Transcripts For CSPAN3 Politics Public Policy Today 20240622

Of a plevo site is created at that point. I realize im posing something to you that is hypothetical. In light of the officials in the Russian Federation, i think its something to be concerned about. Brezinski spoke to this Committee Earlier this year and said we need to create a trip wire in the baltics and that this trip wire should communicate clearly to russia that nato will not tolerate violation of the territorial integrity of our allies. What do you think of this idea and can you, the steps the dod needs to take under your leadership to send a credible message that this sort of pretext by the Russian Federation would not be tolerated be i the United States and our nato allies . Senator, i think our experience in ukraine and in the other examples that you use highlights the fact that we need to update our deterrence and response model to deal with the kind of threat we had today, which has been described as a hieber threat from russia, which combines Unconventional Warfare as well as support for separatists in these countries and quite frankly, that needs to be a priority. You are asking what should the department do . We frankly need an effective deterrent model to deal with the kind of threats we are now seeing in russia. Quite frankly, i think that threat is one we will continue to see in the future. Certainly, we will see that in a european context. Would an incursion of russian troops, russianbacked separatist troops in small injuries sixes of russianspeaking majorities, within latvia and estonia, would that be completely unacceptable to this government . You know from a proils perspective, senator, i cant answer that. From a personal perspective, it looks like a violation of sovereignty to me. Under article 4 of nato, in my view, it would be be a salute absolutely unacceptable, and we need to make it clear this Administration Needs to make it clear, this congress, that we will do what is necessary to prevent this sort of idea from ever being considered in the first place. Senator, i agree with that. The idea of deterrence in response to a changing threat in the 21st century. I think we need to update our models for both. Thank you, sir. Senator manchin. Thank you, senator, thank you general, for your service to our great country and your familys dedication and sacrifice they made with you. I know the years, sir, im sure you have had the opportunity to form opinions on what our threats have been and what our threats are today. What would you consider are the greatest threat to our National Security . My assessment today is russia presents the greatest threat to National Security. Would you want to elaborate on that to a certain extent . Senator in russia, we have a nuclear power. We have one that not only has to violate the capabilities of the allies and to do things inconsistent with our National Interests, within the process of doing so so you want to talk about a nation that could pose existential threat to the United States . Id have to point to russia. If you look at the behavior, its nothing short of alarming. You have basically and i have been very much concerned about the same issue. I think weve talked about it briefly before. When you visited my office. But we have, i have been told by major scholars that the cold war is colder today than it was when it was declared because of a lack of communications, a lack of interparty affiliation and do you find that to be true and can you change that course in your new position . Senator, certainly the relationship with russia a few years ago, if you recall, we actually were including them in nato meetings and so forth. That kind of changes stopped. For my perspective, my role would be even as a relationship is challenged. Even with the difficulties we face right now. I think its important we attempt and maintain a military to military relationship and effective military to military relationship with our russian counterparts to the extent possible to mitigate the risk and miscalculation and turn the trend in the other direction in terms of trust. Thank you, general. Also, going back to iraq as has been spoken about previously, but could you find at some time recommending to the president for a threestate solution in iraq versus staying the course of the united Iraqi Government . Senator from my perspective i can imagine a twostate government in iraq. I have difficulty imagining a third separate state. Given the lack of resources that would be available to the sunni and frankly i think if it was without a federal government i think wed have difficulty exacerbated by the fact its not a simple government. Basically, you are acknowledging the kurds are strong, prepared, ready to go, if they were given that opportunity . Senator again, probably out of my line to talk about that. I think from just a pure Economic Resources and governors perspective the shia and the kurds are certainly much more equipped to set up a separate state than a sunni would be at this time. I know its been spoken about also us, the mistake of whats leading iraq, pulling our troops out when we did. We have an option to stay. Senator, i was not involved in the discussion at that time, the assessment was we did not have an option to stay. So basically, those of us who believe that maybe there could have been some forces left there or basically the evaluation of maliki, he didnt have his job . Given what we were demanding of the iraqis, they werent meeting our demands. Im not sure that meant we had no option to stay. Ive spoken many times about the lack of an audit. The only agency in the federal government that we do an audit is the pentagon and the marines have made an effort, i will say, they made more of an effort than any other branch, what would be your commitment, especially for us to know about our contractors, how much money we spent, how much contract forces that we have doing the job that i believe maybe our military and definitely our National Guard could be supporting in that effort that we are not doing today. Senator we cant be effective or efficient with the taxpayers dollars, if we dont have an effective audit. As you alluded to, we worked out pretty hard in the marine corps. I worked as both, an assistant commandant. We worked internally to get the resources directly under the cognizance of the marine corps with some database challenges outside. I can assure you, if confirmed, you will have my commitment to press hard in that direction and to support the department to make sure we can come to you with a clean audit. General, again, i want to thank you, you do have my support and i think the confident of the American People, definitely the west virginiaens. Thank you. General, i just want to thank you for all that you have done for the country and i think that you will do a tremendous job as chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. I want to thank ellen and your family for what they have done and continue to do. I appreciate it. I wanted to also add my support about the issue of retaliation. I think this is an permanent issue as we focus on the committee to eliminate and to work to prevent Sexual Assault in the military and to support victims and hold the perpetrators accountable. I think thats excellent. I look forward to seeing that proposal from you. I want to ask you about the six as we look at iran and their support for regional terrorism, how would you assess irans current activities and where are they engaging in support, either through direct protections or efforts that are undermining security in the region . Senator, iran is clearly an influence in the most destabilizing element in the middle east today. They are providing support to the houthis in yemen. They provide support. Hezbollah is a clear line influence in lebanon. There are indications they are involved in syria and certainly theyre involved in expanding their influence into iraq and integrating, exacerbateing at least the sunni shia sectarianism across the region. I want to follow up more on that i also want to ask you. I saw reports they were engaged in the taliban. Is there anything more you can show on that . Senator, i have seen those same reports. From my perspective in reports is they have provided some support for the taliban in an effort to counter isil. Do you believe as we, you know, think about your experience. I know you demanded troops in iraq but certainly iran has the blood of american soldiers on its hands for what the explosive materials that they provided to the shia militias in iraq that killed many of our men and women in uniform and so we think we look at the situation in iraq and whats happening with the shia militias you referred to, how could they be a malign influence in the longerterm solution in iraq . Sample senator, they clearly could be a malign influence, which is why i believe we should not provide any support to those forces unless theyre directly under the Iraqi Government and not a variety of supports by the iranians. Thank you. I also wanted to ask you about the situation on cyber. Because the fbi director. Weve received briefings on the opm breach, but the fbi director said he believes this is an enormous breach. Millions and millions of individuals who provided Background Information have been breached and director clapper has said they believe its the chinese who have done this breach what do you think we should be when we look at the threats facing our nation, how great do you think the cyber threat is and also how would you assess our current posture with the chinese and how we should be adressing this situation . Senator, i would agree with you. The cyber threat is significant. Frankly, every week we learn a bit more about the opm breach. My number one concern as the chief is for the dad in the well being of the men and women of whose data that is, having been compromised. One of the challenges is, of course, attribution. But from my perspective, if confirmed, it will be to provide the president with a full range of options to deal with these cyber attacks, which is yeah the opm breach was. So senator manchin asked you what you believe the National Security threat was. You identified russia and certainly weve seen this aggression by russia that certainly invading other countries, essentially, but what is it as you look at the National Security situation, you think about immediate threats to the country. What keeps you up at night the most . Senator, what keeps me up at night the most is our ability to respond to the uncertain. Im very confident, very confident in the joint force today in our capabilities and capacities to deal with the challenges we have today, albeit, we feed improvement in cyber and other capabilities. On balance the force we have today is able to deal with the challenges that we know. There is very little residual capacity. This is the issue that has been discussed many times before this committee and you had some personal engagement on. Its the readiness to respond frankly it keeps me up at night as a service chief were i to be confirmed as the chairman. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman, i appreciate this hearing. Thank you, general done donford, for your service. I am grateful for your wife and children being here with you. We all know you served together. I want to continue along the line that senator ayotte started with iran. We are expecting a potential Nuclear Agreement between p 5 plus 1 as early as today. Are you concerned that lifting sanctions might allow that country to invest more money in terrorist activities in the middle east and what can we do to address those concerns . Senator, there is no question that the signing of an agreement will change the dynamic in the middle east. If confirmed, i know id have a responsibility to go with the president to deal with the changing dynamic. With regard to increased resources, for a malign activity. I think its reasonable to assume if sanctions were lifted, iranians would have more money available for malign activities. Id probably say, regardless of of whether theres an agreement or not, my expectation is iran will continue with the malign activities we have seen over the past several years. I also want to continue the line about retaliation. Senator mccaskill was correct when she said this is something we are all very concerned ability. She said its not just peertopeer. She mentioned unit commanders. I want to be spec about this issue so you know the problem you are dealing with. 53 was peertopeer retaliations. But 35 was adverse administration action. 32 was professional retaliation and 11 was punishment for an infraction. So you have to recognize some of this retaliation is being perceived by survivors to be done by commanders or someone in command xo, perceived retaliation or professional retaliation is serious. So there is still a climate issue that the chain of command is responsible for particularly lower level commanders that is not getting the right message. In fact, the recent rant survey said that 60 of women that experienced sexual discrimination or some kind of necessarytive behavior came from their commanders, their unit commanders. So you have to recognize as a climate issue that is not being adequately addressed. So when you do your report for this committee, i would like you to look at that issue as well. You also have the challenge that in the reported cases, one in seven of the perpetrators who were alleged have committed rape, Sexual Assault or unwanted sexual contact was also in the chain of command. So you have a challenge with lower commanders that is not being addressed. Somewhat related. I want to talk about combat intgrachlths i strongly believe that we should have standards that meet the needs of each position and then allow anyone in who meets the those standards to commit. If confirmed, you will be one of those individuals who are advising the secretary of defense whether the service should receive any exceptions to policy. Do you expect the services, especially the marines, who i assume you have been tracking to ask for exceptions . Senator im not able to answer that question right now. I can just explain the process in the marine corps. We have looked at this issue pretty hard. We put together a task force that is just completed. Theyll stand down this week. I expect the data we collected in a deliberate responsible way to be available to me in the August September time frame. Well meet the time line established in the letter from 2012. Okay. What do you think or will you be looking across the services to see if one asks for exceptions in a position who is equivalent and another service does not request an exception for . Will you be doing a comparison . Senator, my understanding of the way it will work now, if im confirmed sitting as a chairman, ill have a responsibility to look at each one of the requests on its own merits and make a recommendation to the secretary of defense. Okay. With my remaining 30 second, i want to address cyber. We are constantly being done fronted by our need for a capable signer force. They have been building out those capabilities. There is still work to be done. Have you envisioned the force, what do you see as the role of the reserve component . Senator, a visioned force will grow and i would support the plans and i think he is sitting in the right path in terms of growing the capacity of the cyber force the reserve component have been important. In many cases the service chief looked at this some of the skill sets that are unique. We need the physical out a way to maximize and leverage those capabilities. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Senator fisher. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you general dunford for your many years of service to this country and to the men and women under your command. Id like to also thank your family, your wife. Your son is present today and your niece who is here as well. So thank you, sir. I was pleased to see that you listed modernizing the enterprise along the top challenges that you do expect to face in your response to the committees advanced questions. You also described our Nuclear Deterrent as the nations top military priority. Do you believe its critical that we maintain the full try out of our delivery vehicles . Senator, given the nature of the threat today, i do believe that. And do you support bomb or lake the gravity bombs and the cruise missiles . I do, senator. And the gravity bombs as you know and the cruise missiles, theyre entire different capabilities. So one doesnt make the other redundant. Is that correct . It is, senator. And my understanding of the issue is it has a degree of complexity and gives us a greater assurance to deliver should that be required. Great. Thank you. As you know, modernization has been delayed and were at the point where the life of the Delivery Systems cannot be extended any further as deputy secretary put it recently the choice is modernizing or losing the current capability and the 20s or the 30s. Some have argued that these bills are simply too large and we cant afford to retain our Nuclear Deterrent. According to departments calculation at its peak, the nuclear mix would be about 70 of the nuclear bug. I think its a little confusing when we hear about our deterrent described as unaffordable and to me the alternative, letting that deterrent age out, that has the unaffordable cost to it. Do you have any thoughts on ha . Senator. I would say, id pose the question, some people would ask, whether we can afford it. Id probably flip that around and say i think we need to think about hue we will fund it. Its a capability thats required again, weve identified that as the number one need to have an threat. To me its a question of more how do we work to fund this as opposed to whether or not we can afford to do it. Thats 7 of the bucket at its peak, though, being the number one priority, shouldnt that be what we fund first . Senator, frankly, its more complicated to me than that. I have some experience with that inside the department of navy when i look at the ohio class replacement as an example and what that would do to pressurize the ship building account. Wed have as to make difficult decisions inside the department on a capability perspective. So while its clear thats the priority, its not an issue of exclusivity. So cash balance capabilities with the joint force needs, i think we need to approach it from that perspective. Fair enough. I also appreciate the connection that you made between the modernization and the reductions to the hedge of our nondeployed weapons. I think that this linkage is often overlooked. I think its based on simple logic. If you have a modern stockpile and you have a responsive infrastructure. You dont need to keep as many shares. You are more insulated as well from whats happening in the world. You are more insulated from those surprises and also from technical failure. But to be clear, do you believe that it would be be premature to make any significant changes to the hedge before we have a modern stockpile and before we have a responsive infrastructure . Senator, my understanding from the briefings we received is that that would be the most prudent course for us to take. Thank you, sir. With respect to further nuclear arms reductions, do you believe that any reductions below the new start force levels must be achieved through a negotiated treaty and be verifiable . Senator, i do. I dont think we should take unilateral action in that regard. Should Nonstrategic Nuclear weapons be included as well . Id like to take that particular question for the record. Thank you. Do you agree that any arms control negotiations must take into account russias current behavior, especially as compliant record. You mentioned at the beginning you feel russia is our greatest threat . I do, senator. Thank you, sir. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to also thank general dempsey and his family for everything that they have done for the countries. General dunford, you and your family, thank you very very much for stepping up to the plate. We are really in your debt. As you know and we have discussed in the past, i believe one of the greatest threats to our troops is when they find themselves in a personal place where they start to think of Something Like suicide. We lost over 400 men and women in the past year. I know you have worked very hard in this area. You have done a lot of rigorous screening in the marine corps. Will you have that same screening used across the branches when you look at recruits and early on in their careers . Senator, one of the thoughts i have as a service chief so to ensure once we identify a better way to screen people at risk and take appropriate action, we would share that as best practices across the services. I would look to facilitate that and confirm. The other question i want to ask you is a lot of times in talking to the parents, there has been a stigma for the young men and women to seek help. I know that youre committed to removing that stigma. Its a sign of strength to get some help, to talk to somebody as opposed to weakness . Senator, absolutely. This is one of those areas where you never can place it. You never are satisfied where you are. I really believe this i would have asked five or seven years, the issue it associated with suicide, its changed dramatically. Even with the way we deal with families in the wake of suicide, if you think where we were a decade ago is completely different. I think its much more receptive to somebody today seeking help than it was in the past and making sure that help is accessible and more appropriate anonymous. Again, im not suggesting were satisfied with where we are. But i do believe weve made a lot of progress in that particular regard. Thank you. Last week, i was on a trip led by senator cane and we went to iraq and met with a number of our forces there, there are some leadership. One of the greatest concerns was the iraqi troops in, when you look at isis fighters in ramadi compared to iraqi troops, it was a very sparse number of isis fighters. The iraqi troops turned and left. I know that has to be a focus. The leadership of the iraqi forces. Are we going to send the message that the only way through ramadi is through ramadi . That there is no back door in these kind of efforts . Senator, again you have been on the ground more recently than me. You talked to the commanders. I had the ability to speak to general lawson and i think they have made it very clear the Iraqi Security forces how important ramadi is, in fact, they have been working hard to set the conditions for the iraqis to be successful in ramadi. It probably is one of those issues where its a tactical action. There is no question in my mind from an Information Operations perspective and frankly from perception of the campaign, its a strategic action. I think the iraqis understand that. One of the other groups we met with. I know the marines have shed so much blood and treasure in Anbar Province over the past years, we met with a lot of city tribal leaders. They said, look, we are still united with you. We need to know that you are in this that you care, that you will be there. I mentioned this the other day to secretary carter and general dempsey, one of the councilmembers from hadifa said we got people eating grass in our town now. These are people that work with the United States. Theyre now eating grass. There is no milk for our children. We need you to help in this humanitarian crisis. And so, i think we not only have to win the battles, we have to reacquire the hearts and minds of the people there. They said, if you do, well move these folks out. I just wanted to get your views on that thanks, senator i agree. With regard to anbar, i have a personal stake. We built relationships with some of the people in the Anbar Province. I couldnt agree with you more. Their confidence and our commitment. Their trust and our commitment will absolutely have an impact on the success of our campaign, not only from a military perspective, from the peoples willingness to support us. The last thing i wanted to mention was syria. It appears that the plan we have is no plan. We talked about buffer zones when we were in the saudi arabia chairman mccain with a group of us. We talked about creating nofly zones there and so we seem to be in search of a plan. My fear is that assad is going to fall and we are hearing that he is on very shaky ground right now. Do we then look up the text day and see a race between isis and al nusra to take over the rest of the country, which is a nightmare scenario at that point. And so you are stepping into a real challenging portion but i think one of the very, very front on the lens is syria is going to change. Its going to change quickly. We had best be prepared for that change and be ahead of it. Or else we will look up and an entire country will be gone. Thank you. Thank you, senator. General thank you for being here, and thank you for your years of service and mrs. Dunford, thank you for your years of service. General, you said earlier, you believe russia is the greatest threat that the United States faces. I take it thats because in large part its the only Nuclear Capability to destroy the United States and our way of life . That is one of the reasons, of course, thats combined with the recent behavior. Given russia is currently an ongoing vials of the Nuclear Forces treaty. Do you believe the United States should consider withdrawing from that treaty . Senator, id like to take that for the record. We would like to hear a response to that for the record. Because as it currently stands, russia and the United States are the only party to the treaties. That means the United States is the only country in the world pro hibbed developing missile range of 500 kilometers. The president has a proposal to preposition some equipment in our eastern nato allies countries, as a response and the intention they have displayed to put stresses on our alliance. I find that proposal somewhat under welling, although a step in the right direction. Are there barriers to stationing troops in those countries up to the battalion or brigade level . Senator, i think that proposal is a part of a wide range of activities, one is to to have infrastructure so we can support deployments, and the other is to preposition equipment so we can rapidly move equipment into europe. The other piece is Rotational Forces as you are suggesting. I think its a part of the whole package that secretary carter announced at the defense ministerial and nato a month ago. Thank you. I would like to move to iran. As far as i know there is not an announced Nuclear Agreement with iran, and they will get a signing bonus of billions and billions of dollars and how do you expect they will use that signing bonus . Senator, again, looking inside, two challenges they have, one is their economy eternally and the other is they usury sources they have available to support the malign activity across the region. So you believe that at least part of the money will go to terrorists groups they support and support for the houthis in yemen or shiites in iraq. I believe its safe to assume that. Does the United States have the capability to destroy Irans Nuclear program . My understanding is we do, senator. When you served in iraq and afghanistan, do you know how many soldiers and marines under your command were killed by iranian activities . Senator, i know the total number of soldiers, sailors and airmen marines, and its quoted at about 500. We were not always able to attribute the casualties we had to iranian activity, although we suspected it could be even though we did not have the forensics to support it. 500 confirmed but many more suspected, killed in action and even more wounded in action. You have a reputation for being particularly thoughtful when you deal with the families of Fallen Service members. What would you say to a Family Member of a soldier, sailor, airmen or marine killed by iranian activity if we make a Nuclear Agreement with iran before they change the behavior in the region . Senator, i what i would say is that my expectation is regardless of whether there is an agreement or not, iran will continue to be an malign activity. I will make sure that our leadership has a full range of options to deal with iranian activity. Its been reported that your nickname is fightin joe, is that correct . Senator, actually, it is not one i use. But its one that has been given to you, correct . Senator, perhaps by my wife. Do you care to give us the origin i prefer to talk about that in private, if you dont mind. I heard its because of your activities as commander in the early days of the iraq war as an infantry officer, and given the budget we reach it will be inadequate to meet the forces we need and the longterm monetary, whether its the longrange Strike Bomber or f35, and are you worried about we are going to be taking money from our Ground Troops to put in Capital Investments that are clearly needed . I am concerned. I think its broader than the in infantry piece. I think experience tells us we need a balanced inventory of capabilities and capacities in the join the force to be successful. When i answer the question to the senator earl earlier about what kept me up at night, and was the need to respond to the uncertain, and what concerns me is what the future looks like and our experience tells us we dont. So having a full range of capabilities that includes effective marines and soldiers did. Were going to break away and pause this confirmation hearing. Well come back right where we left off. But right now were live to philadelphia, president obama traveling there to afternoon to make remarks at the naacps the committee will not review how the senator from arkansas got his nicknames here in the senate. Senator kaine thank you, mr. Chairman. With the president s recent announcement about 500 more advisers going into the antiisil mission in iraq and syria and in the region, were now up to 3500 troops serving abroad in that battle and serving as advisers as trainers, of special forces coordinating air campaigns and conducting strikes. The war passed its 11th month anniversary yesterday. Do you think it would be received positively by the troops that you are asking to deploy far from home if congress were to have a debate and to authorize and affirm the u. S. Mission against isil . Senator i do think it would be positive from a couple perspectives. One, the reason you mentioned i think what our young men and women need and its all we need to do what we ask them to do, and its the sense that what they are doing has purpose. The second benefit from such a debate, and thats to send a clear and unmistakable message to our adversaries and allies that are committed to this endeavor. Thank you, general. I want to pick up on something senator reid was talking about earlier. Thank you, general. With respect to the antiisil effort, i want to pick up on something senator reed was talking about earlier. The whole of government approach as you referred to it, has sort of nine lines of effort and we know this but for everybody there, supporting Effective Governance in iraq. Denying isil safe haven. Building partner capacity, enhancing intelligence collection on isil. Disrupting finances, exposing isil true nature, disrupting the flow of foreign fighters, protecting the homeland and humanitarian support. The nine lines are purely d. O. D. , denying safe haven and Building Partnership capacity and the others are generally nond. O. D. You testified you think the effect of sequester on the d. O. D. Mission could be catastrophic but given the fact that seven of the nine items are d. O. D. Would you agree that as of october 1st it would hurt the other seven lines of effort which are critical to defeating isil . Senator, i do. And i would like to talk about and highlight the issue. The two lines of perspective, deny sanctity and build partnership in iraq and syria are buying time and space for the other seven lines of effort to work. And to be honest, i dont see how we can have an enduring rest of success without those other lines of effort that set the conditions for the other seven lines of effort to be put into effect. But i certainly cant see us being successful without all of them being properly resourced. When you talk about threat finance, and moving foreign fighters and more importantly the state departments efforts to negotiate to develop effective government in iraq and syria those are important actions for us to take to have enduring stability in the region so we can deal with this issue once and for all. I think there has been some suggestion a sequester for defense, and thats all we need to do, but for defeating isil, the testimony you gave between the connection between nondefense and defense investments in defeating isil is really important. I will note, by my account 95 of 100 senators are now on record either by voting in the budget or voting in the ndaa or in public statements for supporting the notion that sequester should be fixed for defense and nondefense obgtsaccounts and its my hope we will do that. With respect to training and equipping opposition in the antiisil battle, two items. Senator mccain first raised in september in a hearing, i think in this room, the question of if we train folks to fight isil in syria and they get attacked by assad regime and will they be protected and he still hasnt gotten an answer and he still didnt yesterday and by account that is nine months without an answer. We were told that the current rules of engagement would still prohibit u. S. Effort to support u. S. Trained antiisil fighters in syria if they come under attack by the assad regime. Will we protect them and he still has not gotten an answer to that, and its nine months without a clear answer. We were told last week that the current rules of engagement still would prohibit u. S. Effort to support u. S. Trained antiisil fighters in syria if they come under attack by the assad regime and i would like to know if that is in fact the policy, if dod intends to change the policy, when they will change the policy, and if not what do we need to do to change the policy, because i do not belief we should be sending u. S. Folks into war without them being guaranteed they will be protected, and we view that as a very important matter. Thank you, sir. Thank you for sharing. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and general, i want to thank you for your service and i know that marines all over the country, whether in active duty or retired take great pride in the fact that you are only the second marine ever nominated for this post and i know your career has exemplified the honor and commitment that are the values of the marine corps and i plan on voting for you with enthusiasm and encourage my colleagues to do so as well, and we forward to seeing you tomorrow night at the parade. I want to ask you a few questions about the military and relationship with the congress, even though your role is going to be adviser to the president. First in the area of force posture, this committee occasionally weighs in on the basing of troops, and aircraft like the a10, and when this happens how important is it that the military follow the defense guidance of the senate or the congress . Senator, i think its very important given how explicit is it in the constitution with the responsibilities of congress. Lets say there was an amendment from the chairman and it was about the number of aircraft carriers, passed unanimously through the committee and the vote is on the senate floor, and you think they should say we will blow that advise off, and is that an appropriate role for the military . If Congress Passes a law, senator, it would not be appropriate to ignore it. How about an amendment that gives congress in support of the president s rebalance in the Asia Pacifics trade is it appropriate to ignore that or even significantly decrease forces . What do you think our response should be to that if that is happening . First, congress ought to inform there is a recent amendment that says exactly that. Right. Let me provide a second area. We talked about it a little bit in terms of emerging threats. Sometimes the department of defense, civilian and military officials, and there are so many threats out there, and let me provide an example of one that everybody seems to be focused on with the exception of the department of defense. Newsweek this week had a cover story on the artic and what they called in the race to control the artic, the u. S. Lags behind. Its a very long article and talks about how this is the worlds newest great game, and the term for the struggle between major powers to dominate the earths remote but very strategic places and talks about how the russians are very, very aggressively moving military forces into the arctic, and serious military exercises and how whether its the coast guard or secretary of defense saying this new kind of geopolitical cold war the u. S. Is in danger of losing and we are not even in the same league as the russians and we are not playing this game at all, and so i think its safe to say that the department of defense has been asleep at the switch on this. Congress has been more in tune to this issue in this years ndaa theres a section that requires the department of defense to provide congress with a military strategy given the new threat levels and an o plan for the arctic based on the increased threats, and does it make sense to cut any of Americas Limited number of cold weather trained warriors in the arctic before this congressly mandated strategy is completed . Senator, i guess i am not sure which forces you are saying will be cut . There are only certain forces and they are all in alaska. I would like to take that for the record. I am not aware of the full range of decisions being made right now and what the implications are. General, i think i mean, its important to recognize, you know its hard to figure out appropriate force levels and capabilities in the arc arctic without having a plan, and we mandated the desire and need for a plan, and i think we are getting the cart before the horse, and we are cutting forces before we recognize what we need, and we hope the dod will recognize that as well. Senator, if confirmed, and i know i have had conversation with the current chief of operations and coast guard for the arctic, and the commitment i would make to you, we will develop an appropriate role for the military in the arctic. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and general and your family for your service. I just wanted to pick up very briefly on the issue of sexual trauma in the military and the concerns about retaliation, and i think you had noted that you would determine the root causes and continue to work to insure that the culture does not support retaliation. I would ask you to have a sense of urgency as you respond to the committee on how you are going to address and resolve the issue of retaliation, because even as we downsize our military, its even more important that our troops morale remain strong and theres cohesion and there could not be that if some of the troops are encountering Sexual Assault and harassment and retaliation, and i just wanted to make that point. Could you share briefly your views on the rebalance to the asia pacific . Senator, i can. Its critical that we do that given both the demographics in asia and also our economic future, so there is no question about it. Thats going to require us to modernize our alliances, and our relationship with south korea and japan and the philippines and vietnam and india and australia have all been adjusted in recent months, and we have engagement in the pacific to assert our influence and provide a stabilizing presence. The most important thing it does is provide a security infrastructure in which we can advance our National Interests and thats what has existed for the past seven years, and its designed to modernize that and make sure its in our place, so we can protect our interest in the past 70 years we can do that in the future as well. I just got information on the cuts that will happen as a result of the budget necessities and i am glad to know that the general did say the cuts were with regard to the importance of rebalance and therefore we want to make sure, and this is something that i know that senator sullivan shares with me, the rebalance to the asia pacific remains a very strong commitment on our part. You mentioned that russia is the greatest threat to our National Security. Where would isil, china and north korea fall with regard to the National Security dangers . If i had to rack and stack them today, i would have russia down as number one, and china as number two. Could you explain why briefly . Sure, russia because of the Nuclear Capability and aggression, and china because of their military capability and their growing military capability and its a relationship between their capabilities and our interests and it doesnt mean we are a current threat or view china as an enemy, and as somebody in uniform i get to look at the intent and capability, and i threat or that we view china as an enemy. But as someone in uniform, i get paid to look at intent and capability. Whoen i look at chinese capabilities, id have to consider china as an area of concern as a state from a threat. Clearly, north korea with Ballistic Missile capability and the potential to reach the United States and attack the homeland is high on that list, and then isil. But, you know, senator, i want to make it clear, as i go down the list, i dont view it meaning that we can attack the issues in sequence or that a prioritization of one at the expense of the other is necessarily something that would have to be done at this time. All four of the Security Issues are ones that require the department to look at. They all create a challenge that needs to be addressed. And thats why we live in very complicated times. I would like to focus on our laydown in the pacific. And specific to japan, im aware of the concerns of the okinawan population and their relationship, desire to halt construction of the futenma facility. Can you characterize the relationship and the challenges of relocating our force from and within japan. That is part of the rebalance we are committed to. I recently did visit japan. I was encouraged by my visit. I received nothing but the full commitment to continue with the futenma replacement plan. So my sense is that the japanese government is committed to that and recognize its important for us to continue with the preferred lay down that you alluded to. My sense is that the our relationship with the japanese, we are in a good place. Do you view the okinawa situation as mainly a concern that should be dealt with within japan and their government . We, and i specifically now talk about the marines, we need to be Good Neighbors and set the conditions for a positive relationship with the okinawan people, so i think we can make a contribution. But at the end of the day, the replacement facility, its an internal japanese political issue that has to be worked by the japanese government. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. General dunford, welcome to you and your family. In your written testimony you state, as senator fisher pointed out, that our Nuclear Deterrent is the nations top military priority. That leads me to a specific question to how we plan for that priority over time. The health of our nations whole Nuclear Weapons complex is critical to our Nuclear Deterrent. And one of the things you wrote in your written testimony, wrote in your written testimony is that we must recruit and train our next generation workforce capable of certifying stock Power Requirements and to modernize the Nuclear Weapons infrastructure. Can you share with me your thoughts specifically on ldrd or Laboratory Directed research and development, and the life Extension Programs that are going on at our National Labs and their role in achieving recruitment and achievement of that next Generation Nuclear workforce . That is a question in my current capacity i have not developed any level of expertise, and i would like to take that one for the record. That is fine. I look forward to engaging you on that in the future. I think it will be important to view some of the particulars of how we manage the labs and particularly the things that bring people in the pipeline at the front end with the greatest amount of expertise and then they stay in those positions, rise up through the labs and provide the continuity that its going to take to make sure that we have the kind of modern deterrent that we need. I want to focus my next question on some of of the challenges here at home. In my view, Defense Innovation is moving too slowly. Oftentimes, in cycles that last years while commercial innovation can be measured in cycles of months. This committee included a section to authorize funding, about half of which would be dedicated to directed energy to offset important technologies, clgd directed energy low cost high speed munitions, cybercapabilities, autonomous systems, undersea warfare and Intelligence Data analytics. What role do you think the development of these new technologies will play in our National Security posture, and what steps should we take to develop and deliver operationally useful systems more quickly . In my capacity as the chairman, if confirmed, i view the future of the direct forces one of my more Important Roles. We need to keep pace with innovation so we get better that what we are doing. We need to find fundamentally different ways to do things in the future that are more effective and maintain our competitive advantage. I think what you are outlining is an area of concern for me. Even as a service chief, i i would tell you that our efforts in innovation have been lower than what they should be and i will bring that focus if im confirmed. I appreciate that. One of the other challenges at home is the air forces remotely piloted air field is under severe strain. Largely through increased requirements and you know sufficient personnel policy actions for Manning Levels and the reality that the air force is losing more remotely piloted aircraft pilots than its training. Weve heard from the secretary james and general welsh. They have assured this committee that they are dedicated to resolving the shortfall. I want to get your commitment to helping on this issue. If confirmed i ask that you make it a priority. Senator, i will comment quickly, those men and women in that field represent a core capability in the joint force, their effectiveness, their morale, their willingness to continue to serve is important, and i will certainly reinforce. I have spoken to general welsh about this issue. I will reinforce the efforts of the secretary of staff to make had sure those individuals are appreciated and they have a climate in which they want to remain airmen. I appreciate that deeply. Its an area where we are seeing some severe strains and where folks really need our support, so, thank you. Good morning, general dunford. Thank you for your service and for your familys long time serving our nation. I was i leaned over to senator sullivan during some of your comments. I appreciate your concise answers to questions. Its refreshing to get that in the committee. I would like to go back to a question or build on a question that senator sessions asked of you. And it had to do with the plus up of spending and the use of oco as a way. We all know its not the best way to do what you need to do. Primarily for the purposes that you pointed out, the certainty. It still doesnt give you longterm certainty. My question to you is, have you given thought to how you could potentially use this funding . Although its not a longterm commitment to take the edge off of sequestration and any ideas on how precisely you would . Senator, we started to look at that and it would require a change in the rules for using oco for us to do that. If you right now applied, if you gave us oco given the current rules, we would not be not be able to use it in places where we most need it. In the president s budget, it was focused on modernization. Thats the thing that suffered the most over the last two years in addition to readiness. So we havent looked at it, but there are some practical limitations to go over some of the areas that we need to apply to. Will you be making specific recommendations for things that we need to look at to make sure you get the most productivity you can out of it . I will do that through the secretary of defense as he works the issue. Thank you. I wanted to go back to also questions that were asked about afghanistan and iraq. I visited both countries and spoke with a number of people while we were there. And it seems like in afghanistan, we have the right mix. We have them in the right roles, and the afghanis have proven they can fight successfully. In iraq, i understand what you said about the political decisions from past administrations have caused a problem, and those structural issues have been addressed. Have you given any thought, assuming you get to the point where you have the right command infrastructure among iraqis, what we may need to create a credible, trained, effective, fighting force beyond the current troops . In their ability to develop Institutional Training and in terms of their ability to develop the capacity at the ministerial level to provide support tactical forces. It has been a few years since i have been on the ground in iraq. I would like to take the opportunity if confirmed to visit iraq and talk to the commanders on the ground and develop a comprehensive recommendation that would help to move the campaign forward. On the flip side, i know that afghan has made a lot of progress. I think they rely on us heavily for the training advice and assist is roles in our isr capabilities in the region. I know that i have heard you say we cant have a calendar approach towards reduction in forces. The sense that i got when i was in kabul, those that are very much in touch with the situation on the ground now think that it would be a very bad idea to substantially reduce our current presence over the near term. Now, i assume that is because they are looking ahead to 12 18 months from now where they are going to be in a place where afghan can be independent. Do you share that view . What i can tell you, the assumptions that we made in a recommendation that was delivered in december of 2013. That is 19 months ago, some of the assumptions affected the time line. We did not expect it to be as much of a delay in the elections process in 2014 as it was. And when i was on the ground, it was difficult to get my counterparts to focus on the practical side of growing ministerial capacity when they were involved in a very real challenge of providing support for the elections. Theres been other areas where we made assumptions about things that could be done in a certain period of time that did not get done during that period of time. From a distance now, if confirmed immediately from a distance it makes sense to me that the time line that we identified in 2013 as possible, has been affected by the political events inside of afghanistan. Thank you general dunford. I look forward to supporting your confirmation. Thank you for your service and thank you to your family for their service as well. I want to begin with what you assessed as the primary threat from russia and china and talk about a weapons platform that has not been discussed today. Our submarine force. I recognize its not immediately part of your background, but obviously a great responsibility if you are confirmed, and im certainly going to strongly support your confirmation as the next chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. The Ohio Replacement Program is critical to the Nuclear Deterrents. And the cost of that program has been estimated in the range of 100 billion. The navy has said that it cannot pay for it out of its navy budget. Im wondering whether you will consider and whether you will support looking at the Defense Department budget as a whole to fund the Ohio Replacement Program, which im assuming you agree is critical to our Nuclear Deterrents. Senator, thanks. First, i do agree its critical. Its the most survivable part of on the triad and a critical capability to modernize. Im very familiar with the budgetary requirements of the ohio replacement on the ship building plan. What i can tell you with the degree of surety is, we are ready to fund the ohio class replacement out of the department of the navy, it would have adverse affects. We are not where we need to be right now. A 30year ship building plan was intended to get us where we need to be. So, i do think, a broader mechanism for the ohio class replacement makes sense or we will have adverse effects on the navy. As i mentioned a couple of times today, one of my perspectives on the role is that we need that. It include a balanced navy. As important as the ohio class replacement is, they have many capabilities that are critical to our nation, it would be difficult to balance that if it is paid for out of the navys resources. Thank you for the answer. I hope you agree that the continuing program to build two subs a year, two virginia class subs a year should continue as planned right now. Here is where i defer to my partner, chief of naval operations, but that is planned and i trust his judgment that regard. Thank you. Going to another area that i do not think has been raised yet. And i know of your commitment to our men and women who are the greatest asset in the United States armed forces. Their wellbeing and welfare, and i hope that you can commit that you will continue the effort to coordinator better with the Veterans Administration for men and women leaving active duty on everything from transfer of medical records, to drug formularies, to a range of on issues. I do not need to expound on them for you. I hope you will focus and continue those efforts. Senator, absolutely. I view keeping faith with the members of our uniform as one of our top priorities. We have an expression, once a marine, always a marine. From my perspective, once you have served our country, the respect and support that you should receive is sacred. I will absolutely continue to support the efforts to make sure that the Health Care Transition that our young men and women make when in uniform to the Veterans Administration is as seamless as possible. I think we owe them that. One last question, general. Your predecessor general dempsey has stated repeatedly, and im quote, we have the capability to use a military option if iran chooses to stray off the diplomatic path, end quote. My question to you is, are you satisfied that our nation has done enough to prepare militarily for the option and the president has said that all options should be on the table if necessary to use a military option there, as much as we all may wish that the negotiations should succeed . Senator, my understanding today is that we have both the plans in place and the capability in place to deal with a wide range of eventualities in iran. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman, general dunford, congratulations on your nomination. And thank you for your 38 years of distinguished service and your leadership as commandant of the marine corps. Our nation is fortunate to have a military leader such as you serve at a time of great peril. I want to ask a question of you that is the same question i asked your predecessor, general dempsey. If the objective were to destroy isis, not to weaken them, or degrade them, but to utterly destroy them within 90 days, what would be required militarily to accomplish that objective . My assessment is it would not be possible to destroy isil within 90 days, and i dont believe that we can develop an enduring solution with simply force against isil, but the military aspect of the campaign is critical. Well, if the timeframe ive suggested is not feasible, let me ask you a followup question. What would be required to destroy isis, and what timeframe is necessary . Specifically if that were the objective, what would be required to accomplish that . If confirmed i will look at the issue. My perspective is this is a longterm effort. This is on the order of years not months to destroy isil. And what would be required to do that in whatever time period is necessary . From a military perspective, the two things we are doing and we need to continue to do is take action to deny isil sanctuary wherever it may take root. That will require us to build local forces. That would be the real defeat mechanism for isil in the respective countries given the way its spread right now. You would have to have Effective Governance, where isil cannot get traction again in the future. We would have to address the foreign financing where they get their money. And we have to address the movement of foreign fighters back and forth, and probably as importantly, the one thing we need to do, senator, we need to discredit the narrative of isil. In your personal judgment, are you concerned about the rules of engagement for our current use of air power that it is overly constraining the effectiveness . Senator, im not. When we go to war, we go to war with our values and weconensure we do not have civilian casualties. That supports our narrative and gives us the credibility we need to be successful longterm in the campaign. In recent days the congress has been informed that we are arming the kurds. Its something i have called for, for a long time. I spoke this week with a senior kurdish leader. Commanders on the ground with the peshmerga are not confirming that. What can you tell us about the extent to us providing serious arms to the kurds and its actually getting to them rather than being bogged down in baghdad. The most important forces in that area are in fact the kurds. My understanding is that the issues are being addressed and they are now getting the materiel support they need. If confirmed i will go over there visit and make my own personal assessment based on the factds on the ground. Will you commit to providing this committee with details on what is being done to arm the kurds . I will do that, senator. Let me ask concerning iran, if iran were to acquire Nuclear Weapons, what is the National Security risk in your judgment to the United States of that occurrence . Senator, i think its significant. Particularly if accompanying that is intercontinental Ballistic Missile technology. Its also destabilizing action in the middle east and we can expect the proliferation of nuclear arms as a result of iranian possession of Nuclear Weapons. General, my final question im concerned about morality. Weve discussed hour thew the world is getting more and more dangerous yet were undermining our readiness and ability to defend this nation. A survey in 2009 they asked soldiers whether overall the quality of life is good or excellent. 91 said yes. In 2014, that number had dropped from 91 to 56 . Likewise, they asked whether the Senior Military Leadership has my best interest at heart. In 2009 53 agreed. In 2014, that had dropped in half to roughly 27 . Do you share the concerns about declining morale in the military, and if so, what are the causes of it and the proper approach to fix it . Well, senator, thanks for the question. First of all, with regard to the morale of the force, its clearly one of the things that distinguishes us. And i was able to say in my Opening Statement that we have the most Capable Military force in the world today, and that is clearly rooted in the men and women that we have in uniform and their willingness to do what kwooef weve asked them to do in the last decade. I do have concerns as service chief of how hard we have been running our men and women over the last few years. As an example, senator, we had a plan where we wanted to have a 13 deployment to dwell ratio. That allowed the marines to be, what i describe, a sustained rate of fire. Many of the units are below a 12 deployment at home rate. They will be deployed for seven months, back home for less than 14 months and back out again. That certainly has an affect on the families. If im confirmed, senator, this is going to be one of the areas that i focus on. I think i have responsibility to lead the young men and women in uniform. I think i have a responsibility to represent them, and when i say represent them, to articulate to our leadership on the hill and the executive branch what materiel support, leadership and resources they need to remain the finest fighting force in the United States. It bothers me greatly if this they do not have confidence in their Senior Leadership, everyday when i wake up, if i am confirmed that will be an issue of priority for me. That is what i will do, seek their respect. And let them know that we as leaders recognize we are asking them to do a lot and they do not ask much in return other than to accomplish the mission with minimal loss of life. And that is what i will do. Has sequestration bred uncertainty that has contributed to the drop in morale . Chairman, thanks. I should have mentioned that when i talked about how busy the forces are. Theres a tremendous amount of angst across the force. A lot of that is driven by how big the force is, and what will happen to their careers and will we have the equipment necessary to accomplish their mission. Sequestration is a factor. Senator solomon had a followup question and then well return to senator shaheen. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to get back to the militarys role with respect to congress. Do you think its an Important Role that we have to not replicate missions . I do. Let me provide a quick example. I believe one of the Core Competencies the airborne units have is that they can deploy in a moments notice anywhere in the world. Is that a core competency . Yes. And there was a testimony about putting troops and helicopters on naval shipping for expeditionary maneuver throughout the pacific. What services or competency would you associate that with . I would associate that with the United States marine corps, senator. So if i told you it was an army general describing the new pacific pathways strategy, would that surprise you . It would not, senator. I have seen that description in the open source. You think that costly new army mission is a redundant mission to the United States Marine Corps Mission and is it a good use of military and taxpayer spending . Given the shortfall of amphibious lift, im speaking as a service chief, the priority should go to the United States marine corps. Would it be an appropriate role of the congress to limit such review of the redundancies . Senator, i do agree that the congress has a Critical Role in ensuring that we have a Proper Division of labor within the department of defense and that the joint capabilities and capacities are right sized. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you for that single followup question. Senator shaheen. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And i apologize for getting back so late. I was in an appropriations markup. But general dunford, thank you very much to you and your family for your service in had the past and for your willingness to continue to serve. And i have to say, after watching you before the crowd of New Hampshire business folks and hearing from them how impressed they were, i look forward to the impression that you are going make as the new chairman of the joint chiefs. So, im i wanted to followup on senator wickers questions about europe watch this hearing in its entirety at cspan. Org. We take you to the press secretary hearing with josh earnest. Welcome to friday briefing. Its finally friday. Its been a very interesting and historic week at the white house. So i decided today to pull a little page from a strategy that has been employed very effectively by some of our cable news colleagues here. In addition to the regularly scheduled programming, a little bit of a crawl across the bottom with some Additional Information that can supplement your understanding of some of the discussions being made. Im happy to discuss that. There are a number of other questions that may be top of mind. Darlene, you want to get us started . A coupet ofle of questions yesterday. I wonder if there is information information emerging yet . This tragic shooting occurred only about 24 hours ago, and the president yesterday took the opportunity to convey his condolences to the families of those who were lost in the shooting. Those families continue to be in the thoughts and prayers of everyone at the white house, even today. The president received a briefing yesterday, both from the director of the fbi as well as his top counterterrorism adviser at the white house lisa monaco, to get an update on the investigation. The attorney general Loretta Lynch is obviously involved in these ongoing investigative efforts. At this point, i do not have an update on the status of their investigation. I know the fbi made clear yesterday they are looking at a variety of possible motives, including the possibility of domestic terrorist. So that is a part of their ongoing investigation. But i will allow the investigators themselves to provide you with an update when they are able to. The president indicated he wanted to try to keep the American People informed as much as possible on this ongoing investigation. Im confident our investigators will do exactly that. What about any information on whether anyone else was involved. They are taking a look at all of those questions. I dont have Additional Information about that. The army chief of staff said earlier today that security at military recruiting centers and reserve centers would be reviewed. Does the president think its time to beef up security at places like that . The president thinks its important for the department of defense to conduct a review like that. The president said its important to take the necessary steps to ensure our men and women in uniform are safe, particularly when it comes to our men and women in uniform here at home. There was an announcement from the department of Homeland Security about additional steps theyd be taking. There are some that are jointly operated by the federal government and department of defense where the department of Homeland Security has jurisdiction. Id refer you to the department of Homeland Security for additional steps. There are some steps they wont be be able to discuss publicly. And lastly, the daily guidance for today included this rare lun that said the president will remain in new york to spend time with his family. Usually youd just say hes remaining in new york. The president is and had been scheduled to travel to new york for a fundraising event. That is not particularly unusual. But, why the president is looking forward to a rare opportunity that hell have to spend a little personal time with his daughters in new york over the weekend. I dont anticipate well have a lot of details in advance about their activities but the press pool will obviously be there with the president and will inform your colleagues who will be participating maybe not participating, but at least traveling along. It might interfere with they might interfere with the personal nature of the father daughter time but well make sure you are aware of what they are up to. Julia. What can you tell us about the president s meeting with the Saudi Foreign minister this morning . Were there any discussions of commitments the u. S. Might make to defend saudi arabia in the context of the iran deal . Julia, this is a meeting that king suleman requested the president host in the conversation that the two leaders had earlier this week i believe it was on tuesday the president had the opportunity to speak with the king via telephone in philadelphia. As a result to tharkts the president sat down and had a conversation with the Saudi Foreign minister to discuss a range of regional and bilateral issues including the recent historic agreement announced this week. As youll recall from the camp david meetings back in may the president and gcc leaders pledged to further deepen the Security Cooperation between the United States and our gcc partners. That includes building a stronger enduring and comprehensive Strategic Partnership aimed at enhancing regional prosperity. In the context of those discussions the foreign minister and president talked about the important bilateral relationship between the United States and saudi arabia. And there was a discussion about how to further enhance that close and longstanding partnership. There are also i guess that will be the subject of some discussions that secretary carter will have with his counterparts when he visits saudi arabia next week. There also was an opportunity to discuss the ongoing humanitarian crisis in yemen and crises in yemen and syria, and a discussion about how to move both of those conflicts toward a political solution. Also a discussion of the ongoing counterisil program of which saudi arabia is an important part. We appreciate the effort theyve made toward that and there was a discussion about the progress that effort is making. Discussions on how to further enhance commitments, were they firm or kind of ongoing . They were a continuation of discussions that took place at camp david back in may. Youll recall the strategic priority the United States has identified is to not just deepen the bilateral Security Cooperation that exists, but rather to facilitate better coordination and Cooperation Among the gcc countries, and there may be equipment and skills and training that the United States can offer that would make those countries more effective. That sometimes involves the interopera bility of hardware or facilitating training. And the president and gcc leader leaders agreed theres clearly an Important Role for the United States in terms of standing closely with our gcc partners when it comes to their security situation. But it should not be to the exclusion of the gcc countries operating more effectively when coordinating with one another to provide their own security. This morning secretary kerry said that he raised the topic during the iran negotiations of americans being detained in iran. Every time he had a chance to meet with the iranians. Hes very, very hopeful that tehran may listen and release those three americans. Does the president share that same level of optimism . And what evidence does kerry have or the president have to be that optimistic . I guess for the characterization of the secretarys comments id refer you to the state department. I think what his comments should indicate to you is the priority the president places on the safe return of these americans. I think the president gave a persuasive explanation in his News Conference earlier this week in describing why he did not believe it was in the best interest of those detained americans to be used as bargaining chips in a nuclear negotiation. The first reason, it was not a foregone conclusion a Nuclear Agreement would be reached. And by attaching the plight of these unjustly detained americans to a deal that may or may not go through does not seem like a safe way to ensure their safe return. But, and i think the president went to Great Lengths to convey this that does not mean these individuals and their safe return are not a priority. In fact, they are. And the fact that secretary kerry so frequently raised them in the context of the negotiations should be an indication to you where the wellbeing of these american citizens calls on our priority list. Is there evidence that something may be in the pipes that we may see a release . What there is evidence of is a rigorous u. S. Government effort to try to secure the release of these individuals, but i dont have a detailed update to provide you on our ongoing efforts. Michelle . There may be some equipment or expertise or otherwise the u. S. Can offer to saudi arabia. Did the president make such an offer, either in his talk with King Suleiman or the foreign minister . The discussions that took place with King Suleiman this week and in the oval office with the foreign minister today were a continuation of the discussions that took place at camp david. The other thing that is notable about this is there was unanimity of opinion. That those kinds of conversations are constructive and do further deepen the advance and advance the relationship between the United States and our partners in the middle east. Particularly in the gulf region. And the president understands that the u. S. Relationship with each of those countries is critical to the National Security reaches of those individual countries. The president has concluded having a strong relationship with those countries is clearly within the National Security of the United States. Thats the essence of these on ongoing consultations. And these are consultations that will continue when secretary carter visits saudi arabia early next week. Why want that meeting put on the schedule . Typically ill start by saying its a little unusual for the president to meet with the official of a country who is not also the head of state. And this was, as i mentioned, a particular request from King Suleiman that the king made in the context of their telephone conversation. This is not something formally listed on the president s guidance. But thats the explanation. And the outreach the white house has been doing and people here, as well as overseas the white house mentioned yesterday that there were a number of offers made to have these consummitations with israel but they repeatedly turned that down. Why are they not wanting to have those discussions right now . I think thats a question you should ask them. The fact is this is the president believes strongly in the value of though Security Cooperation between the United States and israel. There are a variety of ways in which that National Security cooperation benefits the United States and our National Security. Weve heard a number of israeli officials indicate the security relationship that israel has with the United States is critical to the basic National Security of israel. And thats measured in a variety of ways. I think the most illustrative example is the effectiveness of the iron dome situation that was ramped up at the direction of president barack obama. This is a system that last summer shot down a number of rockets that were fired by extremists in gaza aimed squarely at israeli civilians. That is turned out to be a very powerful tool in saving the lives of israeli citizens. And the president has communicated directly to Prime Minister netanyahu a willingness and desire interest into specific discussions about how our Security Cooperation could be deepened and strengthened and further enhanced. We stand ready and eager to enter into that conversation when israeli officials determine that they are prepared to do so. I would indicate this is not let r things. This is not an indication that somehow the Security Cooperation between the United States and israel has been degraded in any way. In fact Prime Minister netanyahu indicated the level of Security Cooperation his cannot has country has received from the Obama Administration is unprecedented. Defense secretary ash carter will be traveling to israel next week where hell be meating with his counterparts to discuss our ongoing Security Cooperation. Just this week the has of counterterrorism at the state department convened an important Security Cooperation meeting with the Israeli Deputy National Security adviser. This was a discussion where they talked about a range of issues, including shared concerns. These are concerns shared by the United States and israel about iran irans destabilizing activity. And by supporting their proxies in the region like hezbollah that do that do menace israel. This Security Cooperation is ongoing, and the administration is eager to seize on the next opportunity that emerges to start discussing how to deepen that cooperation. When is the meeting . It occurred earlier this week. Im sure the state department can give you more detalls. The outreach with members of congress, even some democrats have expressed skepticism. Is the white houses stance that if they were to vote and then possibly even override a veto to keep congressional sanctions in place, would the u. S. Then be in violation of the deal or would the deal break apart or what are you conveys to members of congress that would be the biggest problem if that were to happen . The fact is if the United States congress were to successfully kill this agreement, it would have a terrible impact on the standing of the United States in the world. This san agreement not just between the United States and iran. This is an agreement between the United States, russia china germany, the uk and france and iran. And this is an agreement that is enthusiastically supported by as the president said, 99 of the international community. And for the United States because of a congressional action to isolator country on such an irmportent issue would be devastating to our standing in the world. It would also have some very practical consequences. The first is that the reason our sanctions regime against iran succeeded in compelling them to the negotiating table is because of the devastating impact on their economy. Theres a whole host of other sanctions and embargoes placed on iran. The latest has been this aggressive enforcement by countries around the world. India, japan, south korea and others that previously relied heavily on the importation of iranian oil. And by scaling back their oil purchases, it had a negative impact on irans economy and on the domestic economy of those individual countries. So the point is that the sanctions regime could collapse. The second is that iran would still obtain the financial benefits of sanctions relief. Something our critics have described as a financial wndfall. Iran is going to get all that money and the United States doesnt get anything for it. Iran is taking a number of steps to curtail their program. Theyll reduce their stock pile of enriched uranium and remove 13,000 cent ririfuges and overhaul and all but dismantle their plutonium reactor at iraq. And and iran has committed to cooperating with the most intrusive set. But if the u. S. Congress votes to kill this deal iran will get all the benefits of this deal without having to give up anything. And thats what ultimately has to be a fundamental question that members of congress have to ask themselves because the fact is, at this point, based on the conclusion reached by 99 of the international community, iran will begin to receive sanctions relief after theyve taken demonstrable steps to significantly curtail their Nuclear Program and make a public commitment theyll cooperate with a set of International Inspections that will verify they do not obtain a Nuclear Weapon. Or congress can vote to allow iran to get off scotfree and to get all the sanctions relief. Thats the fundamental question and this is the essence of the case. And this will be the case that Senior Administration officials will be making in open testimony in Congress Next week. John . Help me with the math. You said 99 of the world community. The president said 99 of the world. Where is that number coming from . If you look at the population of the countries represented in this agreement, the vast majority, 99 of the world is on the side of the United States and our International Partners in implementing this. Have you done the math of our allies in the region the ones most affected by this. What percent of our allies in the middle east support this deal . Ill let them all speak for themselves. At least when it comes to foreign minister al jabeer at the oval office today, he indicated when he was at camp david that we meaning saudi arabia, welcome discussions on the Nuclear Program between the p5 1 and that all pagways to aure ina Nuclear Weapon youre telling me the saudis support this . I know he supported diplomacy. You can ask them. I assume the topic came up. Did the saudis support this . Ill let them speak for themselves. Do the israelis . I think they made it clear they dont. Who does stipulate it . German, british french the president , the chinese, thekoreans, japanese indians, all of the countries involved in pressuring iran to come to the negotiationing table in the first place. The president is going to be in new york. Hes not saying that the waldorf. Is this because the chinese now own the waldorf . I dont have any details about where the president will stay. Theres a number of factors that control where the president will spend the night when not at the white house. I dont have an update. Is this a concern . This is obviously the home of the United States ambassador to the United Nations. Its a place the president typically almost always stays when in new york. Is there a concern about being hosted by the chinese . At this point, it is as darlene pointed ot. Its unique for the president to be spending the night in new york. Typically the only time hed spend time overnight is when hed stay two or three days for the United Nations General Assembly and he does typically stay at the waldorf. Will he stay at the waldorf this time . I dont know where hell be staying. I want to ask this question of congress. A number of congressional a number of senators both parties, have raised concerns that basically this deal is going to be voted on at the United Nations before it is voted on by the u. S. Congress. Is there any hesitation about that at the white house to go to the u. N. Before you go to congress . No. And the reason is its important to reflect this agreement is not between the United States and iran. This is an agreement between the p5 1 and iran. P5 is a reference to the five permanent members of the u. N. Security council. So it is natural those who are party to this agreement would be acting promptly to take it up. But what is clear are a couple of things. The first is there is nothing that the United Nations Security Council will do that wourld have an impact on sanctions imposed by the United States, imposed by congress or scootexecutive order. They wont have any influence over the decisions that are made as they relate to u. S. Sanctions. The second thing is that the way this vote is structured actually does reflect significant deference to the United States congress. And that is we do anticipate in the next few days there will be a vote by the United Nations Security Council but it will not be adopted for 90 days. And what that means is i guess whats convenient about that is theres a 60day window for congress to consider this agreement. That Means Congress will have ample opportunity to do so within their 60day window before this agreement is sort of formally adopted after the u. N. Security council vote. Lets move around a little bit. Justin . First if i can just follow up on what you said to john. I know you dont think its likely that congress will have a vetoproof way to overturn the deal, but if they were, would you go back to the United Nations during that 30day period and ask them to revoke the agreement . I would not speculate on what would happen if congress were to take the devastating effort or to succeed in the devastating effort to undermine this agreement. Theres a lot of outreach going on with capitol hill. You mentioned House Democrats have written a letter. That was a number that prevented or was enough to sustain a veto. Is that the group youre mainly focused on shoring up . What that letter said and we can produce that letter. This was written in may by about i think signed by 150 House Democrats. And that is enough to sustain a president ial veto. What they indicated is they were supportive, again, generally speaking, that they were supportive of a final agreement that reflects the kind of outlines established in the lucan agreement in early april. That does give us some kchd that confidence that we have support from hosuse democrats. Those are certainly not the only conversations that have occurred. The president has had conversations with Senior Leaders in congress in both parties, and between [ inaudible ]. I wont get into details of who the president called but they are in both houses and both parties. But there have been a large number of conversations that secretary kerry has engaged in, the chief of staff dennisis mcdonough. Theyve spent ample, significant amount of time on the phone with members of congress. There have been a number of other Group Meetings convened by other National Security advisers to the president. And these consultations will continue. And they will these conversations will continue between democrats and republicans. And the other thing i would say to put it bluntly if there is anybody in congress who has questions about the agreement. Look, its complicated. Many of you have probably thumbed through this already. Theres a lot of technicality details included. Weve acknowledged they are critically important. Thats why we blew past the deadline on june 30th to make sure the details were right. Its understandable there would be specific questions that people would have and wed welcome the opportunity to get to answer them, regardless whof in congress is asking them. If there are individuals in congress that want to have a phone call and discuss this, we can put them in touch with a relevant member of the president s security team. Are there any plans for the president to go visit chattanooga . And related to the fundraiser in new york, previous off years set a number of fundraising goals for the president for the dnc. Obviously were going into 2016 elections. Its going to be extremely expensive. I wonder if you have concrete tangible goals for how much the president plans to fundraise. I dont have any word on the president s travel schedule as it relates to tennessee. I dont have a tangible fundraising goal. The president is mindful of both significant stakes and his ongoing relationship even though hes not on the ballot, to be strongly supportive of those democrats who share his vision for the future of the country. The president has been engaged in some Fundraising Efforts already and over the next year and a half, the president s engagement in advance of the next president ial election will only increase. Kristen . Can i go back to the issue of the u. N. Why submit a draft resolution at this moment . It seems like at this moment youre trying to sell this deal to lawmakers to get them on board. Why do that at this moment when it seems to have only aggravated that situation . Again, this is the this is an agreement negotiated between iran and the five members of the Security Council and germany. And their it makes sense that once that agreement has been reached, that the u. N. Security council would act promptly to consider the agreement. Thats what theyre doing. Out of deference to the United States congress, there is a 90day window before this approved resolution is formally adopted. What that means is it means there will be time for congress to use all of the 60 days they themselves requested to review the agreement and to consider that agreement and even vote on it before the action that is taken at the u. N. Is formally adopted. And it bears repeating that there is nothing that the United Nations Security Council can or will do to impact the sanctions that the United States has put in place particularly those sanctions for which congress has jurisdiction. Secretary kerry said earlier today hell be traveling to doha to speak with officials in the gulf states about the iran deal. What will the president s outreach look like in the coming weeks and what does he say to the argument that some officials there have been making that this ultimately emboldens iran. Whether or not you agree with this deal . That is ultimately emboldens iran . The administration will continue to engage with our partners in the region. And i think what will the president do . I think its important to remember, secretary carter is traveling to the middle east over the weekend and into next week, where hell spend time both in israel and saudi arabia meeting with top officials there. Im confident there will be some discussion of this iran agreement, but certainly not the only thing thats on the agenda there. You mentioned secretary kerrys meeting. You made careful note, im sure of all the telephone calls the president has already conducted with our allies and partners around the world to discuss this. So, i think thats an indication that there is a high level a commitment to high level engage engagement when 2 comes to and our allies. As it relates to the question youve raised about an emboldened iran i guess i would disagree with a basic premise of that question, because as a result of this agreement, iran will not obtain a Nuclear Weapon. Theres nothing that iran could do to be further emboldened than to obtain a Nuclear Weapon. So by taking the prospect of a Nuclear Armed iran off the table, now focus on the other steps that are necessary to constrain their threatenings of israel, their support for terrorist, their support for proxies that destabilize the middle east, these are other significant concerns of our allies and partners in the region. And the United States remains committed to helping those countries address them. As the president said in his News Conference on wednesday theres a reason that this has been that preventing iran from obtaining a Nuclear Weapon has been a top priority. A Nuclear Armed iran makes them more dangerous and does only further embolden them. This is a view articulated by Prime Minister netanyahu himself. This is a shared priority which were making important progress. Can you characterize what specific extent did this come up during todays meeting . I know it did. You can be assured that this is a significant part of the discussion was on this particular issue. Both the agreement thats been reached, but also also deepening the cooperation between the United States and our gcc partners to destabilize irans activities in the gulf state. I want to ask you about a domestic issue, something thats a topic of debate employees of planned parenthood were captured on video talking about fetal remains, aborted remains. Has the president spoken about this action . I havent spoken to the president about this particular issue. I have not seen the particular video in question. I did read the news reports indicating that the that the policies that are followed by planned parenthood are entirely consistent with the strictest ethical guidelines that have been established in the Health Care Industry but for those kind of details i would refer you to planned parenthood. Josh, more broadly, does the president think hes able to use the remains of aborted fetuses . Planned parenthood has said they follow those ethical guidelines. The highest of those ethical guidelines. For their compliance with them and what that means ill refer you to them. I dont have detail or intimate knowledge of the practices they engage in. You havent seen the video so no indication the president has . I dont know if he has or not. Okay. Thanks. Andrew . Quick question. Is the administration considering release of Jonathan Mueller . I know that there is a i would refer you to the department of justice on this. Obviously, mr. Pollard is someone thats been charged with serious crimes and is being confined in our criminal justice system. And i dont have any update on his status. I would refer to you the department of justice on that. Just talking with Prime Minister discussion [ inaudible ] i dont have any potential visits to talk about at this opponent. If we have any updates on that, well let you know. J. C. . Continuing on the discussion with the ambassador was there any discussion with the president of the Ambassadors Team meeting with his counterparts in israel in the lead up to the Iran Nuclear Deal . Im sorry. Say that one more time. Was there any discussion with the president in that meeting with in terms of any saudi meetings with the israelis in the lead up to the Iran Nuclear Deal . Im not aware of any meetings between the saudis and israelis but i would refer to you those two parties for details. Thank you. Im just wondering if the president obviously opposition to this deal in israel is bipartisan. Across the spectrum. Would the president be interested in going to israel and explaining the deal as coming here to congress . That is a provocative idea, gardner. [ inaudible ] right, exactly. To answer your basic question, im not aware of any plans to do anything like that. But more generally the president is mindful of the fact that this agreement is something that is being carefully scrutinized in israel. The president i think, was pretty forthright about acknowledging in the News Conference that he convened with all of you on wednesday, that hes not just aware of the concerns that many israelis have about iran and irans behavior. The president was forthright about acknowledging that those concerns are entirely legitimate. And the president has also been pretty forth right about acknowledging that the president has those concerns in mind when he goes to this effort to prevent iran from this Nuclear Weapon. It continues to be the president s view the best way to prevent iran from obtaining Nuclear Weapon is through diplomacy. Its through diplomacy iran will take the steps needed to sh link their uranium stockpile by 98 . To remove 13,000 centrifuges. To fill in the calandria at their heavy water reactor with cement. To ensure it can no longer be used to produce weaponsgrade plutonium. This is the best way for us to prevent iran from obtaining a Nuclear Weapon. And the important part of this is not that iran has made those commitments, but that we can actually check to make sure that they live up to those commitments. And we have imposed the toughest, most intrusive set of inspections that have ever been imposed on a countrys Nuclear Program to verify their compliance with the Nuclear Program. Whats also true is that does not eliminate other concerns with irans behavior. But when iran threatens israel and uses antisemitic rhetoric to do so, thats something we strongly condemn. We understand the president understands the very significant danger that that poses to the nation of israel, but that danger would be even more severe if iran had a Nuclear Weapon. And thats why the president has made this a priority and the president is committed, even in conversations with Prime Minister netanyahu, to try and work more effectively together to counter many of the destabilizing actions that iran engages in in the region, including by supporting hezbollah. Josh, what if the israeli Prime Minister has already said that all options are on the table for him . What if the israelis using u. S. Equipment, bomb the facility and some other Iranian Nuclear facilities, how would the u. S. Respond to that . Obviously, we have we have deals where we with israelis and almost any regional war if they create a regional war that we dont want them to in this case . Well, gardner, i wouldnt want to speculate on that particular hypothetical beyond acknowledging that obviously israel the leaders of israel are entitled of course, to take the steps they believe are necessary for the defense of their country. They have a responsibility to make those decisions. But the president has also indicated that the military option on the part of the United States is one that continues to be available, but the more