as deal with violent extremism. i believe in 2017 we'll be able to do it. mr. forbes: i'm sorry to cut you off. i only have three minutes. i have a document here signed by president obama on january 3, 2012 for defense guidance and he said this guidance was requested to guide the spending over the coming decade. then i have it signed on january 5, the defense guidance by secretary panetta, and this is what over and over again people have been coming in here pointing to and saying this has been directing their spending and then we had in 2014 the quadrennial defense review. over and over again people have sat where you are sitting and have said that this has guided the spending of the department of defense. has the department of defense been following the president's guidelines and have been basing their spending on these two documents? general dunford: we have. we have, congressman.
but what we've been doing is living year to year and deferring modernization that will cause a bill in the outyears. mr. forbes: and i understand this. let me ask you this. these documents are based on certain assumptions. did either of these two documents account for the rise of isil? general dunford: they did not. mr. forbes: did either of these two documents say our forces will no longer be in iraq and afghanistan? general dunford: they did not. mr. forbes: and in fact we do have forces still in iraq and afghanistan. did either of these two documents assume that we would reset our relationship with russia and that we would be able to cooperate with them? general dunford: we did not foresee russia's current actions in those -- mr. forbes: the assumptions made for these two documents were not with russia? general dunford: correct. mr. forbes: did these two documents account for china's aggression in the south china sea? general dunford: not to the extent we've seen it, congressman. mr. forbes: wouldn't it be fair to say if the assumptions that these documents were based upon
were invalid or wrong that the strategy would also have been invalid or wrong? general dunford: the strategy needs to be refined and we're in a process of doing that, that's correct, congressman. mr. forbes: and also, general odierno, when i asked him this question right after these were put into place, he said we struggle to meet even one contingency operation and it's based on assumptions and i believe some of the assumptions that were made were unrealistic and positive assumptions and yet these are the two documents that helped guide the president's budget in 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017. so wouldn't it be fair, general, for us to say that instead of an unstable physical environment, the reason we're in the current situation we're in is because the president's strategies were based on faulty assumptions? general dunford: this year, congressman. mr. forbes: i'm talking about the last several years leading up to this year's budget is not putting us in the situation that the chairman talked about?
general dunford: if we could -- mr. forbes: i'm asking wouldn't it be fair to say rather than physical instability, the reason we have a problem is because of a faulty strategy? and with that, mr. chairman, i know my time's up and i yield back. mr. thornberry: mr. courtney. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for your service and your testimony today. i have a couple quick questions. secretary carter, admiral's retired, admiral -- undersecretary of staff, secretary mavis have all appeared over the last couple of weeks and we talked about the question of longview, of the undersea fleet, which admiral harris and general breedlove said at this point are playing zone defense out there because of what's happening in the pacific and north atlantic. this is a good budget in terms of investing or shipbuilding and submarine building. down the road there is a possibility we'll see a depth at the worst possible time.
i guess the question is -- do you agree this is an issue we need to work on as secretary stackly has promised so that we, again, are able to keep our eyes focused on the longview in terms of that emerging challenge? secretary carter: i do agree with that. our undersea capability is a critical strength of the united states. we need to keep that strength and extend that strength and i think the biggest issue we're going to face beginning in the 20's is the beginning of the ohio class replacement. and that is the building once again of ssbn's as well as
attack submarines, s.s.n.'s, which we're doing today and we've been stressing now for several years we're going to need some consideration of the need to recapitalize our undersea nuclear deterrent because that can't be done at the expense of the rest of the undersea fleet or we will erode our dominance. that's a major issue that's looming in the 20's. mr. courtney: thank you. again, we think -- we found some ways to use different authorities, multiyear procurement, etc., to try to maximize every efficiency to help in that effort and, again, secretary stakly emphasized that when he appeared before the committee. i'd like to shift gears for a second. thank you for your comments what happened in brussels yesterday and also noting that brussels is actually the home of nato and, you know, there's a lot of work that takes place in that city which are -- which is extremely important in terms of our national defense. yesterday, the frontrunner for the republican nomination told "the washington post," nato was set up at a different time. i think nato as a concept is good but not as good when it first evolved.
in your testimony i counted three instances, the fight against isil, the continuing efforts in afghanistan and also the european reassurance initiative where nato is absolutely at the center of our military strategy and operations. is nato relevant today? i guess we need to ask that question given what's out there in the public domain. secretary carter: well, let me begin by saying the following, and i said this before and i'm going to say this again and again in the course of the year. i recognize that this is an election year. i will not speak to anything that is in the presidential debate. i believe that our department has a tradition of standing apart and i very much value and
respect that tradition and so i am going to with great respect decline to answer any question that is framed in those terms. and by the way, also, not have general dunford or any of our -- especially of our uniformed -- mr. courtney: i respect that. i guess the question is the european reassurance initiative that funding, again, is going to flow from the nato structure. that's not a -- secretary carter: it is. it is. it is. and securing our nato partners from particularly russian aggression is the principal purpose of the european reassurance initiative. with respect to the counter-isil fight, the nato allies as individual countries are members of the coalition. the question has arisen whether nato as a group should also be a
member of the coalition and that is being discussed right now with nato. the reason for that being that nato has some force generation capabilities that no individual country has. and that's the reason where the question arises. mr. courtney: thank you for the answers. mr. thornberry: mr. miller. mr. miller: general dunford, looking back to the 2012, 2014 strategic guidance and defense reviews, what specifically has changed in the geopolitical world, and based on those changes, is it safe to say we need to look at falling on what mr. forbes said, recalibration or resizing of our current forces? general dunford: congressman, thanks. i would say the most significant changes, one has been russia. two has been the rise of isil. we talked about the behavior of
china in the south china sea, and certainly the capability and development of north korea have all been a concern. iran remains a concern but quite frankly the trajectory has been predictable when those strategy documents were written. we accounted for iran. in the four other areas, we've seen capability, development or behavior or a combination of the two that have significantly changed the operating environment over the last few years. mr. miller: and i do think it's important that the american people understand the guidance that was used to set the size and shape of the force and the current guidance, as you already stated to defeat a regional adversary and deny other aggressor in another region. however, in your written statement you stated that, quote, the joint force will be challenged to respond to a major written contingency, unquote, and that, quote, capability and capacity shortfalls will be particularly acute to the force were to call to a second contingency on an overlapping timeline. so i would think that this might suggest that there's a significant risk that the joint
force wouldn't be even to execute a single major contingency operation, is that true? general dunford: congressman, our assessment is we can meet the requirements in a single contingency. there is significant risk in our ability to do that. certain capability areas would be particularly stressed, but we can accomplish the suggestives, albeit more time and casualties. mr. miller: two contingencies, denying an aggressor and defending another. could the current force today defeat a north korea and to deny russia while at the same time defending the homeland? general dunford: congressman, we would be challenged to do those three things. our assessment is we can do that, again, but it would take more time, particularly in the case of north korea, would take more time and we would see more casualties than we would want to have.
mr. miller: so you had -- the department has cut the end strength and the force structure on the assumption it did have the sufficient forces to carry out the assumptions that are there. so given the current strategic environment, will the department need to revisit, force, size and guidance? general dunford: congressman, just to be clear. in terms of cutting force structure, my perspective is, you know, force structure is one element, but what's most important is that the force structure that we have has the proper resourcing to be well-trained and well-equipped. and so what i believe we've done inside the budget is we've got the force structure that's affordable within the top line that we have and we can achieve the balance between the training, the resourcing, the modernization, the infrastructure, support and the force structure, all those things have to be combined. so my assessment is we are trying to get the balance right as opposed to saying the current force structure is absolutely the best force structure we can have. mr. miller: thank you. i yield back. mr. thornberry: ms. tsongas. ms. tsongas: thank you, mr. chairman.
and welcome to our guests. it's always good to have you before us. and i think today's tragic event in brussels really are a stark reminder of the many challenges that you all deal with every day and that we're here to support you with. and i pearblely appreciated both appreciated your comments on the need for budget stability as you deal with the challenges of today but also with the need to look forward because, as we all know, and i remember previous chairman, ike skelton, also commenting upon that we plan for today but we never quite know where the next challenge is going to come from. and in the world we live in today, it's clear that they can come from many, many different places. but secretary carter, i also wanted to thank you for your you -- the emphasis you placed on this year's budget on research and development, really knowing it's key to maintaining our technological edge, that in this rapidly changing environment we got to maintain our investments.
and as many on the committee know, defense-related research and development has faced a disproportionately large cut over the past several years, far more than has been required under the budget control act. so i was especially encouraged to see that the department will be investing in two new facilities at m.i.t.'s lincoln lab. as you know, the lab has provided the department with break through you advancements for decades and i thank you for your support of the lab's revitalization and the important role it plays in the massachusetts innovation ecosystem. it's part of something much larger. but i'd like it turn to the issue of sexual assault prevention and response in the military. i've been troubled by a number of stories, including a series in the a.p., and recent stories in "the washington post" about senior officer sexual assault cases, which have called into question the transparency of the military justice system and the service's willingness to pursue allegations against officers.
i understand that the military justice review group's proposal that was shared with this committee by the department gives the department two years to come up with a design for an online system of tracking cases and two years to implement that system. and i would encourage the department to work with all to make the military justice system as transparent as possible. i hope the department will make this system open to survivors and the public as you move ahead. but we have all heard the troubling accounts of victims of military sexual assault who are later retaliated against. those who seek recourse through the system of justice. some 62% of victims have experienced social or professional retaliation, according to the department's own survey data. and i've also read the judicial proceedings panel recommendation of having a standard reporting form. it's important to me that the department track these incidences and hold those
responsible accountable, key to maintaining the unit cohesion and all that is part of readiness as well. so i have my questions for secretary carter. what is the department doing to ensure service members who report sexual assault aren't retaliated against? secretary carter: thank you very much for that question. sexual assault is unacceptable anywhere in society, but it's particularly unacceptable in our military and the reason is this. the profession of arms is based upon trust and it's based upon honor. and sexual assault erodes both honor and trust, and for that reason is completely
unacceptable at any level. moreover, to get to your point, as we study that question more and take more action -- and i'm not happy that there is sexual assault in the military. i'm very pleased that we are taking it on frontly and we need to do that. we need to learn how to do better. the two issues you raised are places where we are learning. retaliation, for example, was something that i don't think -- i think it's fair to say in our department, we did not appreciate the importance of that phenomenon until the last couple of years. and so we are having to take that onboard. retaliation creates additional victims to the victim of the sexual assault. and this can be peers and it can be others who are part of the -- of giving the victim their care, their right, the options and the response that they deserve. and so it's an important new
ingredient and we are trying to get on top of that. finally, with respect to transparency, we're committed to that. you're right. we have made a commitment to you about greater transparency in this matter. i intend for us to carry that. thank you for raising this. ms. tsongas: thank you. i've run out of time. mr. thornberry: mr. wilson. mr. wilson: with the attacks in brussels, it's another reminder we're in a global war on terrorism. it is continuing and i just want you to know that i have faith in you and we're counting on you to protect american families. and part of that is not forgetting 9/11. this is a continuing war. we will be in it for quite a while, but your service, i know i appreciate as a grateful dad of four sons who have served in the military under y'all's command. general dunford, as chairman thornberry has mentioned, we have serious concerns about the state of the marine corps aviation.
marine corps aviators and maintainers at the marine corps station beaufort, south carolina, told us how they had to cannibalize aircraft to get the fleet in the air. they don't have the people. they are not getting the training. furthermore, general robert neller has testified there haven't enough aircraft to even meet our training and mission requirements. i'm very concerned that if they had to deploy tomorrow they'd be sent into a fight unprepared and ill-equipped. how are we addressing this potential or reality in the inability to have multiadversary engagement? beyond marine corps aviation, what else can we -- secretary carter: i acknowledge your comments and thank you for the contribution of your sons. mr. wilson: again, hey, we're in this together but the american people need to know it's a global war on terrorism. 9/11 must not be forgotten so thank you. general dunford: congressman, quickly, how we get in the
position of marine aviation and across the joint force, there are similar stories i could point out. part of it was deferred modernization so we're flying aircraft now that are very old. part of it was back in 2013 we went through sequestration. we had a backlog of depot level maintenance. that caused aircraft and so forth. so these issues exist throughout the joint force and part of what we're arguing for is stability and funding, managing the operational tempo and getting the appropriate resources is going to be what we need to get out of this trough and it's going to take some years to be able to do that. mr. wilson: and we will be working with you. admiral john richardson testified before the senate armed services committee that iran had violated international law earlier this year by boarding sovereign u.s. vessels, detaining 10 u.s. sailors and seized an estimated 13,000 pages worth of information from laptops, g.p.s. devices and maps.
would you agree with admiral richardson's assessment? if so, would you please lelt us know what subsequent actions have been used to rectify this? secretary carter: i agree with admiral richardson. the actions of the iranians with respect to our sailors was unprofessional. it was outrageous, and i just caution you all, since admiral richardson is looking into the circumstances of this matter, but when you see something on television, you're looking through the lens of iranian tv and iranian propaganda. those sailors didn't deserve that. that's -- we would never treat people in that manner and to get to your question -- i can't say much about it -- but at the time we were preparing to protect our people.
as soon as they were seized and we only stood down that effort when we were assured they were going to be returned to us safely. but it was outrageous treatment. i think admiral richardson has stressed that and i would second that. but also i want to commend him on the treatment of the sailors. they're back home. the navy did what it needed to do, which is first of all take care of their health and welfare and is now learning the full circumstances that he has not completed his review of that. so i don't know what his consequences are of that, but this much we know which is that is not behavior that we would have exhibited in the reverse circumstance. mr. wilson: i also want to thank you, mr. secretary, for your efforts to promote public-private cooperation in cybersecurity but a challenge we have is recruiting and training. what are we doing to prepare for the continuing cyberwar? secretary carter: well, thank you for that question. you're absolutely right. the critical thing in cyber is people, good people. we're spending more money on it. we're making big investments in it but that's not the key. the key is are we able to get
the people to flash out over cyberforce teams which we're building up at cybercomm. the key is people. we're doing better to retracting and retaining skilled, technical people. i'll be up at a physics class at west point as it happens tomorrow. seeing our wonderful people being technically trained in their cybercenter there. but in addition, let me say building bridges, which i'm trying to do, we're all trying to do between our department and the technology community is critical. historically the united states has drawn upon the great strength of this nation, whether it's satellites or missiles or the internet itself. and we need to keep doing that and i'm committed to doing that because that's part of the
future. and the last thing i'll say is just a pitch for the role of the national guard and the reserve component in this regard. these -- i was up in washington state a couple of weeks ago. there is a reserve unit up there that consists of people who work at top-notch companies like microsoft all day on network defense and then in their guard duty they're defending our networks. it doesn't get any better than that. a citizen soldier coming in in cyber. so there are lots of ways we're trying to make sure we have good people, but we are -- we are able to but that's the key is good people in cyber. mr. wilson: thank you. mr. thornberry: mr. takai. mr. takai: thank you. i'd like to talk about the rim of the pacific excercises. in your letters to senators mccain and reid, rempac would advance cooperative approaches to common security challenges, increase transparency and mutual understanding. and integrate china into a cooperative forum. you also say that you may modify our defense engagement decisions based on evolving circumstances.
my question is, have you recently evaluated china and have you made any changes to the invitation to the p.l.a. navy to participate in this year's rempac? secretary carter: we're constantly evaluating our relationship with china and china's behavior, including in the south china sea where i emphasize we have very serious concerns about their aggressive militarization there. they have an invitation to rempac, and we will continue to review that. but you might say, what's the logic for having them there in the first place. our strategy in the asia pacific is not to exclude anyone but to keep the security architecture going there and which everyone participates and that's what has led over 50 years to the rise of japan, then south korea, then taiwan, then southeast asia and now, yes, china and india.
we're not excluding china from that security architecture in which america plays the pivotal role, and we intend to keep playing that pivotal role. that's what the rebalance is all about. china is, however, self-isolating. its behavior is isolating itself in the region. that's why all these partners are coming to us and saying, can you do more with us, so not just big exercises with lots of parties like rempac, but we have the japanese investing more. australians investing more. the philippines just inviting us once again to work with them more closely. even vietnam, india. so chinese behavior is self-isolating. and driving many countries to want to do more with us and we're doing more with us. but that's not the way china is going to continue to benefit as
it has now for several decades from the security system and the open system that we the united states have underwritten now for many decades. mr. takai: ok. so if china builds a runway on scarborough shoal reef, pacomm commander says beijing will have access across the south china sea. secretary carter, is china conducting or preparing to conduct reclamation at the scarborough shoals, which is only 120 miles from the philippines where our navy regularly operates? and would you say this behavior is consistent with u.s. objectives and the regional security environment? secretary carter: well, congressman, we're concerned about that prospect and is it consistent? no. it's not consistent. it's the kind of behavior that we will be react to in our own
military posture and deployments and all the ream national partners will react to. it will be self-defeating and self-isolating for china. i hope they don't do that but we're prepared for that eventuallyality should it occur. no, it's not a good thing for them to do that and they shouldn't. by the way, i say just to be fair about it, our policy is no one ought to be militaryizing these features. over are these disputes maritime claims in the south china sea. our view is not to take sides on them. our view is everybody should resolve those peacefully and not militarize those features. china and anyone else who has done that but china has done it by far more than anyone else. mr. takai: i agree it's not consistent with u.s. objectives and like you say, no one should be militarizing that area. so my question then is, why then should we reward china with
their aggressive behavior by including them in an event meant for allies and partners? china's behavior is the polar opposite, as you mentioned, of u.s. objectives in the region and that's why i submitted a proposal to the ndaa that would prohibit china's participation in rempac this year. i hope you and your department will reassess this situation and follow suit. do you have any comment? briefly, we have 10 seconds. secretary carter: we're constantly reassessing for that. i gave you the logic for that in the first place and we'll reassess it in accordance with your letter. mr. takai: thank you. mr. thornberry: mr. turner. mr. turner: thank you, mr. chairman. last week general millie stated before the committee, quote, that less than one third of the army forces are at acceptable readiness levels to conduct sustained ground combat in a full spectrum environment against a highly lethal hybrid threat or near peer adversary. obviously this statistic is
undoubtedly alarming, and illustrates the risks associated with a less than ready military force is unacceptable. all too often we speak about military risk in terms of numbers and percentages, as opposed to more real and tangible consequences. when asked a similar question last year about risk, then chief of staff admiral ray odierno said there is a link between that and loss of lives on the battlefield. odierno said people would die. while i criticize my frankly, it's clear what is meant when you say, risk. we're currently in the throws of debate.
people say we can increase risk, we can lower the costs, we can continue to accept sequestration or cuts. ondunford, would you please help us better understand when you say risk? is there a direct correlation between risk and loss of lives on the battlefield? and also, is there a direct correlation between risk and winning knowing we now have issues with russia, china, north korea and certainly isis? can you give us an understanding of how the word risk translates? thank you. general dunford: congressman, yes, i can. there is a correlation of risk and casualties. when i talk about risk against our objectives, i'm talking about how long it will take and how many casualties we will suffer. those are two elements of risk that i refer to. you mentioned sequestration and i would tell you what the risk of sequestration is. the risk of sequestration and i'm talking the $100 billion that still looms out there, means we have to go back and rewrite our strategy and i'm talking about the ends of our strategy. so when you talk about winning, there is a correlation, also, between our ability to win against the current adversaries we've identified, the peer competitors that we've
identified, and sequestration. and my assessment is we will not be deal with the five challenges that secretary carter and i outlined in our opening remarks, russia, china, north korea, violent extremism. were we go to sequester level if funding, i don't think we could satisfactory deal with those five challenges and by the way the challenges we can't foresee. mr. turner: secretary carter, when you were here last year, one of the things you said was it would be so important to get a two-year budget deal. many of us in congress, including myself who voted for it, believe we had a two-year budget deal. we believe that we'd be looking this year at the budgetary process with a fairly firm 574 commitment to base budget funding which would result in stopping the cuts that the department of defense has certainly -- has been put to. but when we received the president's budget, the president indicated there were increased overseas contingens operations funding he would need
for his operations, $3.4 billion for europe. additional dollars for isis. rather than putting those on top, meaning there are additional things the president would need to do, he took that out of the base funding of the department of defense. now, we're having in congress the debate putting those dollars back. and, again, it was unexpected because that was not part of the two-year budget deal that you advocated for and we voted for and we all thought we were operating under. could you please tell us what the consequences are of the cuts that would happen to the base budget of department of defense if we accept the president's budget? because clearly there are things you are going to not do that you will get to do if we put that money back. secretary carter: well, the president's budget reflects the bipartisan budget agreement. the numbers in the budget are the numbers in the b.b.a. mr. turner: secretary carter, i
know you know we completely disagree with you. congress's expectation was that you had a base budget of 574. i don't think you would have supported a two-year budget that would have a cut to the base budget in year 2017. my question is not really what's the deal. my question is, what are you losing? because you're obviously losing something from 574 are the reduction the president has taken of about $13 billion out of the base budget for o.c.o. cooperation. secretary carter: we have to agree to disagree about whether we budgeted to the b.b.a. but we believe we did. however, to answer what i gather is part of your question, namely, what did we do about the difference between what we said last year we intended to request this year and what we requested this year. i addressed that earlier. that was the $22 billion
difference that because of o.c.o., and some other economic adjustments that went our way, like fuel prices and so forth, ended up being a net of $11 billion. i explained how exactly what we did to adjust and mitigate risk associated with that $11 billion. we cut a lot of minor procurement programs. we scaled back some of our aircraft buys. we took it out of milcon. that's how we accommodated the $11 billion. we can tell you in detail how that was done. i also explained what we didn't do. we didn't go into military pay to make up that difference. we didn't go into the readiness recovery plans that the chairman has described and are so critical to restore our readiness, including full spectrum readiness for the army and the other services. we didn't cancel any multiyear procurements or other major acquisition programs.
and we didn't change any of our force structure target -- number of ships, army end strength or anything like that. we did what we did. we described what it is. we believe that we were able to mitigate that risk, and that's what we did. our biggest risk going forward, i'll just say it again. we said it many times. the biggest risk to us strategically in our defense is a return to sequestration, a collapse of bipartisan budget agreement and that is our biggest concern. mr. thornberry: mr. o'rourke. mr. o'rourke: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, last week we were able to listen to testimony from acting secretary of the army murphy and general millie and secretary murphy said, to continue this line of questioning of risk, said something to the effect of this budget places the army at high risk.
and prior to that, general millie had made that connection explicit between risk and the loss of service members' lives who we will put in harm's way. rereduce risk. we reduce that loss of life. it couldn't be more grave to make a decision on. my question for you is, is that level of risk comparable in the other service branches? and what is your guidance to us as the committee going into the ndaa, as a congress that might look in the near future at supplemental funding to further mitigate that risk in this upcoming budget year? secretary carter: well, first of sec. carter: first of all, let me completely associate myself with acting secretary murphy and what general milley said. that is our highest priority for the army in this budget, is readiness.
they both made that clear. i concurred in that, and that is why the army's readiness recovery plan is fully funded in the budget. what does that consist of? he gets back to the question earlier about full-spectrum. remember, we are coming from an army that was working extremely hard in iraq and afghanistan to meet the rotational needs of the counterinsurgency battle. they were being trained for that. now they are trying to restore their training to full spectrum for the other problems we highlighted among the five highlighted in this budget. to do that, they need to pass through their training ranges. those high-level training ranges have a certain capacity. we are building that capacity, but it will take some time for them to come out of it. it is not just going to take time. it will take budget stability.
that is why i keep him back to the need for budget stability. the other services have comparable readiness issues. they are different but comparable in the following sense. all are trying to make long-term plans to get better in readiness. in the marine corps, it is particularly aviation, as the chairman has pointed out. in the navy, it is principally a maintenance issue. they are working very hard on that. in the air force, it is very importantly, and i think the air force leadership has indicated this and the chairman mentioned this as well, the air force is trying to train for high readiness at the same time we are working them hard in the counter isil fight and elsewhere. there is a challenge in each case. we have plans to improve readiness, but they cannot be executed if we return the budget
to sequester levels. >> let me ask a few follow-up questions to clarify. are we doing all we can do within this budget request to mitigate that risk? if not, what do we need to do? i would be happy to join my colleagues and you in making the necessary changes. my understanding is risk is a term of art in terms of what the service chief submits to the chairman of the joint chiefs. if what wee to know heard from the acting secretary and chief of staff of the army reflected in the other service branches, yes or no. more resources than disclosed in the hearing last week? sec. carter: with respect to the first part, we have in this budget for 17 done everything the army wanted to do.
i completely support them to get on the path to restore readiness. they cannot be done overnight -- it cannot be done overnight. it is not a money issue. it is a money stability issue for the army. we have got to have that. does that translate into risk? yes. does that translate into risk for other services? yes, it does. does that reflect how we deal with risk in each service contribution to joint work plans? absolutely, it does. >> thank you. out of time. thank you mr. chairman. >> mr. rogers. mr. rogers: what priority to your assigned to the guitar -- department's nuclear deterrent mission? the bedrock it is of our defense. it is not in the news every day, thank goodness, but it is the bedrock of our defense.
having a safe, secure, and reliable nuclear deterrent is bedrock priority. we give it the highest priority. that is in operating the force currently and the subject was raised earlier about the need to keep a safe, secure, and reliable nuclear deterrent. the particular issue raised was the nuclear sub. that is a necessary and expensive evolution, but we have to do it because we have to retain a safe, secure, and reliable nuclear force as a bedrock. leads to my second question. do you see we cap relay station -- recapitalization as affordable in this budget? sec. carter: you can see right now that the submarine recapitalization in the decade of the 20's cannot be taken out
of the rest of the navy shipbuilding budget without seriously crippling that shipbuilding budget, so we need to make room for that. we have been saying that for several years. that.e to do the tridents submarines are aging out. it has to do with the stress on of submerging and coming up so many times. they have to be replaced. it is absolutely essential. we will need to recapitalize it. are theal dunford, joint chiefs convinced and unanimous we must revitalize the triad? general dunford: i am. i have not talked to the current group of chiefs collectively. previously when i was in the mean crimp the less marine corps, they unanimously subscribed to modernization of the triad.
>> your predecessor undertook an assessment of the russian violation of the treaty. he concluded it posed a risk to the united states as well as to the security of our allies in europe. do you agree? >> i do. the budget is the capabilities to deal with that threat. >> we have been waiting over a year to be briefed on the military options you have in response to that. can you assure me we will get that, me and my staff? within the next three to four weeks? general dunford: i and my staff will come see you. >> i appreciate that. i yield the balance of my time. >> general dunford, a couple of years ago, i was in afghanistan and you were the senior american commander. 10,000 u.s. forces.
in january, i was back in afghanistan. --eral campbell was operator operating under a force level of 9500 troops. now general nicholson is on the ground and has undertaken a review of the situation to make his recommendations. if he were to come back after completing his review with a recommendation to change the force management level, i don't know who invented that term but it bothers me, but if he were to say we need to increase that fml , ifome unspecified number you were to say we need to lift restrictions we are operating under the say i cannot advise and assist below the core level, if you were to say i need the authority to target the network, would you support those recommendations going to the president?
dunford: he will provide recommendations. i can assure you my recommendation will be benchmarked against my assessment of our ability to meet our objectives. that is what i did on the ground and what i do in my current position. >> so you don't know if you would support general nicholson's recommendations? what i wouldrd: make clear to the president is whatever capabilities i believe are necessary, and i cannot speculate if he has asked for an increase, but if he said these are the capabilities we need to accomplish the mission and i assessment, his i would forward to the secretary whatever recommendations are necessary to achieve the in-state of that. --end state of that. sec. carter: let me second that.
that is the way it works. >> thank you for being here this morning and for your service. both of you talked about the threat of north korea in your opening remarks. i appreciate your leadership in maintaining the department's focus on current and emerging threats in the asia-pacific. i think north korea's launch demonstrated this threat. representing hawaii, this is something we are keenly aware of as the threat from north korea continues with their increased capabilities as well as people on the west coast who find themselves within range of their icbms. secretary carter, it is the ongoing consultations with south
korea. can you give us an update on those talks and share the department's commitment to continuing to increase and enhance our missile defense capabilities of the homeland? in particular, in hawaii, we have a test site at the pacific missile range facility. i and others are pushing towards operationalizing that to increase that protection. sec. carter: thank you. thank you for the role behold light facilities do play in allowing us to develop and test our missile defenses. we are doing a number of things to react to and protect ourselves and our people from a north korean missile threat. about fight tonight on the korean peninsula. we are absolutely committed to that. i pay attention to that every day. it is not in the newspapers
every day. contribution to the defense of south korea is very important and rocksolid. on the missile defense front, we are doing things at all ranges. to answer your question about peninsula, korean we are discussing that with the koreans. is to ben for that able to protect the integrity of the peninsula against north korean missiles of greater range. that is why we want to add thad to what exists now, patriot, , withy to the homeland the possibility of north korea having the capability to range the united states with icbms, we began several years to increase the number of our ground-based interceptor systems and also its
capabilities. we are increasing the number of those interceptors from 30 to 34. we are improving the kill vehicle on the front end and adding radars, so we are doing a great deal. unfortunately, we have to because we see the action of north korea yesterday. shift to bothe to of your comments with regard to ukraine and russia. much of the $3.4 billion from the european initiative goes towards military funding and training and so on and so forth. in particular in ukraine, there are many challenges they are facing in their government. specifically in the military, we have seen how there is no tank to take competition possible as ukraine faces different threats coming from russia. can you speak to what kind of
training we are assisting them with with regard to unconventional or special forces tactics and guerrilla warfare which can take a toll on what russia is doing their? sec. carter: we are doing that. that is part of the support we give to the ukrainian forces, both against symmetrical or traditional lines of combat operations and also helping them .ith this unique brand i'm afraid to say, here to stay brand, of hybrid warfare we see in ukraine. general dunford: we have five conventional ukrainian battalions going through training and one special operations unit going through training. training will complete in september. i received an update as assessed as some of the most effective training we have provided to the ukrainians to date. much of that training is informed by russian behavior
over the last few years and lessons learned in terms of integrating unconventional and conventional capabilities. i believe we are addressing that in our training program now taking place with ukrainian forces. heretofore, we trained just interior minister forces. ofs is the first series other forces trained in this area. , centcoml austin commander, said distant capabilities will be necessary includingaq and mosul additional u.s. personnel, logistics, and other advise and assist teams. do you agree with general austin that additional troops on the ground are going to be necessary to take those cities? sec. carter: i do.
we already have. i expect us to do more because we are looking for opportunities to do more. general austin is right. course, all of this is in support of iraqi security forces, but it includes support to the iraqi army, support to sunni tribal forces, support for police training. it is not just u.s., but i have been getting coalition contributions as well. as we assemble the forces to will be doing we more. when we have taken those requests to the president, as the chairman said earlier, he has consistently granted those requests. i expect there will be more in the future because we want to get mosul. we want to defeat isil in iraq. morocca ast to have well. let me turn to something more mundane but important.
michael mccord, thank you for from your group on where everything stands now. i don't want to go into the details, but thank you for getting that to the committee. can you talk to us about transition to a new, civilian leadership team next year and the impact that might have with respect to getting this audit process done by the deadlines? -- we have impact panetta started this deal. secretary, you are in favor of it are there risks a new civilian team may not have the same emphasis? am fully in i support of it. and i thank you for your insistence and leadership inducing us to do this. i also want to thank mike mccord and his team for their role in
it. you ask about the future. continueis this will because the logic is quite clear, the necessity is quite clear, so i think that will be clear to people who come after myself and the chairman. i am pretty confident that will, certainly showed. of course, you will have a role in helping remind them of this. there is a whole team behind this in all of our confines. i think they are committed to this work and will remain committed to this work. gen. dunford: i can speak from my current perspective and as a former service chief. i do believe it is part of our culture. we have been at this four or five years and have worked hard at it. frankly, i think the uniformed personnel are involved -- involved in the civil service personnel involved in the audit are fully committed to laying on the table a clean audit.
i don't think the civilian transition this year is going to change the objective of the individuals who have been working so hard. most of the folks doing the heavy lifting are not going anywhere. they are clear in their commitment to get this thing done. >> i appreciate that. i hope our senate colleagues during the confirmation process will make that clear. the resources necessary to move this forward are in this budget? sec. carter: they are. >> general dunford, did you want to comment on the need for additional u.s. troops to counter isil and defeat them? gen. dunford: i fully support the comments general austin has made and the secretary has endorsed. we have from the beginning said we would recommend whatever capabilities necessary to maintain momentum and achieve the end state. i do assess it to be successful. we will need additional
capabilities and will be prepared to provide that to the president. >> mr. record, i promised mr. conaway we would do a briefing or hearing on the audit issue. we will be talking with you and the other folks about dates for that. something where mr. conaway will stay on our case until we see it through. i think a lot of us are committed to doing that. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. as a representative from the asia-pacific area, i would like to express my sincere sympathy for the people of belgium and family of the marine killed this weekend in iraq. the representative andady spoke on china another representative referenced north korea. theuam, we are considered
tip of the spear in the asia-pacific region. i know the budget request contains nearly $250 million for military construction projects. we are seeing tangible developments such as facility construction take place. carter,ing secretary what role the administration sees for guam in the barter strategy --broader strategy? should congress continue moving forward with construction on guam? it is often said budgets reflect priorities. you spoke to the armed services committee last week about continuing to support the asia-pacific rebalance strategy. would you say the strategy continues to be a priority of the administration? sec. carter: the asia-pacific is where half of humanity lives. it is where half of the economic activity of the globe is. it is the single region of greatest consequence for america's future. we cant forget that. thank you for everything gua m does with us and for us and as
part of us. guam is a critical part of the posture improvements and strengthening we are doing in the asia-pacific i mentioned the part we are doing unilaterally. guam is part of that. we do a lot with partners as well. there is so much momentum. part of that momentum is caused by chinese aggression. but we are determined to meet it. guam is an important part of that, so thank you. >> thank you, mr. secretary. you have done so much for us. i thank you for your contributions. i have another question for yourself or secretary mccord. it is estimated that part -- the defense department spends twice as much on service contractors as on civilian personnel, even though they are often doing the same work. nevertheless, the department
urgent request seeks to cut civilian personnel increase spending on service contracts. in this constraint fiscal environment, can we expect to see the department leverage the clear cost savings found in civilian personnel versus contractors? are we still waiting for a complete accounting of all service contracts mandated back in 2008? but we have still not received the report. sec. carter: thank you. i will say at the beginning and then turn it over to undersecretary mccord, we are theitted to reducing strength, particularly of headquarters staffs, both civilian and contractor and military. that is where those numbers come from. are we getting better at understanding how we are doing the spend for services contracting? yes, we are getting better at that. the chief management officer of
the department along with mr. record work on that and we are committed to meeting those targets. it are part of our budget outlook. if we don't keep working on it, we will not be able to invest. it is an essential thing to do. let me ask it undersecretary mccord wants to add anything. mr. mccord: we have instructions internal and from congress to keepdown civilian and commensurate with the drawdown of the military. we recognize that mandate. we are looking hard at service contractors. dcmo is leading the effort. my turn is coming within the week to report within my own office, just like everybody else has to do, on what we are doing to review all of our service contracts to make sure they are still justified. sunlightas shown the of looking drive's the cost down.
that is an important part of our efficiency effort with this budget. >> i only have a few seconds left could we still have not received the report. will we received a report of some kind? this has been due since 2008. mr. mccord: we will have to get back to you on the status of the report. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. mr. whitman. >> thank you. thank you for joining us today. general dunford, in the previous hearings the armed house services committee has held, there has been a lot of discussion about readiness. concerned about returning to full spectrum readiness is at the top of our list. i think general milly said it best when he said it does not have a constituency. i think that is why it is critical to make sure we are the constituency for readiness for the men and women in uniform. tell me are with the current
budget situation, where we protect to be the best project to be on the path to restore readiness. we are at the point of setting conditions to restore readiness. and me how far away we are what milestones you expect to achieve. we took input from all services as to what they needed in fy 17 along their path to restore readiness. that was a priority for the secretary. we fully resource for service plans for readiness restoration, keeping in mind we knew we could not get to where we needed to be in 17 because the other elements associated. with regard to where we are, three services have indicated fy 20 or 21 would be they where they would get to if we are not sequestered and we receive the resources we project received.
the air force is a little outside of that because of the unique challenges they have. some numbers i have seen are as long as 2028, somewhere between 2024 and 2028. three of the services are five years away. one of the services may be seven years away from full restoration of readiness. >> let me get your perspective of one of the elements of the readiness restoration. that is aviation readiness. one of the areas that concerns me is the assessments we are hearing about aviation readiness. it starts with the marine corps and what they are trying to do. general davis is doing all he can. , how muchpeline issue we can do and how fast we can do it based on capacity. give me your perspective about where we are with aviation readiness across the service branches. and what can we do in the concept of full readiness to get there as soon as possible? gen. dunford: there are two
issues. one is the state of the current aircraft we have. we had difficulty with maintenance associated with the last few years. we are in a trough with regard to the readiness of platforms in the inventory now. the marine corps is the most extreme. each of the services has similar challenges with regard to ready basic aircraft for the playability. we are confident units fully deployed have what they need. units at home station have a shortfall of ready aircraft grade the path to address the is resources.sue so therred modernization aircraft we are flying is in the inventory longer than needs to be. 13 of this not unrelated, but for the -- but they both come together. we need to fully fund our depot level maintenance and sustain
the aircraft in the inventory. we need to stay on path with the modernization plan to address the long-term issue which will manifest in 20 21 and beyond. >> i want to get perspective from you and secretary carter as far as the concept of readiness restoration and looking at how we get to the point we need to be. you bring up an important point. readiness as a term of art has traditionally represented training, operation, and maintenance. but i believe it should also reflect the element of modernization because i think that is directly tied to readiness. i want to get your perspective on where you see modernization as part of the list of elements that must be attained in restoring readiness. part, your: for my are absolutely right. maintenance are important parts of readiness.
answer forces, the real is the replacement of an aircraft that is so old it costs we areh to maintain or simply not able to maintain them at the levels it needs so the guys do not have aircraft to fly. we are seeing that with respect to the ch 53 in the marine corps. corpse another marine example, the f-18's, the older versions. modernization is a key part of restoring readiness. gen. dunford: i will be quick. what i would say is this. i have talked about fy 17 as being sufficient. it is not everything we needed. i subscribe to what the service chiefs have said. my greatest challenge as i look at the budget and future is the modernization that will come in 2019. we talk about the nuclear enterprise. frankly, it is the whole inventory of joint capabilities.
we have had four or five years of deferred revitalization. it took years to get to where we are. it will take years to get out of where we are. modernization is related to health and wellness. we are not as healthy as we want to be, but we can get the job done. we are not investing in the health of the organization today which will result in wellness challenges down the road which will read readiness. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to express my deep condolences and solidarity with our allies in belgium, across nature, and across the european union. morning's terrorist attacks are an attack against civilized people everywhere who condone acts of terror. in your written testimony, you lay out five evolving challenges driving the department's planning and budget. i want to focus on the fifth
challenge, countering terrorism overseas and protecting our homeland. militaryoutlined three objectives to defeat isil. you say the third is the most important, to protect the homeland. the specifice steps the department is taking to ordinate with partners to protect the homeland and what actions commerce needs to take to bolster those initiatives. you mentioned the development of deities counterterrorism strategy -- you mentioned it apart -- you mentioned the d.o.d.'s counterterrorism strategy. you expand on that? gen. dunford: i will start and ask the chairman to reinforce. you are right. our mission of protecting the homeland, which we need to do at the same time we fight overseas
to defeat isil, is one we share with the intelligence community, law-enforcement at all levels. and also with homeland security. we work very closely with them. we have arthcom, command that has precisely that mission, which is to protect the homeland by working with other interagency partners. thatve plans to reinforce if they request it. in an incident. we support them all the time with equipment, technology, intelligence, and so forth. it is a two-way street. it is a smooth working relationship. the chairman can elaborate on that. ask him to want to elaborate on is your second point about trends regional -- trends regional. one of the things i'm looking at
with thetion goldwater-nichols issue is strengthening the role of the joint chiefs of staff and way.man in precisely this we have combatant commanders. they are excellent but focused on particular regions. and heto the chairman doesn't act one job of this, balancing resources making sure they are cooperating, both north com and the other combatant commanders. gen. dunford: in november, we asked special operations command to take the lead because they did have connective tissue in each one of our commitment -- combatant commands. to beginning development of a terrorism plan to counter extremism at large. we most recently had a meeting friday afternoon where i
convened the joint chiefs to look at this. critical to that is having a common operational and intel picture. that is the first part. the second is having an process into a single vision the secretary of defense can see. as a secretary alluded to, then a process to make recommendations for the allocation of resources. much like we are trying to provide pressure across isil in iraq and syria, we are trying to do that france regionally at the same time. we are focused on that. you asked about what we are doing to improve interagency and international cooperation, which is very critical. to do deeptinely now dives on issues like resourcing
or foreign fighters or ntelligence sharing. with regard to our partners, we have a promising initiative in jordan where we are up to 15 nations that participate in an information and intelligence exchange to help just on the problem of foreign fighters. those collaborative processes are necessary. there are a lot of walls for us to break down to be effective. that is what we are in the process of doing. our transregional plan is designed not only to integrate capabilities but also with coalition partners. this plan will be born with a coalition perspective in mind. >> thank you. i'm very interested in the jordan initiative and will follow-up with your office if possible. chairman.ou, mr. i appreciate the panelists. the attack this morning reminds us we are still at war with an evil, determined enemy that must be defeated. earlier in the testimony today,
we had discussion about restoring deterrents as well, peace through strength. i am interested in hearing first from general dunford. the rand corporation published a study on building the army we will need. we are talking about the eri initiative. rand concludes we will need three armored brigade combat forcesnd associated for a credible deterrent. i am curious if you agree with the assessment and if not what you think is necessary. for both the secretary and chief, i have a bipartisan bill which stops the drawdown for the army and marine corps. nationalhe total army, guard, army reserve, and active-duty marine corps and marine corps reserves. assuming that would come with
the necessary resources for operations so we don't hollow out -- >> we are going to break away from this hearing and take you live to san diego, the convention center. senator bernie sanders is making his way to the stage to speak to a large campaign rally in san diego. live coverage here on c-span. ♪ "bernie"]nting
it is a little bit hard to follow rosario because she said everything i was going to say. the only thing she did not say i think is not only do we have 9000 people in this room, we have many thousands more in the overflow room. [cheers and applause] bernie sanders: when we began this campaign about 10 months polls, were 3% in the about 70 points behind secretary clinton. as of today, the last poll i saw, we are five points behind
hillary clinton. [cheers and applause] began sanders: when we this campaign against the most powerful political organization in the country, we had no money and no volunteers. now we have hundreds of thousands of volunteers all over this country. [cheers and applause] bernie sanders: when we began this campaign, we were ngesidered a fri candidacy. who in america, the media said, could believe in a political revolution? well, 10 months later, we have now won 10 primaries and caucuses.
[cheers and applause] unless i am very mistaken, we will win a couple more tonight. [cheers and applause] began sanders: when we this campaign, we talked about the need for millions of people to become involved in the political process. tonight in utah, tonight in idaho, and tonight in arizona, there are record-breaking turnout in terms of voters. [cheers and applause] bernie sanders: now, this doing as well as it is generating the kind of energy and excitement we are seeing here in san diego and all over
this country. [cheers and applause] bernie sanders: because we are inng something very unusual modern american politics. we are telling the truth. [cheers and applause] bernie sanders: now, the truth welcome in our personal or political lives, but we cannot go forward as a nation unless we are prepared to confront the real issues facing our country. let me tell you briefly what some of those issues are. one, in america today, we
are living under a corrupt campaign finance system. undermining american democracy. not a complicated process. it really isn't. it means you have one vote. you have one vote. you have one vote. you want to vote for me, you want to vote against me, that is fine. what democracy does not mean is that billionaires can spend unlimited sums of money to elect candidates who represent the wealthy and the powerful. that is not democracy. democracy is not about cowardly republican governors trying to
suppress the vote. all over this country, what we are seeing is republican governors making it harder for poor people or people of color or young people or old people to vote. say to those cowardly governors, if you are not free andto engage in a democratic election, get another job! get out of politics! [cheers and applause] [crowd chanting "bernie"] today, theers:
united states has sadly one of the lowest voter turnout of any major country on earth. our job is to increase voter turnout, not lower voter turnout, make it easier for people to participate, not harder. as rosario mentioned, this campaign is not just about a corrupt campaign finance system, which is undermining democracy. economy.ut a rigged economy in which own almost asw much wealth as the bottom 90%.
[crowd booing] bernie sanders: it is about an economy where the 20 wealthiest people own more wealth than the bottom 150 million people. [crowd booing] bernie sanders: it is about an economy in which one family, the walton family owning walmart -- [crowd booing] bernie sanders: this one family owns more wealth than the bottom 40% of the american people. and what a rigged economy is about is the wealthiest family in this country paying their lowoyees wages that are so that many of those workers have to go on medicaid and food
stamps. class thathe middle pays more in taxes to pay for ,hat medicaid and food stamps so i say to the walton family -- get off of welfare, pay your workers a living wage! [cheers and applause] bernie sanders: that is just one example of many of a rigged economy working people paying more in taxes to subsidize the wealthiest family in this country. that is crazy. together, we are going to end that. campaign is about ending a
situation in which millions of our people are working longer hours for lower wages. situationt ending a where people in america need to work two or three jobs just to bring in enough income and health care to take care of their families. economy where mom is working, dad is working, kids are working, marriages are stressed out, kids do not get the attention they need. campaign is about creating an economy that works for all of us, not just the 1%. [cheers and applause]
but it is not: just a corrupt campaign finance system that we are going to change. it is not just a rigged economy that we are going to reform. it is also a broken criminal justice system! [cheers and applause] it is notders: acceptable to me that we have more people in jail than any other country on earth. not acceptable that we are spending $80 billion a year to lock up 2.2 million americans, disproportionately african
american, latino, native american. campaign is about real criminal justice reform, real police department reform. [cheers and applause] campaign isrs: this about saying we are tired of seeing unarmed people, often minorities, shot by police. now, i have been a mayor and i have worked with police departments all over my state and police departments all over the country. the vastruth is, majority of police officers are honest and hard-working. but when a police officer, like
any other public official, breaks the law, the officer must be held accountable. [cheers and applause] bernie sanders: this campaign is militarizatione of local police departments. making police departments reflect the diversity of the communities they serve. it is about rethinking the war on jocks -- the war on dru gs. [cheers and applause] today, marijuana is a schedule one drug under the
federal -- [crowd booing] bernie sanders: schedule one drug under the federal controlled substance act, right alongside of heroin. view, that is nuts. and that is why we have takeduced legislation to marijuana out of the federal controlled substance act. [cheers and applause] bernie sanders: in my state of in my state -- "bernie"]nting bernie sanders: in my state of
vermont, neighboring new hampshire, and states all over this country, we are seeing now an epidemic of heroin use and opiate abuse. and we are seeing people dying every day from heroin overdoses. in my view, when we deal with drug abuse, we have got to do with it as a health issue, not a criminal issue. [cheers and applause] bernie sanders: let me just take this opportunity to say what i know is on everybody's mind. we are all aware of the terrible attacks that have taken place in brussels. andns of people are dead, hundreds of people have been wounded.
i think i speak for everyone in expressing our condolences to the people of brussels. [applause] bernie sanders: that is right, that is right. and let me simply say this. we will stand as a nation with our allies and our friends and people all over this world. we will stand with them and we will together crush and destroy isis. [cheers and applause] bernie sanders: we will destroy isis through a coalition in the middle east led by the muslim nations themselves. [cheers and applause]
bernie sanders: with our support and the support of other powerful nations. but as king abdullah of jordan said a few months ago, what is going on there is a fight for the soul of islam. and the muslim nations have got to take on isis and win that war. and we can win that war and destroy isis without getting the brave men and women in the u.s. armed forces into a perpetual wa r in the middle east. [cheers and applause] bernie sanders: the war in iraq
was one of the worst foreign-policy mistakes in the modern history of this country. i voted against that war. [cheers and applause] bernie sanders: and i will do everything that i can to make certain that the united states does not get involved in a similar type war in the future. this campaign is doing as well as it is because we are listening to the people, not wealthy campaign contributors. [cheers and applause] and one of the major differences between
secretary clinton and myself is how we raise the funds we need to run a campaign. when we began this campaign, we should weelves -- have a super pac like everybody else? and we agreed with you. [cheers and applause] and what we did, isike all other campaigns, to simply reach out to the american people at berniesanders.com and say if you want to support a candidate who is prepared to take on the , to take onclass
wall street and corporate , this is your campaign. join us. [cheers and applause] [crowd chanting "bernie"] bernie sanders: and what happened over the last 10 months is something i in a million years would not have believed. and that is we received well over 5 million individual campaign contributions. [cheers and applause] bernie sanders: and does anybody know the average contribution?
[cheers and applause] bernie sanders: and that is revolutionary. showed is that you could run a winning, national campaign without begging billionaires for their money. [cheers and applause] bernie sanders: now, secretary ainton has chosen to go different route. is establishedne a number of super pacs, the largest one recently reported raising $25 million -- [booing] bernie sanders: from special
interest organizations, including $15 million from wall street. has also, as many may know, given speeches on wall speech.or $225,000 a [booing] bernie sanders: what i have said is that if you are going to get paid that much for a speech, it must be an extraordinarily brilliant speech. it must be a speech that could transform our world. inmust be a speech written shakespearean prose. so, i think, given what a