Transcripts For CSPAN2 Hearing On Fiscal Year 2017 Defense Budget 20160318

Our purpose is to marginalize and defeat violent extremists once and for all. That isnt easy. We know that as president obama and i consistently said it wont happen overnight. But today i say to all of our fellows citizens and the international community, we must recognize what daesh is doing to its victims and hold the perpetrators accountable and find the resources to help those harmed by the atrocities to be able to survive on their ancestral land. Naming these crimes is important but what is essential is to stop them. That will require unity in this country and the countries directly involved and the determination to act against genocide and ethnic cleansing and other crimes against humanity must be pronounced among people all across the globe. Thank you. [inaudible] why didnt you do more . Naacp president on cspan, feature programs that tell the american story. Some of the highlights include a saturday evening at 8 p. M. Eastern on the lectures in history, College Professor David Oconnell discusses the legacies and factors that contribute to the successful president ial term then in 19632 months prior to his death, president kennedy traveled to promote conservation of Natural Resources for future generations. Sunday at ten euros to the white house rewind a democratic debate includes former Vice President Walter Mondale and by senators in colorado and john glenn of ohio, former president ial candidate george mcgovern. For the complete schedule, go to cspan. Org. Cornell brooks will talk about the 2016 president ial campaign criminal Justice Reform and upcoming demonstrations in flint michigan that will be live at 10 a. M. On cspan. The defense secretary of the joint chiefs of staff general testified today before the Senate Armed Services committee about the president 2017 budget request. The funding with the Committee Chair john mccain who the the story says wednesday on a litany of reasons the proposed pentagon budget is billions of dollars short. [inaudible conversations] good morning. The Senate Armed Services committee to receive testimony on the departments fiscal year 2017 budget request associated in the future Years Defense Program in u. S. Armed forces. We welcome the witnesses and bank each of you to the soldiers, sailors and airmen serving around the world. Before i proceed with my statement, let me just say that yesterday the disturbing statements made by the executive of the United Launch Alliance are reported in the media. They raise troubling questions about the major of the relationship between the department of defense. If there are any implications that the department showed favoritism to a major defense contractor that efforts had been made to silence members of congress. I expect that you will make a full investigation into the statements and take action wherever appropriate. Last month of the director of National Intelligence provided the committee a candid and unsettling picture of the worldwide threats, just consider what has occurred over the past five years while al qaeda remains a threat to the vanguard of terrorism is increasingly led protest metastasized across south asia and which has already launched attacks against the heart of europe and inspired and attack in the United States. Russia you invaded ukraine and has has menaced our nato allies had intervened to literally in this area to the account syria and many of the leaders say it is the nations greatest threat. China has continued its modernization and steadily militarizing the South China Sea using coercion to bully the asian allies and partners. North korea launched a Cyber Attacks against the United States and continued to advance and test its Nuclear Weapons program and conduct provocative missile tests including a potential capability. Rather than moderating its activities in the middle east and its advocates of the agreement predicted that iran should increase the support for terrorism proxies and conduct advanced missile tests in violation of the Security Council resolutions and fired rocket near aircraft carrier. More recently, they recently, they seized the u. S. Navy u. S. Navy vessels containing the sailors and propagandize the entire incident in violation of International Law and centuries of maritime tradition. These are the growing threats we face in the world and get the Department Remains committed by the strategy that predates all of these developments. It is based on assumptions about the world that no longer apply. Whats worse the same is true true of other Nations Defense spending while the requirements of ground the budget control act can tap the spending back in 2011 despite periodic relief, each of the military Services Remain undersized, unready and underfunded to meet the current and future threats. This translates into things that our military as remarkable and determined as it is can do for the nation. Aircraft carriers no longer provide constant presence in the middle east or the pacific. Dollars above the tax just to meet the current requirements. The reality that those requirements are inadequate and Additional Resources will be needed and the longer we try to delay the build bigger and worse it gets and the more we run the risk of return to sequestration. This is a crisis of our own making and i am speaking of the congress as well. It is why many of us are so concerned about the budget request of the fiscal year 2017. That means that we are asking the military to do more, the president s budget is actually less than it is this year. As a result, the pilot was forced to cut 17 billion. They said that they needed last year we purely for budget reasons. To be sure the temporary effects of lower fuel prices have softened the blow. Nonetheless, the department tracked over 10 million in real military capability to mitigate the shortfall. Nothing prevented the president from requesting more than he did. He did not have to fund the growing requirements by cutting modernization and procurement. He chose to do so. These are just some of the consequences. The army had to cut 24 and the navy plans to lay out an additional five ticonderoga class cruisers and marine corps cut tactical vehicles and 1. 3 billion in military construction and Family Housing has been cut as well. Certain Critical Nuclear modernization efforts including the replacement and the nuclear bomb chip have been further delayed. The unfunded requirements of the military services now total nearly 18 million. Which represents the additional ships, airplanes, fighting vehicles, training and other programs that military leaders say that they need simply to carry out our increasingly antiquated Defense Strategy and an acceptable level of risk. Last year the former chairman of the joint chiefs described in future years defense plan. The lower are ragged edge of manageable risk and our ability to execute a Defense Strategy. Here we are one year later, 17 million last and what our military needed and planned for. I do not know what lies beneath the lower ragged edge of manageable risk. Our nation will deploy Young Americans into battle without sufficient training or whitman to fight a war that will take longer and be larger and cost more and ultimately claim more american lives than it otherwise would have this budget agreement ends in defense spending and it is capped by a law at 100 billion less than what the witnesses are going to testify as military needs. That kind of stability is not the answer. It is the problem. If we cut into the military muscle again this year, looming budget problems get worse. Finally another priority of the committee will remain the defense reform effort that we began last year, including a review of the Goldwater Nichols legislation that is now marking its 30th anniversary. Over the past year senator reid and the staff and i have held hearings and conducted interviews with dozens of the former former and currently serving military civilian defense leaders including discussions with our distinguished witness today. The result is that i believe that we have a clear definition of the challenge that we must address. The focus is the militarys ability to fight as a joint force. The challenge today is the strategic integration and by that i mean improving the ability for department of defense and strategies globally to confront a series of threat. And all of them span multiple regions of the world and numerous military functions. We would welcome any thoughts and recommendations that we are prepared to share today. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Let me join you in welcoming the witnesses. The president s fiscal year 2017 budget includes nearly 583 billion in discretionary spending. And this amount, 523. 9 billion is included in the base budget and 58. 8 billion for the overseas Contingency Operations account. As the Committee Considers the funding request we must be mindful of the risk facing National Security challenges. We must monitor, contain and when necessary counter. China continues to invest aggressively in its military and capabilities that allow them to deny access to others. North korea recently conducted a Rocket Launcher in violation of multiple United Nations resolutions and continues to be an immediate and present danger to global security. Finally iran is the significant to the committee particularly with ongoing support. The nations counterterrorism continues to be a top priority. Including we must continue to evaluate by the government of afghanistan to protect and govern the people. They have now lost significant territory but difficult tasks including evicting them from population centers. The dangers posed by this dam must be addressed. And in syria were controlling many areas with the recent announcement and what it means for negotiations. If they lose ground in some areas they gain foothold in other areas like libya. In light of these security challenges we face around the world, we must go closely scrutinize sufficient funding, resources and allocate money to those areas that need additional funding. With regard to our military forces after a decade and a half of military operations we must take a hard look across all the services and this committee has repeatedly heard testimony from leaders that rebuilding readiness levels as their highest priority. The 2017 budget request includes a council held military services but it will take time to rebuild readiness. That is why its vitally important that the accounts be protected from cut. I would welcome any comments on the importance of rebuilding readiness. If they believe the services are on track to meet their full Spectrum Readiness goals. The readiness of the troops is paramount and we cannot neglect investment in modernization. It requires that forces have equipment sustained and upgraded. But in order to meet the funding levels the departments budget request need some procurement and modernization efforts. We must ensure this is not jeopardized target investments in research and development and new technology. I would like to know if our witnesses feel confident that this will not adversely impact by adding to the Overall Program by delaying the fielding. The wellbeing and quality of life of our men and women in need of warm remain a priority concern. We are mindful that we must support and maintain a high quality light of the high quality of service. The request includes a 1. 6 pay raise for both the military and civilian employees and the suns are critical to ensuring that it remains competitive in order to attract and retain the very best military government service. We are committed to the reform that will slow the growth. Finally we need to address the longterm budget situation that we find ourselves in. Last year the senate had a healthy debate and at the time we were leading security challenges as well as other agencies contributing to the prosperity of the homeland. And i recognize that the department had to make hard choices to comply with the budget agreement. I believe the senate should repeal this in spending in an equitable manner that meets all of our needs as a nation. I look forward to the testimony. Welcome, mr. Secretary. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity. Senator reid and all the members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here. Military and others alike that serve and defend. Im very pleased to be here. And we will be discussing 2017 Defense Budget and it marks a major Inflection Point for the department of defense. We are taking the long view. We have to. Even as we fight todays fights we must also be prepared for what could come 10 and 20 and 30 years down the road. Last fall the bipartisan activist muchneeded stability after years of gridlock and turbulence and i would like to thank you and your colleagues for coming together to help to pass it. That budget set the size of our budget and with that certainty we focused on the shape, changing the shape, with carefully considered ways to adjust to a new strategic era and to seize opportunities for the future. Describing the strategic assessment it is evident that america is still today the worlds foremost leader and partner an underwriter of stability and security in every region of the world come as we have been since the end of world war ii. Thanks in large part to the unequivocal strength of the United States military. As we continue to fulfill this enduring role, it is also evident that we are entering a strategic era as has been noted. Todays security environment is dramatically different from the last 25 years. Requiring new ways of investing and operating. Five evolving strategic challenges. Namely russia, china, north korea, iran and terrorism. They are now driving the dod planning and budgeting as reflected in this budget. I want to focus first on our fight against terrorism, especially isis, which we must and we will deal a lasting defeat. In iraq and syria and also where it is metastasizing and also in afghanistan. Where we continue to stand with the Afghan Government and people. All the while are continuing to help to protect our homeland. As we are accelerating the Overall Campaign we are backing it up with increased funding this year and requesting 50 more than last year. We have gained momentum since the chairman and i last appeared before you. Notably the iraqis retook commodity and are now reclaiming further ground and in syria, capable and motivated local forces supported by the United States and the Global Coalition have retaken the east syrian town, severing the last major northern artery and therefore between isis in syria and iraq. Meanwhile 90 of our military Coalition Partners have committed to increase their contributions to help defeat isil. We have increased strikes and oil revenues, conducted targeted strikes against them in libya and we have also recently killed their minister of war. [inaudible] so before i continue i want to say a few words about russia. Russia said the it was coming into syria to fight isil, but that is not what it did. Instead it has only prolonged civil war and as of right now we havent seen whether russia retained the leverage to find a diplomatic way forward which is what the Syrian People need. One thing is clear is that russias entry did not impact our campaign against isil. Along with our partners we are intensifying our campaign in both iraq and syria and we will continue to do so until they are dealt a lasting defeat. Two of the other four challenges reflect a return in some ways to the great power competition. It is in europe where we are taking a strong and balanced approach to deter russian aggression. We havent had to devote much to this story order century. But now we do. China is rising and behaving aggressively which is not and we are continuing to balance the we have underwritten for the past seven years. Allowing so many nations rise and prosper in the single most consequential region for americas future. Meanwhile two other longstanding challenges posed threats in specific regions. North korea is one of them. That is what it says on the Korean Peninsula remain ready, as they say, to fight tonight. The other is iran. While it is a good deal from preventing them from getting a nuclear weapon, in other respects the concerns persist. While i am on the subject and given his committees particular interest i would like to say a few words about the treatment of the sailors on the island back in january. I made clear that their actions were outrageous, unprofessional and inconsistent with International Law. Nothing we have learned about the circumstances of this incident since then changes that fact. And it is because of their recklessness and destabilizing behavior that the dod remains full speed ahead to ensure that we deter their aggression, countered the malign influence and uphold commitment to friends and allies whom we maintain an unbreakable commitment. So addressing all of these five challenges requires new investment on our part. Imposter and also new and enhanced capabilities. We know that we must deal with all of these five challenges across on domains and not just the usual air and land and sea but also in cyber, Electronic Warfare and space. Our readiness and actions we must and be prepared for a highend enemy. What we call full spectrum. And in crimea and in syria as well. In some cases they are developing weapons that seek to achieve objectives before they think that we can respond. Because of this the dod has elevated their importance in our planning and also budgeting. In my written testimony i have detailed how to help us address these five evolving challenges. Strengthening the deterrence posture by investing 3. 4 billion for a european reassurance and initiative, a triple investing what we did last year. We are prioritizing training and readiness of the Ground Forces as has been noted and reinvigorating the readiness and the modernization of our Fighter Aircraft team and investing in innovative capabilities and that includes advanced munitions of all sorts. In the navy we are emphasizing not just the number of ships, but especially the lethality with new weapons and highend chips and extending our commanding lead and more submarines that triples their capacity from 12 tomahawks to 40. We are doing more in space, investing in these three domains a combined total of 34 billion in 2017. Among other things to help build this Mission Force and develop the next generation and prepare for the possibility of a conflict that extends into states. And as we do this the budget season the opportunities for the future which is a responsibility that i have on my successors to ensure the military and the Defense Department that they inherit is just as strong if not stronger than the one that i had the privilege of leading today. That is why we are making increased investment in science and technology, innovating operationally and building new bridges to the american innovative system as we always have you stay ahead of future threats and that is why we are building force of the future because as good as our technology is it is nothing compared to our people. In the future we need to continue to recruit and retain the very best talent. Computing is a critical part of our military edge and everyone should understand this need and my commitment to it. Because we owe it to americas taxpayers to spend is wisely and responsibly as possible we are pushing for needed reform from continuously improving acquisitions to further reducing overhead, to proposing new changes to the Goldwater Nichols act that defined our organization. I know that they have reformed a focus as a part of this committee and i appreciate that. They were important and had deeply positive results. After 30 years, and needs updates. There are some areas where the pendulum may have swung too far, like not involving the Service Chiefs and accountability. There are areas where subsequent world of ends suggest nudging the pendulum further and taking more steps strengthen the capability of the chairman and joint chiefs of staff to help address the regional threats and multiple domains and multiple threats within overlapping time frame. As you know last fall would begin a comprehensive departmentwide review of organizational issues to identify any redundancies in other areas to help formulate the dod recommendations to you. I expect the internal findings by the end of march and this work is important. Much is within our existing party to do so and we look forward to working closely with congress to implement the needed reform and as we discussed last week, mr. Chairman, i look forward to working with you personally on this important matter. Im a close on the broader shift reflecting on this budget. It Defense Department doesnt have the luxury of one opponent. Or the choice between future fight. We have to do both. Thats what this budget is designed to do and which we need your help to succeed. I thank the committee for supporting the bipartisan budget act and the size or budget. The submission focuses on the budget shape, making changes that are necessary and consequential which we hope you will approve. I know that some could be looking at the difference between what we proposed and what the budget deal gave us. A net total of about 11 million less is provided by the bipartisan budget act of 600 billion. But i would like to reiterate that we have mitigated the difference and that this budget needs and needs. The budget deal was a good deal and they gave us stability and we are grateful for that. The greatest risk of the dod is losing the stability is here and having uncertainty in the sequester return in future years and thats why Going Forward the biggest Budget Priority for us strategically is congress averting the return of sequestration. To prevent 100 billion in automatic cuts that are looming so that we can maintain stability and sustain all these critical investments over time. We have done this before in the same support is essential today. To address the security challenges that we face and to seize the opportunities within our grasp. As long as we Work Together to do so i know that the National Security will be on the right path. And americas military will continue to defend our country and help make a better world for generations to come. Thank you. Thank you. Distinguish members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to join you. I am honored to represent the extraordinary and men and women. The airmen and arranged and Civil Servants remain our most important advantage. They give your support the United States military is the most capable fighting force in the world. With your support of the joint force will continue to adapt and fight and win in Current Operations and simultaneously innovating and investing to meet future challenges. I do not believe that we should ever send americans into a fair fight but that we should maintain a joint force that has the capability and credibility to assure allies and partners have any potential adversary. That includes continually improving our capabilities, restore the readiness and develop the leaders who will serve as the foundation for the future. The United States has now confronted challenges from traditional state actors and nonstate actors and the department has identified five strategic challenges and secretary carter has already addressed those. Russia, china, iran and north korea continue to invest in military capabilities to reduce our competitive advantage. They are also advancing interest of competition with the military dimension of fall short of traditional Armed Conflict in the threshold for traditional military response. Examples include russian actions in ukraine, chinese activities and irans activities across the middle east. At the same time nonstate actors pose a threat to the homeland, the American People, partners and allies. Given the opportunity such extremist groups would fundamentally change our life. As we contend with the five strategic challenges we recognize that access will execution of Defense Strategy requires that we maintain credible nuclear and conventional capabilities. The strategical Nuclear Deterrent remains effective but it is aging and it requires modernization. Therefore we are prioritizing investments needed for a safe and secure Nuclear Deterrent. We are also making investments to maintain a competitive advantage in our conventional capabilities and we must further develop capabilities and the vital and increasingly contested domains of cyberand space. It acts to mitigate and respond to challenges and we do so in the context of fiscal environment that has hampered our ability to allocate resources most effectively. Despite the the partial funding, the department has absorbed a hundred billion in cuts and faces an additional 100 billion of sequestration induced risk through fiscal year 21. Absorbing cuts over the next five years have resulted in the under investing in critical capabilities. Unless we reverses sequestration we will be unable to continue the strategy and address the challenges that the secretary outlined. It begins to address the most critical investments required to maintain a competitive advantage. The extent possible provided by the 2015 bipartisan budget act, it addresses the departments five challenges. This includes balancing three areas, investment in highend capabilities, the capability and capacity to meet current operational demands, and the need to rebuild readiness after an extended period of war. In the years ahead we will need predictability to fully recover from what we have in delayed modernization than a decade at war. It includes the summary and replacement, continued cyber investments and full Spectrum Readiness across the globe for critical precision munitions. In summary am satisfied that the budget puts us on the right trajectory but that will take your continued support to ensure the joint force has flexibility, readiness and responsiveness that ensures the men and women never face a fair fight. We thank you for the opportunity to appear before you and i look forward to your questions. Secretary, do you have any statement . I think the witnesses. I appreciatappreciat e your comments about the iranian behavior. What action do you recommend we take in response to this. All of these things are planning in the budget and im wondering if we could plan a specific action that the iranians would note as a result of the humiliation of our Service Members. I have made it quite clear. Made it clear that you are outraged. But what specifically do you recommend them to do in response to that to. We are continuing to take all the actions. Obviously the specific action in response to this. At the time of the incident we prepared to protect our people and it turns out that they were released in time and we later have the opportunity to see them being filmed and we made it very clear that that is the type of behavior we would not want to engage in. I will start their and i will ask the chairman. Thats fine. We are going to have a tough season this time and not just this year and 2016 but in 2017 and so forth. I listened to the testimony. Consider them to be a threat to afghanistan stability . I do, mr. Chairman. [inaudible] in support of our afghan partners. Chairman. Back to our stability, the situation is deteriorating and yet we still dont give the authority of the American Forces that is correct, mr. Chairman. Are we in the process of learning lessons from 2015. Where i was going was recommendations from general campbell for changes. Hes getting his thoughts and we are in the process of making recommendations to the president for changes that might be made to make us more effective. You need an additional 37 million in 2016. The then chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said that with a manageable risks, youre saying that it seems to be okay even though the army had to cut many helicopters and 45 over the next four years the navy plans to lay up in the national five cruisers to cut 77 joint light tactical vehicles and 1. 3 billion in military construction. All of those cuts are being made as opposed to what you asked for last year. And so now youre saying that and by the way we have seen this before when you cut them and you increase the cost because the original plans are optimum costs. So right now you are satisfied with the level which is 17 billion less than last year even though your predecessor said that you are were on the lower ragged edge of manageable risk with the amount we had last year and so its hard for us to understand, gentlemen. Chairman, to be clear what i have said is that the budget this year is sufficient to execute the strategy and associated risk and that you have seen some of the investments we have made. The most significant concern is the modernization that has been what we have started to see. And so does yours budget is sufficient to meet the strategy. And the 1. 3 million, the military construction which last year we were told that you needed. Chairman, that is not what i said. What i said was we have made the best decisions that we can and we have made the right priorities. We are of focusing on readiness. [inaudible] from my perspective its three components. This happen three or four years ago, as a result of sequestration in 2013 we laid off a lot of engineers and we had a backlog that is taking time to recover. And so from my perspective is that we have heard from the Service Chiefs in the near term one of the services will be ready in about three or four years. And i think it has identified 2024 before they fully recover. Much of that is a unction of Aircraft Maintenance and readiness. Is sufficient with what you must achieve. The secretary prioritized the readiness of those forces that will deploy. We have about as much readiness as we can. My understanding is that we can do all we can to obtain multicontracting for systems we are still retaining the costefficient model and we are not coming back on those deals. We have not 11 million and we are including aircraft and ship building and the number of modern programs. What we didnt do is not refund the Service Readiness readiness plans as they try to move back we did not change military compensation. We did not have to do any of that. And they are there for you to see and i think that it will affect all of those things that we did not have to affect this year. But that is how we adjusted. That is the version to the sequestration. Thank you, mr. Chairman. One is the hardliners that feel absurd to even think about the resources that we have there in light of the fact that we have this rate of 30 or so. And you know, its easy. Im not hearing growing reports that we do here all the time as you said the we have the best equipped and the best trained. But there is a bad site as well. We are not where we normally should be and have been in the past. We have had more hearings in the Senate Armed Services committee this year than we have ever had before. But if the its the right thing to do. People have to wake up and understand this. Before this Committee Lieutenant general the Lieutenant General said the security situation in afghanistan is deteriorating. Last week the general was the commander in response to the question and he testified just last week that it could be time to reconsider americas military forces. Senator, thank you. As a matter of fact we are in the process of reviewing. The secretary and i have spent a fair amount of time and we have spent more time with the general to give us recommendations to bring forth the president. Sir, i think about that that is exactly what we did when a decision is late. We have, senator. Have you presented any recommendations . We have not yet, senator. He said a chance to make it we went to move forward. We have the very best that we have and i have agreed deal of respect we have the north, commander. He testified to this committee and his commitment to developing strategic capabilities as well as his disregard for the u. N. Security resolutions. We all agree with that. He testified that chinese courtesan Artificial Island construction, militarization in the South China Sea threaten global prosperity, freedom of navigation and the forces are opening at the higher temple in more places and greater sophistication than ever before to the two of you agree with that . Yes, i certainly do, senator. By the way this is why we need to remain vigilant with respect to north korea and its Ballistic Missile activities and other activities tonight. This is why we need the budget we are asking for and why we are avoiding sequestration. These are all serious matters. We are in the most out of position we have ever been in as a nation. Right now we have people and so that is a serious thing and so i would leave you with a quote about you have heard last week from the congressman when he had a quote made by Winston Churchill and he says from what i have keeping in mind what Vladimir Putin has been doing, disregarding the threat that we have proposed, he said seven years ago that for what i have been of the allies during the war i am convinced that there is nothing that they admire so much as string and there is nothing for which they have less respect for than weakness, especially military weakness. I want to do is to keep that in mind as you develop the budget. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you to all of you for your service and to the hearing. I want to talk lately about cyberattacks against the homeland which are a menacing threat to the defense. The dod unified commands will be responsible for coordinating response in support of the department of Homeland Security. However it has a reported shortfall and they are concerned that the site operators may not be able to seamlessly operate under the current patchwork of relevant authorities. How would you assess interoperability between them and Homeland Security and what can be done legislatively to complement those relationships. Can you describe the level of involvement that the National Guard operators might play in the event of a major domestic cyberattack and do you believe that they are adequately trained and equipped and funded to meet that expectation. Do you believe that each responsible agency that they currently have the authorities to coordinate this response effectively. Lets talk about this first, if i may. I was in Washington State a couple weeks ago. There was a perfect National Guard unit working on what you are talking about which is defending the nation and also the ending the dod networks upon which we are so dependent. And these are people whose day job it is to be the cyberdefenders are some of our most important i. T. Companies and technology companies. They are at the highest skill level that the private sector has. Yet they are making their skills available to their country through the National Guard which is a tremendous strength. The ability to bring to us a talent that we would otherwise have difficulty attracting and retaining. To get to the first part of your question we do try to attract and retain and we have success in that regard. That is what were doing we are doing as we build out the 133 cybermission teams for cybercon. Not only do they work with the Combatant Commanders on wartime needs including joining the fight against isil, but also defending the country and we do that, as you suggest, in connection with Homeland Security, law enforcement. All of that is appropriate. There are some legislative acts that have enabled us better in that regard so that we can do Something Better in that regard with respect to authority, i will tell you that we have just been continuously and just this week documenting admiral rogers about this and what we can do to expand. With regard to military sexual assault, every year i have been asking for the four major bases and this year i added the four major training bases. If i could get a snapshot as to how these cases go on what they look like once they are filed and taken to court. What we find is that more than half of the victims are civilians which is not entirely captured by the survey. The second thing i learned is that there is a 50 drop operate once someone files a complaint, about 50 do not continue the complaint during the course of the year which is a huge problem. Some of the things of the that the committee has done is to put in place a Defense Advisory Committee of sexual assault. And that is supposed to be an independent civilian review board that looks at the designated situations by the president and its important that they executive director is independent so they can actually give us advice. I would like the commitment you will look at the staffing of that individual. I am hoping that you will choose a civilian and one that has prosecutorial experience which are among the hardest ever. Of course we will work with the committee and i promise you that as in other matters as well. I will say very clearly to you how much i appreciate your leadership on this issue. Because this is unacceptable and its about trust. So we can have any of it. The more we learn, the more the other dimensions are there. Civilians, retaliation, which is another thing that you have rightly stressed. We need to Pay Attention to it. This is something that we cannot stop learning about and doing better about. Im going to submit a specific question. Thank you, senator enact thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Secretary, i would like for you to talk more about the third offset initiative specifically what is new about it. Is it new money or a new way of using that money. As you know we spend tens of billions of dollars every single year researching and developing technologies. That is well in excess of our adversaries. This committee has heard a lot about how the edge is eroding. What about the offset initiative that will ensure that that will avoid a similar fate. He has science and technology which we are doing it in new ways. And one is reaching out to the hightech industry that does not have a tradition of working with the department of defense. We have to do it in a way that is this compatible with their business and Technology Models and we are doing that. Theyre highly innovative things like Electronic Warfare drones, that is the place where the idea of giving this capability came from, taking an old system, so we are trying to back this as well as connect with the best parts of the innovative american society. The technology is what makes us great. Would you say that that is one of the main focuses of the offset . And also to reach outside of the department and not necessarily and certainly that is what it comes down to. The traditional programs we need to make them move along astor. We need to make them at all. In reaching them out to the innovative part of the society and getting them interested in these vitally important National Security problems. As has been the tradition for decades and decades. You know that innovation is very risky. We are looking money for the programs. All of us realize that losses are going to occur. We are not going to see a success rate with every program that you are trying for. There will be no results in some areas. That is correct. We are not in a risk tolerant environment. So how do you address that . That is a problem. We want our innovators to take risk. We have to be tolerant of risk provided that it was taken advisedly in the interests of making a leap ahead in technology. But we are too risk averse, we are always going to be behind the tech illogical curve and not above the technological curve area enemies take risks, no potential risks. Thank you all for your testimony. General, you are in an interchange with the chair about how you look at this and whether it does all you might want to do. I think he said the budget is based on the top line that the congress has given us and as i look at your written testimony i will just read it. To accommodate a constrained topline includes modernization which will only exacerbate strategic recap and other procurement requirements and more broadly became relative effect of topline effects has limited the flexibility and missile agency. And looking ahead i am concerned that the demand for the future capabilities will outpace the Resources Available forcing more difficult decisions and so the constraint that we are talking about with respect to this is the 2011 sequester. Is that correct . That is correct, senator. I think as i recall fiscal year 2013 was particularly devastating for our ability to plan and execute. We chose not to turn it off and that has created a downstream challenge of consequences. The real issue for us is if we put National Security first is has to be what will we do about the constraint. What we have done is done a couple of budget deals in a row than half of diverted averted some of the sequester cuts and provided some relief. But in each instance when we do that we have also pushed the budget caps out. So youre facing the reality. If they were to not agree on a budget and we have a history of not agreeing over time we will snap back to a punishing sanction against our own nations ability to defend ourselves in which we have pushed that out and delete 2020 and that includes National Security. And so we are grappling with that. And so even if the projected level of funding, i wouldve ss in the late teens and early 20s who we will hit this wave of modernization that will make it difficult to balance readiness and structure and infrastructure and modernization and there are some who i think have argued that we do not need to worry that much about sequester because what we can do is just plus up the accounts is the kind of approach the budgetary challenges to try to deal with these issues. And we should have a particular role in the Defense Budget. But its not money that you can really count on. And we have the successful funding with providing you with the kind of certainty that you need to have. Senator, we need that ability, we need the right level of resources and we need those resources to be in the right areas. And so i could not agree with you more. My hope is, as we were talking about this year, is that we will really grapple with this sort of snapback sanction that we are imposing on ourselves, if we ever fell into a, we have pushed this sequester out for quite sometime and if someone decides to hold up the process or we cant reach an agreement, we are just turning the self punishment into our mechanism. I hope what we might try to do is disagree. We are not required to continue a sequester that was put in place with budget caps preisil, north koreas cyberattacks. End prezika virus. We dont have to live this in 2016. So if anyone will see this and the importance of a, it is going to be the Armed Services committee in both houses and we should be at the forefront of this and i know that the chairman has made this an important priority and will continue to do so. Thank you very much. Thank you, and im glad that the senator brought this up because its exactly what i wanted to start with. The chair has made this a priority. Let me just ask secretary carter and the others, looking back several years ago, when the sequester was headed our way and we really didnt think it was reality, i would ask if you are planning for the sequester. Their answer was no. We are not planning for it, it was never intended. We are sure that you will fix it and its unthinkable that we would do this and of course the unthinkable happened and we have to had to deal with it. We have dealt with it once and that was bad enough. But tell us about how going there a second time would so if we avoid sequester but he wouldve given the normal course of events all coming to add or about the same time my assessment is we would be challenged even if we are above the sequestration level of funding and with regards to the other 100 billion i would simply say that senator listed the things that have changed since the defense strategic guidance was listed in 2012, and if we are confronted lets read rate of those. We are talking russia and isis. Im talking about the increased influence in iran and about the activity in china which concerns us in maintaining the competitive advantage and the investment over time in some of the behavior in the pacific also concerns me from the competitive so there have been profound changes in the challenge areas identified by the secretary that should inform future budgets. Is there some room where we are planning for this eventuality if we are not able to reach an agreement and if the wall law of the land which is sequestration kicks in again everything the chairman said is right and with respect to the question. I can say with some of the effects are and you will see why we are so concerned about it. Uncertainty and turbulence caused us to do things inefficiently so things like issuing shortterm contracts, turning things on and off that the chairman was referring to in the five that five major threats that we face, those are not we cant budge it one year at a time it is unfair for them to have budgetary uncertainty. They look here to washington at whats going on and what is their future i am concerned about the picture it paints in the world when we do this to ourselves, to our friends and also to our potential foes so we do know the consequences are in the recent years it is very deleterious effects on how we manage ourselves and protect ourselves into the last thing i would like to say to associate myself with something the chairman said in the nuclear enterprise, we see bills out there for the two teeth safe secure reliable Nuclear Arsenals to keep one big item which will include the icbm modernization and that money will have to be provided in the bedrock capability. But we are going to need the funding in the future years to defend ourselves and protect our people. Lets speak out loud and clearly from both sides of the table. Nothing is less than the National Security of americans. Thank you all three. We often remarked in this committee to thank the witnesses for their service to the nation and we have three individuals this morning that have served the country over many years with extraordinary and unique distinctions so i think you are all of your service to the nation. Secretary carter, you noted that we do not have the luxury of choosing between strategic challenges the nation faces and certainly one of does challenges is under the warfare as you know, it is projected to fall below the vote by 2025 and it may go as low as 41 by 2029. They are the most stealthy and strong forces available and also in the capabilities wouldnt it be wise to consider Building Three submarines a year along with the ohio replacement program, and what you would you support such a move . First with respect to your general point about the critical importance of undersea dominance, that is an area the military excels. It is a critical area that we are targeting in this critical budget to keep and extend that advantage. It involves the virginia payload model into some other things like the unmanned vehicles so that is a major thrust of the budget with respect to the submarine building numbers we have lead into the budget this year as we planned and sustained that and stuck with that the two submarines per year. Your question is as we get to the replacement in the future wanting to add a submarine building that gets back to the point about having the money when we begin the ohio replacement to keep a safe, secure and reliable deterrent. We cant have that at the expense of the general purpose. That is the point weve all been making that will require additional funding. So if the capacity is there to do it, you would favor going that route if necessary . We would need to build it without shorting the rest of the dominance. Earlier in the week i think that you met with the Israelis Defense minister and others in the military establishment. Can you commit to us that you will ensure that israel maintains and can you update us as to when the negotiations on the memorandum of understanding will be done . I have that commitment and thats something my good friend and colleague of the defense minister and i discussed and we will do that. With respect to something the president and the Prime Minister discussed so its not something the two defense ministers decide, however, in our conversations which are frequent, the administer and i discuss discussed what this means Going Forward and we use that to inform the discussions over the amount of health that he gave to defend in a very dangerous region. Finally, i have long been concerned as many of my colleagues have about the Ballistic Missile program and its continued testing. I read a letter to president obama was a member of my colleagues talking about sanctions against iran and the department if treasury following the letter and it did give enough in entities and individuals supporting the Missile Program more must be done to detour iran from the continued pursuit in the program and the general put in the past week or so justified in the committee about the need for increasing. Do you agree . I do. Thats not a responsibility of the department, the responsibility we very much. Fullstop and i know you discussed with them is that defensive commitments with respect to the iranian Ballistic Missiles for the forces in the region and our friends and allies that include israel and others as well and thats why we have the Missile Defense and other capabilities in the gulf and we need to keep them strong and i did discuss them also with the defense minister including the hope that we get to the israelis with respect to david swain and arrow which are the three tiers of the defense against Ballistic Missiles. Thank you very much. On behalf of chairman mccain. Thank you very much. I wont say what the chairman and the actual chairman i suppose for a second, the man who would be chairman [laughter] its a political world we are living in. General, when we look at the middle east beheading number of witnesses testify here in the recent months about it. I have come to the conclusion that theres going to be a lot of violence for a long time. There wont be one victory that would make us safe. I talked with democratic colleagues from their comments in the Committee Meetings it seems to me that we do need and can maybe even agree upon a strategy that can be bipartisan and extend beyond elections that maybe the whole world would be able to support on how we cant fund this rising tide of violence and extremism. Do you think that is possible and how close are we to achieving Something Like that . I do think it is possible and we have done a lot of work in the department to take a longterm view in the middle east and how to deal with the challenges and i couldnt agree more. We cant, no more than know more than we can develop a budget year to year can we develop a strategy from here to hear and make the here and make the changes and expect to be successful so the basic thesis can we get a bipartisan strategy and approach to the middle east that will carry out what is a generational conflict i fully concur. So it is a generational conflict meaning more than 20 years or more. If you look at the conditions that led to violent extremism i cant imagine addressing those. When you look at the Economic Issues and social and political come educational those are all things that would take him a long period of time and my assessment is via when the extremism in some form of exist until those conditions across the middle east are addressed. Secretary carter, do you agree with that . I do and i would go even further than that. First, what cant be tolerated in a generational way is isis and thats why we are so intent upon defeating. But to the chairmans point, to your point, senator, that isnt going to automatically create a middle east that is free in extremism and its not going to create a world that is free of terrorism because the trends and technology could put more destructive power in the hands of smaller and smaller groups so we recognize and its part of our approach to the future defense that both nonstate and state actors in the investment portfolio. In the longterm budget even as we expect we are making investments to protect ourselves against nonstate actors for the more distant future and i think we have to. I tend to agree with that. We need to focus on who needs to become hunted militarily and defeated as soon as possible and certainly isis is number one on the list would agree . By the same time we have allies in the region and who oppose some of the forces and some people that would support people that we oppose so it is a very complex region come is it not come and we need as many allies as we can have come into some of the fighting needs to be done by other people than by us over the decade or generation to come with you agree . I will add to that i was in brussels a few the psycho and i got together all of the defense ministers of all the countries that are part of coalition and essentially my message was exactly as you said we are willing to leave this, we are willing to do a lot because we are powerful that we need others to get in the game and particularly we need those in the region to play their part and additionally, we need and we are finding more partners on the ground both in serious in iraq it is not only necessary to defeat but also to sustain in defeat and only those who live in the region can sustain that so we can help them do that they need to do their part and i emphasize to them we are going to defeat isil and we will remember who played the role and food and. Thank you and my time is up. I thank my colleagues that have expressed concerns about its overall policy. Ibb that we could get there and achieve a policy that defends legitimate interest in the United States and in a bipartisan way and it can be sustained no matter who gets elected president in the years to come and i think its important because a great nation cant be flipflopping around on commitments around the globe. Thank you all. Thank you mr. Chairman and thanks to the witnesses for being here. Secretary carter, we are still losing over 400 Service Members each year to suicide. We were able to get in the requirement for that act that every Service Member receives a persontoperson Health Assessment every year. Can you provide me an update on the status of the implementation and then the department will roll out these examinations . Spack thanks, senator, for your interest in this issue which is an important part of the welfare of our folks. It is something that we have become increasingly attentive to and i will get back on the specifics and one of the things i do want to say is that this is being reflected in our healthcare investments. As you know we spend about 50 billion a year out of the 600 or so billion we are requesting on healthcare and over the last few years we have increased greatly the amount of directed at Mental Health to provide folks with resilience which is the program but you that you are talking about so they are not as vulnerable and susceptible to the kind of things that might drive them to such an extreme act and also we are treating people that have already reached the point they have that kind of and to continue to remove the stigma. They want people to receive Mental Health treatment when they need it and we want everyone who is not seeking it to look sympathetically upon death like getting any other kind of medical treatment. Mr. Secretary i. Know how busy you are in the challenges we face around the globe and 1. 2 inches tall for problems as you know in indiana we have a Warfare Center and we talked about you possibly coming to visit, and a morning or just a Late Afternoon or evening or midmorning, three and a morning visit so you can get an understanding of the strengths and challenges. And you think we can make that happen . Will you come with me . Yes, even three in the morning. I love visiting all of our folks. Theres Nothing Better than going out and getting among the people that serve the department in this case it will be Laboratory Scientists but when they are folks in the industry that are all part of what makes the military grade, we will have a wonderful time i promise. I appreciate it. General, when you see what has just happened with Vladimir Putin held eu judge judgment and how will that affect . Honestly its a think those that have tried to predict the behavior have been universally proven wrong. What i would say is when he went in he said his express purpose was to go down and address isil and it wasnt addressed so i think what it does do is it makes it clear that the original intent was end what he said it was, but it was obviously to support the regime and i think what it also does is for those that questioned whether the United States is the most reliable partner in the region are not or not i would say for the record we are still there. Let me ask you and then the secretary. How do we get there and the next question is obviously when, and there is no direct date but if you can get an idea how we get this done and even many of the major presence on the ground because it creates a danger to us. One thing i would say we are already isolating right now and made significant progress limiting the freedom of the movement between those mosul. We isolated with the theory and Democratic Forces that seized and further cut the lines of communication. We have ground to capability and capacity of the indigenous forces that we are supporting quite a bit. Had i testified a moment to commend debate, but what about the 2500 in sight of the Democratic Forces and today i can tell you we have 5,000 currently planning another operation that will further isolate do you see it and not to interrupt, the number continuing to grow significantly . Spec i do and my projection is based on what has more recently happened. The more success we have we have people have asked we will have asked the secretary described as a Snowball Effect people are willing to join us because they see the level of support we are providing and more importantly the level of success but that the forces are having. That is exactly right, senator. What he described in september is transpiring the sdf is growing in size and the component of that is on the move and you are right, it is a great key target because that is what species often calls its capital and we need to take that away from them and make it clear that its based upon the ideology of isil isnt tolerable. We are in addition to backing the forces pressuring in lots of other ways as well. I want to raise something on this which is we have in order for us to win we need to constantly revise and adjust and take advantage of opportunities. We are trying to right now and in that connection if i may i need to plead for your help in releasing some of the funds that are allocated to precisely that purpose and its not just about this committee, but we made a request for those funds, and we got four different answers from four different committees. It is really tough to wage a campaign under those circumstances so if i can plead as we try to be agile if i can plead for some agility in responding to the funding requests it is time urgent right now. Thank you mr. Chairman. Thank you mr. Chairman and i want to thank all of you for being here for the Leadership Service to the country and ask New Hampshire facing a terrible epidemic of heroin coming over the southern border and its killing people in our state. Recently the Senate Passed the comprehensive Addiction Recovery act in the prevention and treatment side and some support for the First Responders but we have known from prior testimony both from the north com and southern commanders that but trafficking drugs into the networks countries are networks that can traffic anything. So i wanted to ask you both secretary carter and the general dumford what can we do to get south, and. Com the resources they need to tap down on the networks that are not only killing people in the country but also that can be used networks to traffic other Dangerous Things including youth by terrorist networks. One of the reasons why i am so committed to working with you up here on the Goldwater Nichols , revisits effort that the chairman and this committee have spearheaded and i am doing all with the Department Im doing with you, that is an area where you are allocating resources and an agile, effective and operative way. That is for my point of view where i would like to strengthen the role of the joint chief of staff. Different areas see different things, their deeply expert in their own region. Someone needs to put it all together and give me advice about that. How to synchronize all of those forces. I look i look to the chairman and the joint staff for that. I like for them to have more capability and authority to do so. I hope that is part of our effort. Sent. I spent last week on this issue, i i visited the joint Agency Task Force and went to columbia. On the bright side, what i was encouraged by was the amount of information we had, the amount of intelligent we had far exceeds what we used to have. If you look at the joint Agency Task Force along, 15 force along, 15 countries are sharing information and intelligence. What i found is what we know far exceeds to act on it. So i saw exactly what you are alluding to which was a shortfall of the resources necessary to interdict. I came back with a much better appreciation of that. Brinkley, what i what i have asked our team to do is given all the challenges we have a competition for resources, im not convinced that we cannot find innovative ways to address the interdiction. If we at least take action on the intelligence information that is currently available, on the other things senator, we would have a joint task force i think youre familiar with them, what we have always said its we have a good understanding what is going on in the air and sea. Its better today again because of the interagency and international cooperation. What i also found was our ability to see what is going on over land is also much greater than it was. What you are alluding to is an frankly its a priority priority to me and the staff is to go back and say we have this information and intelligence, i understand the competition for resources. We need to do something about this. I think you know it because he looked at the issue, what i have seen the study say is about 40 of interdiction is where you need to be. In other words, theres other things you have to do from prevention to treatment and so forth to deal with the issue. If you get to 40 percent, thats the contribution you can make at the interdiction level. We are probably have about are below, so my party and i last for the secretary for recommendations is to try to get as close to the 40 as we can. If nothing else to get us to the point where we are acting and interdicting unintelligent information we have today. Not a solution to the problem but encouraged by what we know. Now we have to do something about it. This is not is not just a dod issue, the coast guard plays a big issue,. I appreciate you saying it should be a priority based on your visit because i remember also when general kelly was commander and he talked to me at length about this and we had the information he could see the stuff coming over we just needed the Additional Resources to interdict it. So i really appreciate you putting a focus on this because we need to do the work on the prevention and treatment, we are focusing on that, but the interdiction would be very significant because it is so cheap on our streets right now. That will help drive up the cost and we know these networks are used to traffic and used by terrorists and others too. Its important for Homeland Security as well. One thing i came back with his imperative to keep our partnership with the building efforts in the region going. And funding those adequately as well. Clearly, we cannot do it all ourselves, we dont want to do it all ourselves. In the investment that we make them the ability of others to support the interdiction i think its also important part of this. Thank you. Host thank you mr. Chairman. First i would like to associate myself with the questions and comments of senator sessions. I think the idea of developing a longrange strategy for dealing with the middle east and violent jihadists of is an important project. We cannot just ad hoc all the time and this should be comprehensive, issued and while the muslim world, the arab countries and other countries. I commend the senator for bringing that up. I that up. I would like to go back to the budget and pull back a bit. We are facing a series of challenges, what is a huge debt. Now approaching 19,000,000,000,000 dollars that we are passing on to her children which i think is utterly irresponsible. The second is what i called the interest timebomb. Right now we are and never, never land of low Interest Rates, is very unusual. If Interest Rates return to 5 , average over many years, just interest on the National Debt will be almost equal to the entire discretionary budget today. 950 billion dollars, way way more than the entire Defense Budget. Just the increase from 2 to 5 would equal the Defense Budget. That is money that needs to be paid and that is an impending disaster. The third fact is all of the discussion here today and in the other committees about nondefense discretionary budget, the total of what were talking about is a little over 2020 of the total federal budget. 50 is mandatory expenditures which is being drive and driven largely by demographics, were were all getting older and healthcare expenses. Another 25 or 30 is tax expenditures which are rarely discussed but which now exceed the entire revenues of the discretionary budget over 1 trillion per year. We are trying to solve a huge problem looking at only one piece of it. Its as if you had a big problem in your Family Budget and youre going to sell this whole problem by focusing on our electric bill. That is where we are. If you trend the lines out we are at the lowest point in 70 years in defense spending as a percentage of gdp. Were at the lowest point in 70 years and we are struggling within this box that was created in 2,002,011 to try to solve the problem that we cant solve within that space of 21 of the overall federal budget. It seems to me that you are doing a mighty job of working within the constraints, but if we do not go back and revisit the decision of 2011, particularly in light of the reality of the world we face today, we are facing a longterm catastrophe. You are student of longterm federal budget, is, is this an accurate assessment . It is. I say it again this year, i said it when i presented the budget last year when i became secretary of defense. That is not something we can solve in defense, but we observe it. But we are being forced to try. You are exactly right. We are trying to solve an entire problem on the back of discretionary spending. It is not enough. It is not sustainable. All. All the other parts of the budget have to be in the picture, i understand that. I think that is what is necessary to have everybody come together behind a budget future and one of the things were asking for here is stability and relief from those sequestration caps. But we have got to the point around here were two years sounds like stability. We are feeling great when we have a twoyear budget deal. Let me change the subject lightly, we have talked a lot about the bow wave and modernization, about ohio class submarines, longrange strike bombers, missile upgrades, all of those are what i call Capital Expenditures in a sense they are 30 or 40 year assets. You come in the strange world of federal budgeting they are treated as current expenditures. There is no way we are going to be able to handle these expenditures and do all the other things. Shouldnt we be thinking about them in a separate category . I believe . I believe there should be a Capital Federal budget. Assuming for a moment we could figure out what it is we all. But we should should have a Capital Budget for longrange investments like a 40 year ohio class summary. As opposed to trying to fund them out of current operating expenses, is that something you would consider . Suddenly we try to think that way when we put together budgets one year at a time, we prepare we prepare budgets five years at a time. Even though you only consider them one year at a time. We try to have a longterm perspective. I open my testimony by saying we did in this budget, take the longview. That is an important new thrust in this budget is to look ahead ten 30 years from now. In order to do that you have to be confident reasonable resources will be available area to the specific point about ohio class replacement in the Strategic Forces reclassification, i have already made the point that even with the questioner relief, theres going to have to be for that purpose because theyre so large a bill that we can afford to have it squeeze out all of our other submarine construction and other shipbuilding. So we have to take that long term looks. Think you mr. Chairman. Thank you. I want want to continue along the same line of questioning. General dumper, anytime your friends of the a become to testify about their Top Priorities we have a chart based on different budget scenarios, the sea based Nuclear Deterrent is always green. Most other things might be yellow or red. Could you you tell us why that is . That reflects the priority of the department to provide an effective and safe Nuclear Deterrence, survivable survivable Nuclear Deterrent thats widescreen. It really does address the most important requirement that we have in the department which is to prevent a nuclear war against the United States. Do know what percentage of the departments budget is bent . I do not know the percentage we spend on that. Secretary carter, you look like you know . It is about 20,000,000,000 dollars per year. Depends on depends on what you include in that. Its not an enormous part of our budget but it is a critical part of our budget. For a 5 . It doesnt cover things that were talking about the bills that will come in the future to keep it that way. It is just what we are paying in this year for Nuclear Deterrence. I ask, because of the sizable bills coming due to modernize and infrastructure, sometimes hear people say when we spend so much money on weapons we never use, my response would be first, we dont spend that much money on them in context of the Defense Budget and second, we user Nuclear Weapons every single day. There is a Sea Based Deterrence Fund created last year in anticipation of the large expense of the ohio glass replacement summary. Obviously we need to upgrade our bomber, thats why thats why we have the be 21 program and there also lambaste Infrastructure Modernization that is needed. Rather than having nearly a feebased fund, should we should we perhaps have a nuclear Deterrence Fund . I think that may make sense. Certainly for whatever we decide to do with respect to the icbm the force in regards to missile and their land basing. The be 21 bomber also want to put in that category, i want to emphasize that that we want to be 21 bomber for nuclear and nonnuclear mission. It it will be capable of both. Like our current bomber force well use it for both. Why would you have a seabased deterrence Deterrence Fund alone and not a broader nuclear Deterrence Fund . Im agreeing with you that a broader Nuclear Deterrent fund. I recognize the be 21 like to be to have it dual capabilities, but the foundational capability across all of the systems has been Nuclear Deterrent. Im not sure we have any of these deterrent funds but if we do decide to treat her Nuclear Triad in a special kind away, i think we we should do all three like the try it. I want to turn to the South China Sea. He said two weeks ago china must not pursue militarization in the South China Sea, specific actions will have specific consequences. What specific actions are you referring to question. The actions of china are actions to press territorial claims, not through International Legal mechanisms and peaceful mechanisms but through militarization. That is what the chinese have been doing in the South China Sea. They are not the only once, but they are by far in a way the largest militarize hers and features in that region. The kinds of actions we are taking are, give me some examples. Mike next question is what are the consequences. We can go through them more in another setting but to give you an example, in addition to our own posture in the region which you know we have been strengthening for part of the rebalance for several years, we are doing some extra strengthening of that this year, detailed in our budget statement particularly it has to deal with decreasing the legality of our platforms out there. But but in addition, one of the other effects that chinas behavior is having is it is driving many of our partners and allies to want to do more with us, give us more access, we, well have that in the philippines, we are doing more with vietnam, much more with japan, australia, india, and so not only are we reacting but the countries in the region are reacting to. Our relationships with them accordingly are blossoming. We are doing much more. Obviously our relationships are getting stronger northeast and Southeast Asia because of chinas action. But in the income i think some kind of genuine and on our part is going to be necessary otherwise they will my time has expired. Mr. Chairman i will defer to senator mansion because he has to leave. I will give my slot and if youll come back to me after the next turn, i would appreciate that. Thank you so much and thank you all for your service and for being here. Let me just say i am concerned about russia has recently announced withdrawal from military forces in serious and they fulfilled their mission. Putin is talking with obama about a ceasefire, on a resolution of the conflict in syria, that i just have on today i see where the syrian kurds plan to declare a federal region in Northern Syria territory, i guess i would ask, do you anticipate a change in u. S. Military force role in syria . Based on russias military withdraw . Also, has russia claiming success to strengthen and their swagger of the political clout in that area. As i said before, russia came in wrongheaded lee, because they said theyre going to fight isil and they did not. Instead they supported assad which fueled the civil war, so their affect has been the opposite of what they stated and certainly the opposite of what is needed, it has has not had an effect on our prosecution for the counter isil campaign. It has had the effect in prolonging the syrian civil war. Now maybe russia can do what it should do witches use its influence over the assad regime to promote the transition and that is what geneva is about. To get to the question about the kurds, that is exactly the kind of thing that is being discussed. But the russian contribution has not been positive. We are watching the withdrawal, we do not know how far that will go, but the russian effect was not what it they said it was going to be and it was, as i said wrongheaded. Im saying its still the kurds establishing an area are claiming in areas not, is being met with resistance from assad and his regime, correct . That is correct. In your thinking russia can negotiate that . I dont know that russia we, and others in the region including the turks will have a major role in geneva about deciding the manner of participation of the kurds. So russia will play a role with the talks but we have an Important Role to play as well for it i will say with respect to the syrian kurds, they have proven to be excellent partners of ours on the ground. Infighting isil. We are grateful for that. We will continue to do that, recognizing that, recognizing the complexities of their role in the region. The statements describe five strategic challenges, russia, china and china and north korea and the extremist devices. I guess the greatest threat we are facing from that lineup. First i would say we do not have the luxury of racking and stacking. We have to address each in their own way. What ive said in the past and testimony i would restate today, the one that has the greatest capability and poses the greatest threat to the United States is russia, because of its capabilities. Its a nuclear, cyber capability and because of the things we have seen and its leaderships behavior of the last few years. What you make of the kidnapping of the young student in north korea . I have watch that over the last few days, you cannot help but feel for both him and the family, i think it is a reflection of the absolutely irresponsible leadership in north korea and it exposes the regime. For those that may not of appreciate what the regime is, that behavior was not a surprise to me in terms of north korean regime behavior. I think probably many other people who are attended to it have seen what north korea is about. Wide we have american still traveling in that area . Why would they be in the country . I was a religious group was a not. It was a religious group. What ive ive heard this morning as we probably had some 15,000 people go over to north korea as tourists over the last several years and 13 have been apprehended. This is clearly not something the department of defense is involved with. I can assure you we do not have members of the department of defense visiting over there. The only thing i want to add if i could because it is timely in view of north koreas threats about provocation including missile launches, that we stand alert with our Missile Defense and with our allies, the the japanese and the south koreans, its a daily task, all sorts of Missile Defenses as well as our Deterrent Forces of the dm the in south korea. I use the phrase fight tonight and thats their slogan, of course nobody wants that to occur, but the way to make sure it doesnt occur is for us to be ready each and every night and they are some of our most highly ready forces. Thank you my time is up. Thank you gentlemen for being here today. Yesterday i joined a Bipartisan Group of lawmakers to advocate for some incredible women who really do deserve to be honored, they are the Women Air Force service pilots, otherwise known as and secretary, you know where im going with this. It is a travesty that these women who are pioneers in military aviation have the honor of having their ashes revoked at Arlington National cemetery during the same year that historically you opened up positions that have been previously closed in combat to women. So i would like to see that addressed in the pentagon should do the right thing and on her these women by restoring their rights to have their ashes entered at the national cemetery. It is my understanding that a waiver can be done for these women to do so. I would encourage you to do that. I would like to see that action taken, they are part of americas greatest generation as well. So secretary carter and general dunford, i will submit a a record or question for the record and would love to have a forthcoming response on this issue. It is something we are very passionate about and making sure that women are honored as well. So for secretary carter, i do continue to remain concerned about the lack of capacity and capability provided to you, in order to do the Critical Mission of defending our nation and allies. Especially as we look at russian aggression. General has come before committee multiple times stressing the need to enhance our capacity and capability for you, to match the threat of both national aggression and terrorism. So specifically, one area which you raised, this is, this is a top concern of his and i do share, its the lack of support for force protection for servicemembers and dod civilians and their family members. Considering paris has i would urge you to take immediate action to increase our force Protection Capabilities and that you calm a or. So without, there is a request to quadruple funding for the European Reassurance Initiative in fiscal year 17 and specifically how will you build capacity and capability to enhance our force protection in that area . And to better counter rushes aggression as well as transnational terrorism . Thank you senator. First first i look forward to answering your question and i thank you for that. Secondly, secondly, both the issues you raise with respect to europe are serious ones that we are adjusting to and i will say how. With respect to russia and the potential for russian aggression, outright aggression or the kind of little green men hybrid warfare phenomenon that we saw, that is why we are quadrupling the European Reassurance Initiative. For what it pays for comment pays for the rotational presence of forces in europe including in border states, states that is the border russia, it provides for increased prepositioning of heavy heavy equipment there and also in germany and elsewhere, it provides for doing more exercising and so forth with the baltic states, with poland, romania, and so forth. For equipment there that are troops fallen on. So the Reassurance Initiative which you are right we right we are asking 3,400,000,000 dollars in our budget, it is extremely important. Basically we are adjusting to the fact that we adjusting to the fact that we have not had to face for a quartercentury, namely that we have a russia that is threatening to western europe and we need a new playbook that goes with it. I regret to say it but there it is, that is what the European Reassurance Initiative is about. The separately you are right and is something that the general and i have watch very closely is that the protection of our people. That is is the paramount concern to us everywhere. Force protection. Everywhere overseas, but europe also. So we watch that very carefully, we are taking steps to work with our host countries to increase the protection, where taking steps ourselves with their own people, procedural and we can go in that on another setting. Our people are protecting us, we owed them protection as well. Amasa chairman if amasa chairman if you want said anything. The only thing, is not only the capabilities we bring and of course its the exercises to assure our allies and partners on a daytoday basis, number of those exercises are designed to build the capacity of our European Partners too. So the 20 nations of nato can be prepared to deal with the russian threat. I would say that if we fully leverage our Political Economic and particle capabilities of the 20 nations and nato, it in nato, it would not be a fair fright which is what we would not wanted to the b. Thank you. On behalf of the chairman let me recognize senator shane. Thank you chairman and for your testimony today. And for your service. I want to follow up on senator questions about the European Reassurance Initiative because as im sure youre both aware, europe is probably facing more challenges today than it has in the time since the end of world war ii. The European Reassurance Initiative is very important in letting them know how committed we are to the peace and security of europe. I was pleased to see the president s budget increased funding for the eri. Can you talk more on the risk if we dont support additional funding for the Reassurance Initiative, also also tell me if you share the generals view, and i dont think im misquoting him but when he was before this committee he talked about the need to put more of our troops in europe. The effect of not funding the European Initiative would be that physically we would not have the funds to put equipment position there, that is those forces could fall into in a crisis, to reinforce the forces, its always better strategy in europe and it would be now that we would have forces there already, but we would fall in with a much greater force, in fact the full weights, the full might of the u. S. Military behind to nato in the event of a crisis. But we need the equipment there and we need our forces to be familiar with the terrain which is why rotational training is so important. We need them to know how to work with their allies, we need them to be able to do all of the logistics that allow them to move it quickly. Thats the kind of thing that general breedlove needs to be able to exercise. That is our approach and we need the money. Thats physically what it does. Politically its also important because the reassurance is important. The allies want to know that we are there with them and we see what they see. We do, and and we want to match our behavior to theres in their concern is growing as well, we are asking them to do more at the same time we are doing more. I had a chance to visit some of the nato exercises last summer and it was very impressive. You can see the synergy that existed because there were a number of countries coming together to Work Together to work out the bugs of any future challenges with my face. Let me switch topics to the issue of energy. I had had the opportunity at the readiness hearing this week to ask all of the vice chiefs of each of the branches about the move towards more Energy Efficiency and alternative sources of energy within our military. The perception that some people had that this is being done because people are being forced to do it as opposed to because part of our military imperative to improve our strategic readiness that we have other Energy Sources that we could count on so we are not so dependent on fossil fuels as we had been in the past. Can i ask you if you can speak to that, why you think this is an important strategic move as we look at our National Security . It is important to our net overall National Security. We play play a part in that. Everything we do needs to make sense for defense. As well as play a part in the Overall National energy strategy, so things we do to increase the Energy Efficiency of engines, develop new engines, its a very for air forces, but also it will have a consequence, good consequence for the economy generally. We spend money in order to save money on facilities making them more energy efficient. We have a large, existing base of the buildings, installations and so forth. We work on making them more energy efficient. We do that for the very reason that it frees up more money in the future that we can invest in real military capabilities. Everything everything we do in the energy spear has to make sense as a military investment. At the same time these are but beneficial for the nations Overall Energy strategy. We try to align them with the department of energy and the overall strategy so we are not doing something that someone else is doing. So are benefiting what others are doing in their benefit but it has to make military sense. Could you speak to the readiness benefit and are been able to take advantage of some of these new technologies . For my perspective there a few things about this. One is if you save money and base operating expense of that money is available for something else. And then theres also an operational aspect of this as well. The less you rely on fuel, the more flexible your and thats not only the level of aircraft and some of the bigger programs we talk about, but also if you look at the load of an individual, some of these initiatives to lighten the load, if you look at the weight some of our young men and women are caring now its prohibitive. So we spend a lot of time trying to reduce the load of individual soldiers and one way we been able to do that is by renewable Energy Sources that reduces the weight they are caring and batteries alone which is one of the biggest things and infantrymen has to carry. From a readiness perspective you save money with fuel, youre, youre able to reinvest that money and then both at the platform and Service Level theres a lot of utility to that. But it it has to make sense. Thank you. Thank you all very much. The Freedom Caucus in the house, is taken a position that the house budget should go back to see castration levels for this year. What was your response to that be . My response would be we will have to revise the Defense Strategy if we go back to sequestration. Will not do what we are able to do. When i say revise the strategy it is important that we will revise the ends of our strategy because were not going to be a party our interest in our national Defense Strategy. What effect would it have on National Security. It would cause us to expose the nation to risk that we have spoken. Would you says significant risk . Yes. It would put her freedom at risk . It would absolutely affect it. I sent you a letter and you give me a timely response and i appreciate it about someone had suggested we intentionally target civilians in the war on terror and that we go back to using waterboarding or more aggressive interrogation techniques. You gave me a good response which i will share with the public later. I forgot to ask one question prayed what effect would this have on the war fighter if we started telling our men and women in uniform to target civilians and engage in techniques of more extreme forms of interrogation. What ive said before is our men and women, when they goat toward they go to war with the values of our nation. Those kind of activities that you have described are inconsistent with the values of our nation. Quite frankly i think it would have an adverse effect. Many adverse effects and one would be the morale on the force. Frankly, what youre suggesting i think that actually are not legal for them to do anyway. I do not think i met a tougher guy guy then you and i think it would hurt your real if you are ordered to kill innocent noncombatants. So kochs do you i cannot put a time limit on when raqqa will fall. We are working with indigenous forces on the. Is the idea of raqqa falling between now and the election is pretty remote . Ive not put a timeline on it when it came to liberating falluja, how many soldiers and military personnel were involved . We had 14000 u. S. Personnel involved immediately in the operations around falluja. Obviously many many more the surrounds that had isolation affect. If they hadnt been there with the outcome be different . If we are not using American Military personnel to deal with falluja . At that time we did not have capable indigenous forces. There. There is not an alternative to forces. Compared the indigenous today and those that are available in falluja. The syrian Democratic Forces are more capable relative to the threat that exist in syria than what we had in iraq. Are they more capable of taking raqqa then iraq is were in falluja. I wouldve said yes speemac, and the arabs are a mystery Democratic Forces. Right now about ten thousand syrian Democratic Forces of which 5000 are arabs and an estimated 2030,000 additional reserve sharing Democratic Forces. Is a testimony that the people in syria are capable of taking raqqa back from my soul and holding it question asked. At this time, no. We intend to growing their capabilities over time. I would qualify that they will also require some support from the coalition. Iran, post agreement i ran it by they becoming a better actor the region or is there behavior gotten worse . Iran was an influence in the region prior to the agreement and they remain that today. To think mozer will be in the hands of isil by the end of this year . Similar to raqqa i do not put it timeline on it. I would emphasize that operations against is taking muzzle going to be more difficult than what we had to do in 20045 spinning significantly more. If you take muzzle without 14,000 American Military members, does it make it even more significantly different . Senator, it is a Coalition Forces issue. Right now we have identified over 12 a grade directly security forces, Additional Forces grade directly security forces, Additional Forces and we are in the process of generating sunni forces. The ideas that we will isolate muzzle until the conditions are set for those forces to be successful in securing muzzle. Finally, between 20162016 and 2021, the next fiveyear window, we talk about what is happened since 2011 until now. Generally speaking, is our National Security threats, do they maintain at this level, go up, go down, what can americans expect in the next five years in terms of threats of a kind should we have . I would assess based on a trajectory we see today, i do not see our security challenges decreasing over the next five years for sure. The secretary . I do. On behave of senator kane. Mr. Would you give us your advice for that period of time, 2018 2022 a been two of being able to put our payloads into space. Im am mainly talking about dod and intel payloads in addition to nasa payloads and commercial payloads. Would you give us your advice on the question of whether or not we should continue to be able to have access to the rd 180 engine which is the engine in the first stage of the rocket, until until we develop a new one. I cant. Its reflected in our budget. I know there are different points of view to approach this problem. I think everybody agrees we have to have a assured access to space. We have to have a way to launch our National Security payloads into space. Our countrys security depends on that. One way to one way to do that which is reflected in our budget is to continue to use the atlas booster including a limited but continuing number of rd 180 engines. Notwithstanding the fact that we dont like the fact that we buy them from russia. That is the approach we recommend because its less expensive. The alternative which i understand that we dont recommend in this budget because it costs more, would be essentially to use the delta as a replacement which is more expensive than is required. If we are forced to do that it ends up giving us a bill of 1,000,000,000 dollars, may be more, which is not a bill we would like to pay. It is that simple. We will get to space, we have to because our security depends in. We are recommending to a less expensive way but which does, however cause us to have to hold our nose insofar as then chin is concerned. I recognize there is a difference of opinion there. That is my advice. Can, in your opinion and what you have been advised, can they ramp up the production of enough of the delta force to get all of your payloads into space, even though though it is going to cost more . My understanding is, yes that alternative is available, technically available obviously is more expensive which is the reason why its not been recommended. And its more expensive also because the rd 180 has to be used on the atlas five for a number of the nasa payloads including the americans on the new boeing star liner which is the spacecraft which will take us to and from the International Space station along with what we expect the falcon nine and its spacecraft, dragon. But also all of the commercial payloads. So if you shut down part of that production, until we get the new replacement and new replacement rocket, because you cannot just take a new engine and plug it into the atlas five, it is going to cost everybody more. Including the commercial sector. I cannot speak to nasa or for them, but you are right. The delta route route is more expensive than the atlas route. It is available and we have made our recommendation. Where we would like to go in the future and way where we are headed in the future is a competitive and thats a very important for cost reasons and to have two or more competitors for whom we buy launch services. By pieces of the rocket or develop them. They do that and they provide us launch services, thats an efficient and competitive way. That is the route we are going to. I realize there is a difference realize there is a difference of opinion about how we get to that destination. We have made a recommendation in our budget submission. Unfortunately that competition has started because the falcon nine space spacex has been a very valuable and it has brought the cost of the atlas five down. So it is a good example of competition that in fact is working. Let me just conclude by any comment on our aging Nuclear Triad and the need for the Long Range Strike capability . Yes. Just to reinforce the Nuclear Deterrence of this country is not in the headlines every day, thank goodness. Its not in the headlines because it is there, it is the bedrock capability of our security. We need it for the indefinite future. We intend intend to have it for the indefinite future and we are going to need to spend the money required to have that. Of particular concern, i was single out the ohio glass replacement summary, for for one example, big example because of the triad submarines are going to age out. They are effective but old summaries will be replaced by the ohio glass replacement. That is a key survival part of our nuclear determent. We have to have it. You mentioned the bombers, that is one of the reasons since we are seeking to start and have started Long Range Strike bomber or be 21 bomber program. So making sure we have a safe, secure and reliable Nuclear Deterrence for the future is a bedrock responsibility of the department. We need need the funding to do that. We have plans to do that. On behalf of the chairman,. Mr. Chairman and thank you for your service. I particularly appreciate you outlining the five strategic threats, i think that is very clear. I think the American People need to hear that. I think senator grahams comment or his question about how you think those are going to continue is also very important. Those threats and how to counter them include the aggression of russia which as you know its not only europe and the arctic, the ability to fight with regard to north korea and the ability to continually rebalance our asia Pacific Force posture in light of our challenges with china. In light of those serious threats you may have seen that general millie has recently decided to reverse the armys earlier decision made last year to disband the four to five, which as you know is the only airborne bct in the entire asiapacific, the Strategic Reserve that would be very involved in any kind of conflict in korea, the only our take bct that is trying to fight in mountains and extreme cold weather. I have raised this issue a number of times of the committee over the last year, recently several combat and commanders mentioned they were supportive of what general miller is trying to do just given how critical the forces are. Do you support the emmys recommendation to more effectively posture its forces to best meet the National Security threats that you outlined in your testimony, particularly as it relates to the four to five . Thank you very much for your interest in this. I had the opportunity which i appreciate appreciate the other day to discuss this with you. Thank you for your leadership with respect to the overall rebalance and also for your states hosting forces that are so critical to so many scenarios. The possible risk of the United States with respect to for 25, i looked into it after our conversation, i have spoken to general millie, and he makes that recommendation to me i want you to know that i will approve that. Thank you. I think that is an important part of our posture in the pacific. I appreciate my attention to that. I appreciate that as well. Let me get me get back to the rebalance issue you mentioned. A lot of us met last year in shangrila and we have talked about at the defense ministers meeting out there an important demonstration of u. S. Legislative, executive, executive, bipartisan support for that important strategy. I think a number of us are planning on going again. I think doing that again would be important to show a strong acrosstheboard american resolve. Thank you. With regard to the implementation of the strategy you laid out in your speech last year, which, which i thought was a very strong speech. A number of us has written the president and encouraged to make sure that we do and we implement this policy on a routine basis. Im talking about the South China Sea and our not only on a routine basis but also with allies. I would like you to comment both you and general dunford on the opportunities that what is going on out there presents to the United States from a strategic perspective. More specifically as you know mr. Secretary and use it every time you go out to the region, many countries, because of what china is doing in the South China Sea, many countries are very much being more interested in working with us and drawing closer to the United States. Are there strategic opportunities that we should be looking at in terms of possible new basing, new, new training opportunities with the marines in the asiapacific, clarifying strategic relationships. I i think theres a number of questions of what our strategic applications are in regards to a country like the philippines. Looking at the next challenges i know there some concern on this committee about the what are the opportunities we have, we have challenges there but i think there is also enormous strategic opportunity. Did you and general dunford talk to those, particularly the idea of new basing arrangements. The idea of new training arrangements. I think theres a lot we could be doing and i would like to hear both of your views on that. You are absolutely right. I will start and the chairman can chime in as well. There are opportunities. They are presenting are presenting themselves because countries in the region recognize that their region has had peace and stability for 70 years and that is what has given them all the opportunity to arise. All the asian miracles begin with the japan, south korea, taiwan, Southeast Asia, today india, and yes china, all has occurred in the atmosphere of peace and stability which they know we have played a pivotal part in. So there is a greater demand for partnership with us. When you talk about basing, we are discussing with philippines right now, they know their court passed an important milestone recently which allows us to do more with the philippines, where doing more and general dunford had key role in this with australia, particularly our marine locations. Vietnam, who would have thought decades ago, vietnam. We are. We are doing more with them. We thank you because we have the Maritime Security Initiative Funding which originated in discussions with you and other members of the committee we are grateful for that, we are using that funding. The japanese as you probably know have adjusted and amended their practices. They are looking to do more with us, joint patrolling exercising and so forth. India, i will be there in a short while and continue to strengthen our relationship with that incredibly important country. 1,000,000,000 people and a very capable Capable Military that wants to partner with us as well. We do all of this in order to keep going the system that has brought prosperity to asia. Were not seeking conflict with china as part of keeping that system of security intact. We intend to do it. Thats what the rebalance is about. The good news is that we are popular there. People want to work with us. I guess i would emphasize what you and secretary have alluded to. I made two trips to the region since i been in my current assignment. I would tell you the desire for people to develop stronger bilateral relationship with the United States has probably never been greater and frankly with our partners particularly with those we have a treaty obligation, our relationship has probably never been deeper. When you talk about opportunities the one thing we have not had in the past, multilateral relationships and interoperable associated with conducting Assistance Operations to other operations that may be required in the region. Or multilateralism and its self serving as a deterrent to itself that might want to be destabilizing. From those relationships comes one issue we havent talked about and that is opportunities for training. Joint training is required to maintain readiness and we are always looking for opportunities to identify training areas where we can maintain readiness as we conduct the exercises and engagement with our partners. The willingness of our partners to afford us the opportunity to train in their countries continues and will increase in the future and theres a number of places where contact with a number of countries to enhance our training opportunities. As the secretaries spoke about her basing opportunities in the region. I would agree with you. I. I think of you of the common challenges in the pacific has brought us together in a very positive way and has created all the opportunities you alluded to. Thank you. Thank you mr. Chairman. Thank you all of you for being here. Secretary carter, on December December 3, just a few months ago you announced the military branches would be opening all military occupational specialtys or mos is to servicemembers regardless of gender. On the basis of areas provisions in several reiterations of the Defense Authorization act, and the basis of Committee Hearings and briefings with members and staff, tell me of your decision. You are certainly aware of congresses interest in being closely consulted on the matter, nevertheless in your announcement and its subsequent briefings, you fail to discuss the legal and Practical Implications this decision could have on the Selective Service in america. So, my concern is the seems that department may have made a policy decision and left it up to congress and the courts to deal with the difficult legal ramifications. I would like to know, what assessments has the secretary of defense made to examine how opening all moss two female servicemembers will affect the Selective Service act and what assessments have you made to examine how requiring american women to register for the draft, or alternatively and he met service altogether would affect readiness, recruitment, retention and morale . Thank you for that question. Let me begin at the beginning. Why. Why did we do this in the first place. The reason to open up all mlss to females is to make sure we are able to access what is the 50 of the population. The service in view of the department of defense policies and practices with respect to women as well as men, but the second thing i would like to say is about the Selective Service system and the draft generally is this. We want to keep pick our people and dont want people to be forced to serve us and we dont want our young people that are in our country. We take very carefully. In fact a little bit more than two thirds of Young Americans even meet our basic qualifications. Many of them are obese or have other Health Issues asserted than having graduated from high school. About 10 have criminal records that make it impossible so we dont want a draft, we want to take people. Thats what the all volunteer force is about and how it is so excellent and we are constantly trying to make sure we keep up with Generational Trends so that we continue to pick and have access to the best people to look at the magnificent people we have now in uniform. I want to make sure that tomorrow and ten years from now and 20 years from now we are able to attract the very best. But we dont want people to pick for us. We want to pick for ourselves. I appreciate the assessment but i think i understand did they change to the subject requirement and it needs to be made by congress with input rather than administratively or by the courts. In the longrange interview published with the atlantic, president obama discussed the sistine when it comes to analyzing europe and parts of the middle east. However, your fy 17 budget calls for a quadrupling of the Reinsurance Initiative and robust funding for activities in the middle east. How do you and how does the administration and the president obama reconcile the concerns that are expressed about some of the allies that are not taking steps to increase defense spending words are abusing the relationship with us and their alliance for their own benefit without making corresponding increases. I think that America Needs to lead and im happy to have us leave. We have more capability than anybody else but. Weve been urging them to spend more on their own defense. Some are are getting what they are supposed to do for example i would commend the United Kingdom and would although the countries agreed which is a minimum of2 and they are not all there yet and as you go around the world with respect to others with allies in the gulf and so forth we are looking for people to join us and they are the coalition. Its fair to turn to the partners and need you to join us. My role and that is specific in the chair man as well. Here is what we need. We need some more help from you. We need some special forces from you. And this is important we need reconstruction funding for places like the mahdi so if you dont have any forces or dont want to put your forces there, you can open your wallet. We tried to give them choices for how they can make a contribution and lead them in that direction that we need people to follow and its an important part of my job to talk to the counterparts and say we need everybody in the game if we are going to have a peaceful world. Youve got to get in the game. Let me ask the chairman. I chair man. I would emphasize what the secretary said. The key part i went to the region and match with 30 of the chiefs of defense from the Coalition Partners and encouraged participation that one of the things we do hard is look at where they can make the contribution and that is an ongoing process where we are satisfied with where we are, never