Transcripts For CSPAN Secretary Of Defense Confirmation Hearing 20150208

Our air power and other kinds of assistance inflict defeat onnist skpis then make it a lasting defeat. Thats how i would characterize what i see. Im not in the counsels of government, but thats what i infer. I appreciate that very much. When you were in my office we talked about having just returned from ukraine and also when i first walked in senator heinrich was talking about lithuania and that area. Their concern was all of our attention seemed to be in that part of the world concentrated on ukraine. Its true, we have never had i happen to be there when they had their election for the first time in 96 years they dont have a communist in their parliament in ukraine. So we have that problem at the same time as the others youre addressing. What do you think about our european strength as it is right now . Are we adequate . Are we becoming inadequate . I think that our strength in europe is our alliance with nato and the political solidarity that that represents, which is very important when it comes to the Baltic States and also the response in ukraine, which while not a nato nation is certainly a european nation and european unity is an important part of that. So one of our strengths is that. Another strength is our military strength. And there i understand that we are adding forces Rotational Forces to the Baltic States as a presence there as a deterrent to any russian kind of adventurism on the part of russia. In those states i certainly support that, and if im confirmed, id want to look into what more we can do. I wish the european states and secretary of defenses have said this were investing in their own defense. Lastly, im out of time, but for the record if youd submit this for the record to me, in the event were able to get the perpetrator of the horrible crime that took place, would you examine the expeditionary legal complex that we have as a place to do our interrogation . I heard your response to the first question that we at least considered that. Sure, ill learn more and respond. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, dr. Carter. Thank you for your continuing presence at this hearing. I appreciate your acknowledging at this hearing the importance and the seriousness of Sexual Assault in the military. And in response to questions that have been submitted to you, you said that you would take a personal role in addressing the prevention and dealing with this scourge in a much better way. So i will have a continuing interest in seeing how you do in that regard. I also agree with you that the security of our country is very much dependent, i would say, on maintaining the stability in the asiapacific area, so of course, we need to continue our commitment to the rebalance and at the same time be able to deal with the instability in other parts of the world. Now president obama recently visited india and announced a series of Bilateral Agreements with Prime Minister modi. Can you talk briefly about the future of the u. S. India relationship in the context of our rebalance commitment . Thank you senator. The rebalance is a rebalance not only within to the asiapacific area, but within it. Our historic focus has been east asia and i think that your question points to the importance to pay greater attention to south asia as well. India is, in my view, destined to be a Strategic Partner of the United States. Its a large democracy shares a lot of our political values and values of pluralism so i think that destiny will bring us together but im for hastening that. In the Military Area and the defense cooperation and Technology Cooperation areas i think theres a great deal that we can do with india. If im confirmed i would take a strong interest in doing that. Thank you. Do you view u. S. Energy security as a vital component to our Overall National security, and clearly on the military side . What role if any, do you believe that the department of defense has in supporting efforts to increase u. S. Energy security . I think Energy Security is an important part of National Security. The Defense Department does play a role not a central role but a role in Energy Security. I think every dollar we spend of the Defense Budget we need to be able to justify on defense grounds, and we make some investments in Energy Technology because they pay off for the Defense Budget and for the soldier, we make investments in batteries, solar cells, things that are inhalation insulation. So in some ways the department of defense, like other large institutions in the country, is investing in Energy Efficiency in the future. I think thats an important thing to do. D. O. D. Is the largest user o of energy in the federal government. Regarding acquisitions, with your experience in the defense acquisition process including the time in which you led the Acquisition Technology and logistics directory at the pentagon, as you review our d. O. D. Acquisition program with the various cost overruns delays et cetera, which others have noted including the chairman, what would be your First Priority to improve the acquisition process . For example, would you look at the kind of contracts that we enter into. , training, requirements process, what would be your First Priority to improve matters . All of those are important. To take the point you made about contract structure, contracts are a way of providing incentives to industry to control costs and meet schedule, thats an important part of negotiating a strategy. To get to your other suggestion in order to negotiate those contracts well, we need people on the government side who are capable, who understand acquisition and who understand industry. I am in favor of introducing reintroducing to the acquisition system the role of the customer, which is the chiefs of the military services. I think thats been a proposal made by others with which i associate myself, so theres no one silver bullet. There are many things that we need to do to improve acquisition. Thank you. Senator fischer . Thank you mr. Chairman. And thank you, dr. Carter, for your service and your willingness to continue that service to our country. I appreciated our frank conversation that we had in my office the other day, and i look forward to many more in the future. In that conversation and today also you talk about the deterrents, our Nuclear Deterrence is being the bedrock of our defense. I appreciate your views on that and i agree with your views. We also talked about modernization and the importance of modernization and how as a country we need to step forward and really see that through if we are going to continue to enjoy the security that we have as a country. So thank you for your comments on that. In 2013 you led the strategic choices but the gao has issued reports that cast doubt on if that will take place and even if we have an accurate picture on what the full resources are that are devoted to that Headquarters Staff. So a couple of questions here will you, if confirms maintain the goal of the 20 reduction in the Headquarters Staff and how will you accomplish it if we dont have any idea what those numbers are . I certainly think it is important to to diminish Headquarters Staff and other forms of overhead. I think the 20 goal is a sound one. I do not know where it stands in terms of implementation but if confirms i will try to meet that goal. Because we have to get rid of the overhead so we can spend the dollars on the war fighter, which is what it is all about. Have you seen the gao report questioning if those numbers are even out there and if they are even available, and if you believe that, how are you going to get the numbers . I have not seen that gao report. But if i am confirmed well find out where the department stands in terms of implementing that goal and if they are off track, try to get them back on track because i think it is a good goal. Do you think now is the time that we should look at elevating cyber to its own command or even with the commission that we had yesterday, there is a recommendation in that commission for a joint readiness command. When we look at overhead and administrative costs what would be your initial response to those that are promoting ideas for additional commands. Im all for paying much more attention to cyber and think we need to do that. But the creation of new commands and new headquarters in this budgetary environment is something i think we need to look at very closely and cautiously. As you know, our chairman senator mccain, is interested as we all are, in gaining more knowledge about the information sharing with regard to our Cyber Security threats and that is one area that i believe has broad support. I know there is support not just from members of this committee and members of congress but also the president has discussed the need for informationsharing on those Cyber Security threats. I agree that information sharing and better defense is a first step, but do you think that we can achieve relative Cyber Security simply by improving those defenses or do we need to perhaps go on the offense and impose more i guess you would say visible costs with regards to our actions on Cyber Security . I think both are important. We need to improve our defenses. But we also need to improve our abilities to respond. And those responses can be in cyber space or in other ways, but certainly they should include the option to respond in cyber space. And the option to respond, would you say that would include demonstrating that we have the capability to do so, is that part of our deterrence when it comes to protecting our country our agencies and private businesses when it comes to Cyber Attacks . I agree with you. I think deterrence requires that a potential aggressor know that you have the capability to respond and they obviously cant know all of the details of that or they can counter respond but they should know you can respond. And would respond if necessary. And would respond if necessary. Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Senator cask ill. I want to talk about the weapons. You are in a special position because you have been in the weeds on all of this in the previous position and we worked on war time contracting reforms which are now in the statutes and i know you will be aggressive about making sure of all of those provisions are adhered to. I also want to address a question to you for the record on the murky line on the building of infrastructure during contingencies in theater while we are fighting. I think what weve learned in iraq and afghanistan through the special Inspector Generals reports is that this line of passing back and forth responsibility for building roads, building highways building grids, building Water Systems and power plants between aid and defense has made it difficult for us to hold everybody accountable that needs to be accountable for dramatic failures and on that note i want to talk about special Inspector General reports. Yesterday i learned for the first time in six years the special Inspector General reports as to the way we are accomplishing our mission in training the Afghan Security forces was going to be classified by general campbell. That was never done before. That is essential to robust oversight. I kicked up dust last weeb about it and on monday it was announced that general campbell was reversing his decision in some regard. I want to ask your commitment to make sure that throughout the chain of command there is an understanding that the decision to classify is a very, very precarious decision because if you dont do it when it needs to be done, but if you overclassify it removes the ability of us and the taxpayers to hold the military accountable and i wanted to bring that up to you and ask you for your commitment in that regard. I give that commitment. And i also wanted to briefly talk about Sexual Assault in the military. The report that came out in december while it still shows work to be done, i think it is important that on the record we talk about the success that we have had. Reporting is up. Weve gone from one in ten victims coming forward to one in four in a matter of a few years. Incidents is down. Importantly, restricted reporting is up. And maybe, the most Important Information in that report that hasnt gotten a lot of cover in anonymous surveys and focus groups with victims more than two thirds of the victims said they had complete confidence in their commanders in how they are handling the crimes and they feel their privacy is being respected and that they are being supported. That is huge. And i wanted to point that out because i do think we are making progress. But on retaliation, that same report, as senator gillibrand reported, we still have a 62 of retaliation. If you look at the report you realize it is not retaliation by the convening authority, by the command as making the decision as to whether to go to court marshal. But it is peer command. We make retaliation a crime. We expect to get say report in how many times that has been pursued in the military Justice System. That just went into place a relatively short time ago. What do you plan on doing in connection with this retaliation problem and with this new crime in the military Justice System to pursue it. Thank you and thank you for everything youve done. Ive, from the outside looking in observed and admired the ideas and the energy and the commitment youve shown to this getting rid of this scourge of Sexual Assault, so first of all thank you for that. With respect to retaliation, that is one of the dimensions that i think the report you cite uncovered as very prevalent. I think the 62 of victims were reporting experiencing retaliation. And as you say not so much although not to the exclusion of but not so much from the chain of command, but from peers and subordinates. And you are right, this is a crime and its prevalence suggests we are not doing everything we can to root out that crime so if im confirmed you can count that im attentive to this issue of retaliation and determined to do something about it. I look forward to working with you if i am confirmed. Thank you very much. Dr. Carter. I look forward to looking with you. Senator lee. Thank you very much dr. Carter. I appreciate you being here. I appreciate the visit we had in my office the other day. And youve certainly proven yourself as someone who knows a lot about the department of defense, having served at the highest levels as Department Secretary in the past. I want to talk about a few things. First lets talk about the f35 for a minute. The f35 is an amazing system with units at Hill Air Force base that are set to be hosting the f35 starting this fall. It is a program, however, that has been marred by delays and cost overruns as you know. As the department of defense looks at acquireing other new Weapons Systems and equipment to make sure that we maintain our Technology Advantage over our adversaries, i think it is important not only to work time and cost efficiencies and acquisition into the equation for such programs but also to integrate that with logistics and maintenance processes that are absolutely essential to make sure we get our moneys worth. And of course with the program like the f35 the biggest single expense through the life cycle isnt just acquiring it it is maintaining it and making sure we get our moneys worth out of it. Given that the department of defense has been reforming the acquisition process in various ways for decades, what would you do differently not only to improve that process but to make sure that acquisitions and development and logistics are all aligned in a way that increases the life cycle and increases the efficiency and utility of these various Weapons Systems . Thank you, senator. It is exactly as you say. The lions share of the cost of any weapons system is not in buying it, but in having it. Which is why in getting to the f35 system that you cite, the longlasting strike is still ongoing and it going on as long as it is in existence has to go on as long as it is in the aircraft. We have worked on cost control in the eric and in sustainment as well, exactly as you say. Thank you. And i appreciate your thought on that especially because your experience gives you a real strong ability to appreciate the nuances involved there. General john kelly, the commander of south com called last years border crisis an existen shall threat to the United States. Do you think our ability to adequately enforce security at our borders does present a Security Threat to the United States including a Security Threat that could involve the possibility of terrorists entering into our country without our knowledge. I think control of our borders is an important part of our National Security yes. And that is something you would continue to watch out for if confirmed at this position . Absolutely. It was reported on february 2nd, a few days ago, that iran successfully placed another satellite into orbit using a twostage rocket. Do you think the continuing development of iranian Ballistic Missile Technology Presents a threat to the United States and what do you think we should do about it . It is a threat to the United States and friends and allies to the region and one of the things that iran is doing that is dangerous. With respect to the Ballistic Missiles that threaten the United States, that is one of the reasons that we need to keep our missile defenses and especially our icbm defenses current, capable and large enough in size to deal with both the perspective iranian threat and the also very real north korean icbm threat. Thank you. As has been noted in several capacities within the department of defense including most recently as the deputy secretary, youve had to confront the issue of sequestration. Now many of us, including myself did not want sequestration to hit. I voted against the budget control act in part because i didnt think that we ought to be putting this burden disproportionately on the department of defense as we were. None of us wanted the supercommittee to come up with a solution after that happened and many of us hoped it wouldnt come to that, and of course it did. But one of the lessons that i think we learned from two years ago was that while it is good to hope for the best, we also have to prepare for the worst. What can you do to make sure that were not caught flatfooted and that we are ready for anything that we have to confront on that issue . Well, we need to continue to adapt our plans to the resources were given. My own view is that we have made adaptations over the last few years to our strategy to accommodate the budget squeeze that are getting to the limits of what it is safe to do. And that is why i really want to see an end to sequester. We need to do more to spend the defense dollar better and im all for that as well. But it is also basically it is the truth that we are getting to the point where we have bept the strategy bent the strategy as the phrase goes, and i dont think it is safe to keep bending it. Thank you. I see my time is expired. Chairman. Senator kahne, but before that i would like to announce we will break after after kahne, and then senator graham and there is a vote at 2 30 so well reconvene at 2 45 for the benefit of the few remaining senators and any second round that any member wants and we appreciate your patience dr. Carter. Senator cain. Thank you, chairman and thank you dr. Carter for your strong testimony today. The chair and the Ranking Member in their opening comments put the issues on the table and i want to focus on the elimination of isil. It was asked if that should be the goal. We all had the challenge yesterday of visiting with King Abdullah at a very emotional and difficult time. But i was struck by something he said to us. He said, look we need you desperately, but this is the fight that is the regions fight. If were not willing to stand up against extremism in the region there is no amount of outside forces as powerful as they can be that can beat this fight. And he really took ownership of it in a way that i thought was pretty courageous. Do you think it is possible for the United States military to eliminate isil on our own or even with other western nations if the region doesnt go allin to combat the home grown jihadism in the most home grown by isil . We have to have regional partners because we have to make sure that the defeat inflicted upon isil is a lasting defeat. And for that there needs to be conditions created in the where isil is now occupying territory that dont make it a breeding ground for victory for that kind of what is the right word malignant and vicious kind of terrorism. So the United States involvement is i believe, essential. It is necessary. But it is not sufficient to have lasting victory. I would share your view necessary, essential not sufficient. It is still my hope that the white house will send us a draft for use of military force. I think after the president s comments after the state of the union it seems more likely. I dont think this is a war that can be waged in perpetuity without putting our thumbprint on without risking our lives, congress will debate and vote and authorize it. But if we have that debate about the american role, one of the things that i think is notable if the region has to go allin against the isil threat, so far 80 of the airstrikes has been u. S. Flown. Jordan has been rock solid in doing airstrikes but the other nations that are directly threatened by isil much more directly than we are threatened by isil have not, other than been associated with the coalition, have not stepped forward in showing and been willing to show they are going all in against this threat and i think that is subject of significant debate if we get into a discussion on authorization. Second, dr. Carter, on afghanistan, i completely agree with senator mccain the chairmans point in his opening. I hope we have a conditions based strategy and not a calendarbased strategy. And i think it is okay we have a plan. A plan is a plan. You can adjust the plan based on the current reality. Senator king and i were in afghanistan in october and talked with general campbell and it seemed like after those discussions, the white house did adjust the plan once already. There were ideas about the way u. S. Forces would be used in calendar year 2015 that after hearing from gem campbell and others, the white house adjusted the authorities during this calendar year and that was a decisionbased decision which is good. But i worry for the same reason you do. Weve, at the expense of blood and treasure, achieved a lot in afghanistan. The nations Life Expectancy has gone from 44 to 61 in ten years. And my back of the envelope math say People Living ten years longer seems to be a good roi to me, for as expensive as its been so why would we want to go backward . I think in afghanistan what we heard when when he were there was a little bit of the iraq worry. Wow, theyve taken their eye off the ball before because of things in iraq and pulled resources away and this is the perception in afghanistan maybe this is getting ready to happen again, as significant a threat as isil is and we need to be at it, in afghanistan they are nervous that the isil threat will pull our attention away and they could lose the gains and i hope in your capacity as you dig into the plan and the daily conditions that well make the right decision about how to keep the progress that weve gained in afghanistan and that we wont let a day on the calendar be the determination of our policy. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Do you want to respond to that doctor . 2106 americans have lost their lives in afghanistan. Afghanistan is from where the attacks emanated so i think finishing the job there is very important. Ive been part of that war in my previous time in the department. It is what i woke up to every morning and so im very committed to success there. And we have adjusted what weve been doing continuously as we went along. So i dont have anything to add to what you said except to remind that the Afghan Security forces are what we increasingly have trained to provide security on afghan territory. They are going to need support after 2016. In the president s budget about which ill appear before you in a few weeks i understand that there is if my memory serves, 3. 8 billion requested for the Afghan Security forces. That carries through the end of 16. And then a question arises will we stick with them the Afghan Security forces. So it is not just about american troops, it is about the overall commitment so that the Afghan Security forces can keep the peace there after 2016. Senator graham. Thank you. The idea of Joe Lieberman introducing is a risky proposition, but well see how that turns out. Bottom line, do you agree with the following statement the only reason 3000 americans died on 9 11 is the islamic terrorists who attacked us could not find another way to kill more of us. Yes. If they could they would kill more of us . That is my guess. I dont think it is a guess i think it is a fact. Do you think isil represents a threat to our homeland. I think they do. They say they want to attack us. There is no reason to believe they are kidding. I agree. The head of isil is in camp buka and he said ill see you in new york. Right. And they want to hit us. So i couldnt agree more with senator mccain, and if you dont get that it is not just about a buyin. They have the best platform since 9 11, they hold a large territory and they are rich and have crazy people under their control and they mean it when they want to hit us. Do you think alnusra wants to hit us . They do. They recruited a guy from florida, a suicide bomber, he came back before he became a suicide bomber and they are trying to hit us too. Do you think aqap wants to hit us. Very definitely. They are the people who hit us in paris. Do you think the iranians have to believe that a military options on the table during these Nuclear Negotiations . Absolutely. And if they dont, were making a huge mistake, right . Absolutely. Do you think the russians are being provocative at a time when the world is already in chaos . Yes. Do you think that a cyber pearl harbor is a potential threat we face . Absolutely. And were not ready for it . Agree with that also. Do you think china is intimidating their neighbors . Certainly trying to. Can you tell me in light of all of this why in the hell would the congress be devastating the military budget . Can you explain that to me . No, i cant. As long standing im against sequestration. And i left out a bunch of threats, because i only have five minutes. Canada is in good shape so we appreciate canada being a good neighbor. So the plan on the table now is to have 1,000 troops left in afghanistan, kabulbased. Do you agree with me given the conditions that exist in the region that the likelihood of a reemergence of al qaeda and other terrorist troops along the pakistanafghan border, we would be wide to have troops outside of kabul . That is not the plan now senator. Can you please tell me why i am wrong . It is the plan to go down to 1,000 by 2017. They increase the number of troops in 2015, but it is the plan and if you are going to be sect of defense, you need to understand. The plan is to go to 1,000. I think that is beyond unwise. That will destroy our ability to see, hear and listen to what i think is a reemerging threat along the afghanpakistan border. So if im wrong about the plan, please correct me. This is something you can go home and check out for yourself. No i think you are correct about the plan. That plan has to change and if it doesnt we are incredibly stupid as a nation. I want to withdraw from afghanistan responsibly. I want lines of defenses over there so they dont come here. Doesnt that make sense . It does make sense. Im glad Afghan People are living longer and girls are going to school. But im worried about americans living longer. And the reason i want to continue to invest in afghanistan and al nusra and all of the other, is because they are trying to hit us. Do you believe the only way to deter radical islam is you cant deter it you have to sir, i cant give an answer. They dont mind dying. I think a counterterrorism strategy begins foremost with defenses but has other dimensions as well in terms of removing the conditions that create safe havens and some of the ability for recruiting of terrorists so it is a complex issue, but protecting ourselves needs to come first. And ill close to me. To me it is not complex. The only way you can keep them from coming back here to america, is to stay over there, disrupt the operations keep them on the run, dont let them gather strength make poor, on the run and entrenched. Ill limit this. Syria, how in the world are we going to dislodge isis from syria without a ground component. And i agree with senator mccain that that needs to be syria based. People want to go in. Saudi arabia said you could have our army. The amir said you could have our army. How can we train up an army and send a force into syria if we dont first deal with the assad air threat. How in the world could you train somebody to go fight isil and one day they turn on assad and not expect him to kill them before they get the capacity to come after him one day. How does this work without dealing with assad . Senator let me Say Something about that. It is a very important question. The situation in syria, is as you indicate more than a problem of isis, it is is a problem of the assad regime as well. And the forces that were supporting there have first and foremost the job as weve discussed here this morning, of defeating isil. But i believe that they also need to be creating the conditions for the removal of assad. That is a much more complex task. I understand that. Im not trying to oversimplify it. But i think that has got to be at the end of the road. And if that is what you are pointing to, i completely agree with you. Well, couh just say you really didnt respond. In all due respect, dr. Carter, to sending young syrians, in training them and sending them into syrian and be barrel bombed by assad. And the unworkability of that is in contradiction to everything the United States ever stood for or thought for. I hope you will rethink your answer to senator grahams question. Thisiddy assy of cooperating with the iranians and quote taking isil first of which bashir assad is nonsense and immoral. The committee will return at 2 45 since there is a vote at 2 30. And members who seek a second round or those the use of military force against isis is something the white house is currently considering. House Speaker John Boehner said he expected the president to seek congressional authorization soon. He told reporters that congress would go through a rigorous set of hearings to discuss the issue. Another terrorist organization is just going to pop up anyway. Let them make their noise and ignore it. All they want to see is is getting scared of them. John writes, how are we supposed to balance the budget while paying for these in the source . I thought republicans were supposed to be concerned about government spending. Rick it military actions include providing arms, then make sure those weapons are seized and used against us. Error countries need to get involved in this conflict. Garrett writes, we dont have a choice, they must be stopped. We will hear from House Armed Services committee Ranking Member adam smith about the feist against isis and the priorities in the United States. Then Sergei Lavrov talks about the conflict between russia and ukraine at the annual conference in munich. A conversation between New York Times columnist, david brooks. On newsmakers this week is congressman adam smith. The top democrat on the House Armed Service committee. He joins us from seattle. In the studio, we have leo shane and Craig Whitlock. Craig whitlock has the first question. I want to start by asking you about ukraine. It seems there is new momentum to consider supplying weapons to the government of ukraine, although that is something the Obama Administration and its european allies have resisted for a while. Where do you stand on this . Where do you think this might lead. Representative smith it is pretty clear the strategy russia has employed. They are going to try to military engage in countries underneath the surface, so it doesnt appear they are actually engaged. They will use third parties, bring their soldiers in in ways that we cannot see. Certainly, they did that in crimea. Now they are doing that in Eastern Ukraine. The concern is first of all we want ukraine to be independent. If this works for russia and ukraine, there are a lot of russian speaking people in other countries around there. Estonia, poland. Where does russia stop . And frankly, when you read the rhetoric coming out of the highest levels of government in russia, it is not encouraging. So we have to help ukraine stop , this before it spreads. Bottom line is, we have to show russia there will be a high price to pay for this type of military intervention. And if ukraine is not properly armed, if russia can relatively easily wind up dominating half of the country, then they are not paying that price. How do you think Vladimir Putin will react . Will this cause them to back down, or will this cause them to step things up in ukraine or in some of the other countries in the region that you mentioned . Representative smith i think it causes him to recalculate the cost. Right now, crimea yes, facing the economic sanctions but , militarily, they continue to move forward. If it appears this is going to be relatively lowcost, there is a greater risk that he will continue to do it. There are risks on both sides of this. But we are defending a sovereign nation, by giving ukraine the legal aid that they need to protect themselves. If russia claims they are not actually there in the first place, they are going to have a hard time making the International Case that somehow we are unfairly confronting them. Congressman, do you feel like that recalculation will happen . So far, we havent seen any indication from putin that he is interested in backing down. What is the level the u. S. Will need to get involved in order to create some sort of situation where they feel the u. S. Is going to act . Representative smith i think thats a legitimate point. Perhaps recalculation was the wrong way to put it. It will become harder. Putin and the forces he is using will become bogged down in ukraine, so they wont be in position to move on to some place else. I guess i would put it more that way then than recalculation. Economically, there have been devastating impacts on russia that have not caused putin to recalculate. But if it is simply a matter of militarily, it is harder to advance in one place, that bogs them down so that they then cant do this someplace else. John french leaders, german leaders headed to russia with a possible peace plan. What are your expectations for that . Representative smith low. I have seen no evidence whatsoever that russia or Vladimir Putin are prepared to back down. I hope it works. I think it is definitely worth the effort. The germans and the french are pretty into it. That would be the best possible outcome. Look putin has made a very bad , choice here. As the Global Economy has moved forward, instead of embracing it and figuring out ways to work better with the west, he has decided that it is the cold war all over again and it is a zerosum game. It is east versus west. It is not. We can both benefit. I would hope that, eventually, we would be able to work out a more peaceful arrangement. It is a great disappointment that after the collapse of the soviet union, when there was so much promise in the 1990s, that russia has wound up where it is at. Again, when you look at their rhetoric and the way they talk about their foreign policy, it is the cold war all over again it is the zerosum game. You are either with russia and the east or the United States and the west. That is not the way the world is working today, and i hope that putin figures that out sooner rather than later. Craig the middle east and the fight against Islamic State in iraq and syria. It has been uneventful week. The Islamic State burned alive the capture jordanian pilot there has been the reported death of an american hostage. Howd you see these events playing over out over the next couple of weeks or so. We have heard that jordan is scaling up its involvement while the United Arab Emirates are pulling back. How do you see this these events playing out over the next couple of weeks or so . How do you think it will affect the coalition . Representaitve smith weve heard reports of jordan scaling up its involvement, while the United Arab Emirates has been pulling back a bit. How do you see this unfolding over the next couple days . Representative smith the House Armed Services committee had a meeting with the king of jordan just a couple days ago. He made it clear that jordan is all in at this point. It is war, and they are going to do everything they can to stop isis. This is a longterm and very difficult struggle. The most important thing we need is we need Sunni Arab States engaged in fighting against isis. One of the biggest things we need is the sunnis in iraq itself to fight isis. To do that, we are going to need a strong sunni arab coalition. It is good that jordan is moving in that direction. We do not have the credibility in the muslim world to come marching in and destroy isis. That will strengthen isis. We have to work with and build a durable partnership. Thats going to be very difficult. Craig what about other sunni and arab partners . When the bombing started, there was a lot of attention paid to college of william and mary there were a number of arab partners participating. It seems like it has tailed off. Representative smith they have limited capabilities. Thats why we are trying to support and train them. I dont get the sense that in saudi arabia or uae or any of those countries that they have reduced their opinion of what the threat is. I think the real challenge and the real problem is the continuing inability of the Iraqi Government to have a true powersharing arrangement, to be truly an Iraqi Government, not just a shia government. We saw this in some killings where shia militias killed sunnis in iraq in just the last couple of weeks. If the sunnis dont believe they are legitimate part of the iraq, it makes it much more difficult to bring them together to fight isis in the way we need them to. Leo do you feel like america is all in on this fight . There has been a lot of criticism from conservatives that the u. S. Isnt engaged enough that we need to talk about the possibility of more boots on the ground or some sort of stronger intervention than what the president has been speaking of. Whats the next step for the u. S. In this . Representative smith i think those criticisms misunderstand the role we can play in solving the problem. They seem to think the more troops, more bombs, the more we shoot and use our military, then the more aggressively we are involved. The problem, as i mentioned earlier, is that the more the u. S. And the west is seen as leading this effort, the more it strengthens isis argument. If we learned anything from iraq and afghanistan, it is, i would hope, the limitations of the massive use of u. S. Military force to force change in a muslim country. Understand the central argument of groups like isis and al qaeda. They have a lot of different crazy aspects to them, but what they say to the muslim world is we are defending muslims against western aggression. That is their case. Now, it is garbage when you consider the fact that they have killed more muslims than any other group, arguably in the history of the world. But thats the case they make. If you have a huge military presence, it is easier for them to recruit. It is easier for them to betray this is a clash of civilizations. At all costs, we need to avoid that. What we need is we need, within the muslim and sunni world in particular, them to recognize that isis is not what they want. To fight it. We can help and support them but if it is our military that comes pouring in, the lesson of the last decade shows the limitations of that. It is not a matter of, oh, gosh, we dont want to do it because it will cost a lot, it is because it is not effective ultimately in defeating the ideology we are fighting. Leo what about the authorization for the use of force there . We have seen no progress on this. We are hearing the white house may have some language to come in the days ahead on that. When can we see something progress on clarification of exactly what the u. S. Role will be in that region . Representative smith there has been progress behind the scenes. The white house is preparing to send up language, specifically on an aumf. Then it is up to the house to take that up. We will see how it goes. There is a growing consensus that something needs to be done. Ive also heard that the consensus is that it needs to be somewhat limited. Thats where youre going to have a clash. Some conservatives are going to want a completely openended umf. I dont think that will fly in congress. Are we able to find a middle ground, language that the majority in the house and senate can live with . Thats going to be a challenge. But i think that debate will begin in earnest probably over the course of the next couple of weeks. John have you seen any change this week since the brutal execution of the jordanian pilot in how members of congress are talking about this upcoming debate on the authorization of use of military force . Representative smith isis has been brutal and inhumane for quite some time, so i wish i could say that is surprising but given what they have done, the brutal murders they have already done, i dont think it changes it. It just reinforces the understanding of the threat. Craig if i could shift to yemen, a country most americans arent familiar with. The u. S. Government has said for some time that they are actually the most direct threat to the homeland from terrorist groups from al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. There has been an awful lot of political instability in yemen. The president resigned. The shia group have taken control of the government. This is not a group that has had very good relations with the United States, to put it mildly. What do you see as far as the way ahead there for u. S. Counterterrorist efforts . It was held up as a model of how the u. S. Should approach counterterrorism strategies. Is there still hope for yemen in that regard, or are we back to square one . Representative smith we are not back to square one, but it is not a good thing. It is a significant challenge. I say we are not back to square one, just because we have been involved in yemen and we can continue to be involved in yemen working with local tribesmen fighting against aqap. The problem is we are now not going to have the support of the government, and that makes it much more difficult. Youre right. They are not a friendly group. We are not going to get the cooperation we had with president hadis government, and that is going to make it more difficult for us to carry out any missions to control aqap. It points out the larger problem, which goes back to isis as well. On the one hand we have these , extremist groups like isis and al qaeda. On the other hand, you have this undercurrent of a sunnishia civil war that has been going on for over a thousand years. I think that is where arab states get pulled in different directions. They are very concerned about the rise of shia power in yemen iraq, and elsewhere, while also concerned about the extremists on the sunni side. Yemen is the best example of how that confusion makes it difficult to successfully get back to a point of stability get back to instead of having shia fighting sunni and extremist groups in the sunni world fighting everybody else, actually having stable governments that provide for their people. Yemen shows how difficult that can be. Leo i want to shift to the Defense Budget and get your reaction to what the president s request was this week. A lot of provisions you saw last year and talked about and saw defeated on the hill. When we are discussing sequestration and another base closure round, are we just in a neverending cycle of the pentagon, the president throwing ideas out that they know will never pass on capitol hill . Representative smith there are two huge problems. Number one is sequestration, something we should get rid of tomorrow. It was a bad idea when it was put in place. It is a worse idea now. When you go back to the budget control act of 2011, when it set a certain amount of deficit savings had to be achieved or sequestration would happen, we have achieved a far larger more than that amount of savings. Unfortunately, the way the law was written, you had to specifically do it before the end of december of 2011 or it became the law of the land. No matter what happens sequestration goes forward. Sequestration doesnt make any sense, not for defense or domestic spending either. It is having a devastating impact on infrastructure. First of all, how do we get around sequestration when there is no consensus . Republicans continue to insist that number one, they wont just get rid of it. Number two, any savings that trumps sequestration has to be replaced by cuts in other spending programs. No revenue. That is the endless circle you described. The second problem is, ok sequestration is there and we , are living with it, the pentagon is trying to figure out how to put together a sensible strategy and budget. So they come up with these ideas, and you mentioned a couple of of them, brac, rearranging guard and reserve activeduty components, the idea to lay up several marine and navy vehicles. Congress, in its parochial way if you want to move five c130s out of a base somewhere, the local member of Congress Goes crazy and tries to block it. If we are not going to get pentagon the money and not end sequestration and tell them we cant make cuts and we cant offer any as a reasonable cut as an alternative, then it winds up leaving the pentagon with no choice but to cut readiness. Its the last thing out there. They spend less money on fuel, ammunition. They repair less equipment. We wind up with a force that is not ready. We cannot offer no alternatives and leave the pentagon in a very bad spot. Unfortunately, i dont see any evidence of that pattern changing at this point. I hope it will, but i have not seen that evidence yet. Leo what is your prediction for sequestration this year . Do you have any confidence a deal can be reached before that deadline . Representative smith it is quite possible. I wont name names here. I overheard two republican colleagues talking. One takes the position that, look, the white house is the white house. Yes, we took the senate, but the president hasnt gone anywhere. We dont have a vetoproof majority. We should be talking about how to come up with a budget the president will agree to. The other of member of congress saying, no, we have to push it. We have to push republican values. We won this election. We have to go for our plan. Regrettably, i tend to think the latter member of congress will have the better of that argument. The republicans are going to try to do a big, huge reconciliation package, which thanks to their views on dynamic scoring, will end up being more of a tax cut than a tax reform. That is what dave camps very legitimate reform package showed. If you are going to retain the same amount of revenue, you cannot cut the rates to the level the republicans are arguing for. That put them in a tough position, so they came up with dynamic scoring. This reduces taxes primarily for corporations and wealthy people. They will slash all other government spending, which the white house will not stand for. I just wish it has been four years since the republicans took over congress. My confidence in their willingness to try to seek compromise as a first option lets just say it is very low based on experience. Craig i think to most americans, it sounds like a completely dysfunctional and broken system when it comes to financing the pentagon. You keep talking about that nobody is willing to compromise. Lastly, we had the joint chief of staff on the hill and give all of these doom and gloom scenarios of whats going to happen. To the armed forces if the budget caps are kept in place. It didnt seem to gain a lot of traction. There was sympathy from lawmakers, but not enough to change the political calculus. What do you think it will take to change things and break the logjam . Representative smith im going to Say Something that probably most politicians shouldnt say. The public have a role to play in that dysfunction. There is a reason for this whole dysfunction. Basically, what we want, we dont want to cut any popular programs, you dont want to raise any taxes, and we want a balanced budget. That simply doesnt work. If you look at polls and swing districts, if you were to closely analyze the argument at any swing district race, and look at the broader arguments, the messages that all these people are sending is i support a balanced budget agreement, i dont want to raise taxes, i dont want to cut popular spending programs. Well, why . In races like that, they are polling every day. Thats what people are asking for. 80 of people think the federal budget should be balanced. You asked them what should be cut. The answer to that is nothing. There is not majority support for cutting any particular program. Now, if you want to cut government in the abstract, cut it 10 and we will just magically come up with that 10 , there might be support for that. But if you talk about cutting a specific program, no. Then where should we raise taxes . I dont support that either. That is those are the people who are being elected. They are being elected on a platform of balance the budget but dont raise taxes and dont cut any spending programs. That is impossible. So thats what causes us to be in this trap. The only way out of this trap is to honestly say to the american people, look, weve got to make a choice. I know where im at on that choice. I respect that other people will be in a different place. I dont think we need to balance the budget tomorrow. I think we need to keep the deficit under control. We have cut taxes by 7 trillion. I think we need to go back and get some more revenue. Yes, i think there are areas within entitlement spending where we might be able to save money. We could put together a reasonable budget. But as long as the opinion is two plus two has to equal six or youre an idiot, there is really no where to go. We have to broach that debate and be honest about the numbers. John i want to talk about an area near and dear to your heart, veterans programs. Can you talk about funding for veterans programs in the president s budget, and if you think that is one area where there will be some agreement with republicans . Representative smith i think so. There is a growing understanding we have fought two wars and are continuing actually to fight one of them over the course of the last, oh, gosh, over 13 years now. And we have a lot of veterans who have come back, wounded veterans, veterans who have Mental Health issues. We are going to need a robust system to take care of them. I think there is bipartisan agreement that we need to fund that measure to have adequate programs. John we have to end it there. I want to thank you very much for being our newsmaker this week. Representative smith thank you. I appreciate the chance. John we continue with our roundtable, leo shane of military times and Craig Whitlock of the washington post. Lets begin with ukraine. On arming rebels, he said, i think we should do it. Where does that put him in relation to democrats in congress as a whole . Craig there has been an appetite in congress to do this for a while now. The push is growing stronger. I think that one of the problems for the Obama Administration is how are they going to coordinate this with allies in europe. Pretty much nobody in europe save for some of the countries that are very close to russia, are for arming ukraine. The german, french, and british, our stalwart allies, dont want to touch the idea of giving arms to ukraine. Even if the americans do, then you run the risk of dividing this alliance. They are very important when it comes to sanctions. Are the countries going to agree on economic sanctions the members would like to increase on putin and russia . I think putin will see that as an opportunity to magnify some of these fissures in the alliance against him. Leo this is an issue the Obama Administration is really going to have to deal with a lot more seriously soon. We have a coalition of democrat and republican senators yesterday talking about this issue, saying it needs to be more arms sent to those ukrainian forces. The new secretary of defense nominee, ash carter, said in his testimony this week before the senate that he would be inclined to to support sending arms over there. This is going to be an issue the administration is going to have to wade into very deeply very soon. John low expectations for possible peace efforts with Vladimir Putin. Where does the white house stand right now on some of those efforts to try to stop the fighting in Eastern Ukraine . Craig the white house is trying to show some patience. Certainly on the ground in ukraine and Eastern Ukraine, things have gotten worse. The russians have increased their back door and front door support for the rebels. The white house is taking a look economically. Things are not looking good for the russian economy with sanctions, the fall of the ruble, the fall in oil prices. I think they are hoping that is going to really pinch moscow and putin to reassess. Leo it goes with the strategic patience outlined in the National Security strategy by the white house this week. The hands off, lets see how the sanctions are doing. As you said, there is a lot of impact. I think they would prefer to stand back and see what happens. We will see if their hand gets forced. John on isis, expectations you heard from him and that you are hearing in your reporting what is going to be in the authorization for use of military force . Leo it will be interesting to see how they do that. We know there will be some sunset provisions. A lot of the conversation on capitol hill about the authorization is less about what goes on in iraq and syria and more about setting limits, setting parameters for when one the president can use force sort of pulling back on the 2000 afghanistan general blanket authorization that was given. Obviously they have outlined a , strategy that has arming the moderate rebels out there, finding a way to get them to pick up the fight, engaging with partners out there. We have been hearing it could be next week. Frankly, we have been hearing on the hill for a wild that the authorization could be just days away. I will be interested to see if it shows up this week. John if it doesnt happen this coming week, then congress is on a break after that. Leo almost eight months since the fighting started without any specific authorization. John congressman is no fan of sequestration. Is he going to get his wish . Do you think sequestration caps will be lifted for the Defense Budget, specifically, but also for nondefense as well . Craig leo might have better insight into this than i do. Maybe there would be a deal in the short term to provide some relief for the military. What do you think . Leo im not putting money on this bet at all. We have heard over and over that sequestration is terrible. This is going to be their main focus. The committees are going to focus on this, but we have not heard the same level of passion from Republican Leadership on either side. There is a lot of lip service, this is bad, but no real solutions, no real plans to get rid of this. As we get closer and closer to the fall, and less there is a major changes, we are looking at is becoming a gigantic issue. John is it surprising that a veteran member of congress would say the public has some role to play in the dysfunction that is happening on capitol hill . Leo the congressman has said this in the past. He has, at least for the last several years, he has lamented how much of this attitude there is. If we want a balanced budget, we have to balance it by cutting certain things, especially the base closure rounds he spoke of. Very few lawmakers have been supportive of that idea. He has. We need to get rid of excess capacity, find some way to make savings. That is one provision that has been wildly unpopular on the hill