Transcripts For CSPAN3 Secretary Of Defense Nomination Hearing 20150204

Dollences to the family of the brave family killed by isil. Together with jordan we mourn the loss of a hero that that galvanized the nation and the world. I hope this heinous crime helps us put in place what thus far has been lacking, comprehensive strategy to achieve goal to degrade and destroy isil. Let there be no doubt we still do not have a viable strategy to counter isil. And if you are not winning in war, you are losing. America has no greater ally in the fight against terrorism than jordan. As we made clear to King Abdullah in our meeting yesterday, this committees concern is to ensure jordan has equipment and resources necessary to continue taking the fight directly to isil. Many of us on this committee will be sending a letter to the administration on this urgent issue of concern and we invite all of our fellow Committee Members to join us on that letter. I think there was a consensus on both sides after the meeting with King Abdullah that we would send a letter out this morning. That letter will be distributed to the members for your perusal and signature so we can get that letter out as soon as possible. I think all members of the committee for their cooperation. Id also like to add if legislation is required in order to achieve the goals that King Abdullah articulated to us yesterday as absolutely necessary to defend his nation we will be considering that legislation as well as soon as possible, and i thank all members. The Senate Armed Services Committee Meets today to consider nomination of ashton b. Carter to be secretary of defense. At the outset id like to express my sincere gratitude to chuck hagel for his years of service as infantry sergeant in vietnam and as our nations 24th secretary of defense. Chuck hagel is a mait and honorable Public Servant. During his time in the pentagon men and women of the armed forces had a true ally who always put their interest first. This committee wishes chuck the best in his future endeavors. Dr. Carter even in the best of time, the position youve been nominated is one of the most challenging in government. Id like to thank your wife and children for being here today and for loaning you to our nation and service again. Dr. Carter is one of the most respected defense professionals. Hes served as assistant secretary of defense for Global Strategic Affairs under secretary of defense for Acquisition Technology and logistics. Most recently as deputy secretary of defense. In these positions, i have known him and members of the committee have known him to be an honest hardworking and committed Public Servant. Ive had the opportunity to Work Together with dr. Carter on several issues of shared concern, especially trying to reform the defense acquisition system, improving Financial Management of the department and rolling back sequestration. On these and other issues facing the nation we all look forward to having you as our partner once more dr. Carter. I must candidly express concern about the task that awaits you if confirmed and the influence you would have on some of the most Critical National Security Issues facing our nation. Two of your predecessors secretary gates and secretary panetta, have severely criticized white house micromanagement of the Defense Department and over centralization of foreign and defense policy. According to numerous news reports secretary hagel expressed similar frustrations with insular and indecisive White House Security team over issues ranging from isil to ukraine, detention policy to sequestration. Dr. Carter, i sincerely hope the president who nominated you will empower you to lead to the the fulles extent of your ability. At a time America Needs a strong secretary of defense now more than ever. Americans are confronted today with a diverse and complex range of National Security challenges. Iran is on the march in iraq, syria, yemen. Other parts of the middle east, isil continues to expand its influence and territory. As new director of Central Intelligence agency recently testified to congress. A revisionist russia and rising china each seek in their own ways presents challenges to liberal International Order as weve known it since the end of world war ii a system that cher issues the rule of law, maintains free market and free trade and rely gates wars of aggression to their rightful place in the bloody past. Amid the present upheefl and conflict, america disengagement can only produce more turmoil and increase in the chance of large scale american interventions at greater cost in blood and treasure. Thats why we need a coherent National Security strategy incorporating all elements of Americas National power to defend International Order extended security, prosperity and liberty across the globe. Crafting a realitybased National Security strategy is simply impossible under the mindless mechanism of sequestration. Despite the growing array of complex threats to our security we are on track to cut 1 trillion out of americas Defense Budget by 2021. Readiness is falling across the services, and moral is falling right along with it. Army and marine corps end strength is dropping dangerously low. The air force is the oldest and smallest its ever seen. The navys fleet is shrinking to prewore 1 levels and last week each of our Service Chiefs testified before this committee that american lives are being put at risk due to sequestration. Sequestration represents a failure to meet our most basic constitutional responsibility to provide for the common defense. Americaed military can no longer be held hodge to political decides puts totally ly disputes totally separated from the reality we face. After the budget control act its time to put an end to this senseless policy. Rolling back sequestration is necessary to provide military strategy driven budget necessary to confront what we face but it will never be enough without reforming how the Department Secures major Weapons Systems. Many of our militarys challenges today are the results of years of mistakes and wasted resources. For example, over here the armys future combat system was initially estimated to be a 92 billion project to modernize into a Cohesive Network new Army Vehicles and radios. But it more than doubled its price to 200 billion without ever getting off the ground. Secretary gates and congress wisely canceled future combat systems but only after spending 20 billion with nothing to show for it. Between these four systems the next chart up there, please between these four systems, future combat systems, expedition fighting vehicle command helicopter and president ial helicopter we spent 40 billion with nothing to show for it. Thats 40 billion of training and equipment our military doesnt have today to confront the threats we face. The problem continues today. The cost of the evolved expendible launch vehicle has exploded from around 100 million per launch to 400 million per launch over the last 15 years after the air force allowed years of sole source contracts while especially over the last few months actively keeping out any other companies from competing. Hopefully this year we will see the air force certify a new entrant and this can bring down cost and end reliance on Russian Rocket engines. Like many programs that exceeded it, lcs cost overruns predictably from chronic lack of planning in three key areas, unrealistic initial cost estimates and unreliable assessments of technological and integrated risk. The Gerald Ford Class Nuclear Aircraft Carrier was originally supposed to cost 10. 5 billion. It will now cost 12. 9 billion, a 2. 4 billion increase and we have no assurance such increases will not plague the followon ships. This is unacceptable. F35 joint Strike Fighter was originally estimated to cost around 220 billion to research and engineer and build 2,800 airplanes. Now were going to spend more than 330 billion a 50 increase to buy 400 fewer airplanes, even worse the amount of money squandered and wasted is the fact each of the weapons system cases ive mentioned no individual has been held responsible for these massive cost overruns and egregious acquisition failures and the result has been the slow degradation of americas defense technological advantage which we lose all together if we persist with business as usual in acquisition policies. This must change. It will be a priority for this committee and me personally to change it. Dr. Carter i look to you as a partner in all of these endeavors. If confirmed, i hope you will provide independent leadership and work closely with congress on issues that matter most crafting a coherent National Security strategy to meet todays threats, rolling back sequestration, continuing to reform defense acquisition process, modernizing our military compensation system and many others. I thank you deeply for your willingness to serve once again, and i look forward to your testimony today. Senator reid. Thank you very much mr. Chairman. Let me join you extending our condolences to the brave jordanian pilot and the people of jordan. Let me welcome dr. Carter and thank him for his willingness to serve the nation. I also want to welcome stephanie and the children. Also my colleague Joe Lieberman for being here today. Dr. Carter as deputy secretary of defense and undersecretary for Acquisition Technology and logistics, you are uniquely qualified to lead department of defense at a time when Henry Kissinger said last week United States has not faced more diverse complex since the end of second world war. If confirmed youll advise the president , lead the Defense Department and leading a Staggering Number of challenges with our international interest. Iran, while secretary of defense is not a party to the negotiations to Irans Nuclear program, the secretary will undoubtedly be responsible for any number of potential contingencies relating to consequences of different outcomes of these negotiations. In the event of a breakdown in the negotiations the consequences could alter the face of the region for generations and generations. Isil. Isils depraved and Violent Campaign in iraq and syria to establish a religious caliphate threatens erase borders destabilize region create a breeding ground of fighters willing to return to the west and attack United States interest. The Department Must provide critical leadership, a Coalition Effort that includes arab and Muslim States to degrade and defeat isil while being careful to ensure the u. S. Doesnt end up owning the conflict in syria and elsewhere. Afghanistan. The hard won games of the past decade are significant but remain fragile. With afghan security, our forces are taking over the Afghan Forces are taking over responsibility for combating taliban and securing afghanistan. However, the United States forces with our Coalition Partners must transition to a more limited mission of training and assisting forces and counterterrorism operations. Yet it remains to be seen whether conditions on the ground in afghanistan will improve sufficiently by the end of 2016 to warrant the pace of further reductions under the current plan. Ukraine. Russias aggression against ukraine challenges order and progress in europe. In the past few days separate ises in Eastern Ukraine with substantial russian equipment training and leadership abandoned any pretext of a ceasefire and launched a broad offensive against forces. United states must determine how to best support iranian people in defending their country. Cyber. For years weve devoted attention to looming and complex challenge of cyber warfare. The attack on Sony Corporation in america was in respects a watershed event that should stimulate fresh critical thinking. This attack demonstrates a relatively small and rogue nation can reach across the ocean and cause extensive destruction of u. S. Based economic target and very nearly succeed in freedom of expression through cyberspace. The the real and manifest advantage of offense and defense of cyber warfare that enabled military inferior nations to strike against homeland is a new and worrisome factor for National Security. These issues are only a few of the challenges facing the Defense Department but there are also significant internal challenge that must be addressed. Sequestration. Last week before this committee general maddux said no foe in the field can wreak such havoc that mindless can be achieved today. Brigades willing to fight. General wells testified less than 50 of our squadron fighters are combat ready. Sequestration threatens not only National Security but risks damage to Public Safety health education, transportation and environment. While the department manages these difficult fiscal realities Congress Must find balance and bipartisan solution and repeal sequestration. Rising course chairman alluded to this succinctly and correctly. Even without sequestration defense has to tackle rising costs, including personnel costs which consume onethird of the bunl. Yesterday heard testimony of compensation and retirement committee. Their recommendations are far reaching and would fundamentally change military personnel benefits. These recommend ailings must be carefully considered. Changes must occur between ensure properly fighting men and women. Other in Defense Department acquisition, whether significant acquisition reforms many under your leadership defense acquisition takes too long and costs too much. We can and should do more to streamline and improve the system. Finally, but most importantly if confirmed as secretary of defense, you will be leading 1. 3 million active duty military, 820,000 reserve and guard and 773,000 civilians. They are tired and overtaxed from a decade of war in years of fiscal uncertainty. They are wrestling with the same issues as civilian society issues like Sexual Assault and suicide. Yet they are committed to protecting this nation and remain the finest force if the world. Dr. Carter, i look forward to discussing these and other issues with you and thank you for your service. Thank you senator reid i note the presence of our beloved friend and former colleague, a member of this committee since Coolidge Administration and were very happy to have him here this morning our beloved friend Joe Lieberman. Senator lieberman. Thanks, mr. Chairman. It was a great comfort to me when i arrived during the Coolidge Administration to find you had already been here several years. [ laughter ] i must say im delighted to be here. Its really somewhat sentimental for me to be here. I appreciate very much the opportunity. Its a privilege for me to appear before the Senate Armed Services committee today to introduce dr. Ash carter. This is not the first time i have had this privilege. In fact, it is the third time. The first was on march 26th 2009, when ash was nominated to be underisnt of defense for Acquisition Technology and logistics. Second was on september 13th 2011, when he was nominated to be deputy secretary of defense. So today i suppose i could say i dont think ive ever been so pleased to be asked to repeat myself as i am honored to have been by ash carter to introduce him to you as president obamas nominee to be the 25th secretary of defense of the United States of america. Ash carter graduated from yale College Summa Cum Laude with a unique combination of majors physics and medieval history. During his time as a Rhodes Scholar at oxford he temporarily resolved the question which was on everyones mind, im sure about whether he was primarily a historian or a physicist. He earned a doctorate in theoretical physicist. Nonetheless to profound prognosticators he went object to become chair of Global Affairs faculty at harvard and codirector of the project at kennedys school bellfor senator. Mr. Chairman senator reid, it would really be hard to find someone to serve as secretary of defense who combines as much practical pentagon experience with so deep a background in National Security policy as ash carter. The fact convened this morning to consider his nomination means that the talents and abilities of a brilliant and extraordinary strategic thinker and Public Servant and administrator can again be put to use for our nation. It also means, as youve said that ash carter has again chosen, with the support of his wife and family, to answer the call to duty to serve our country. Over the past 30 years, dr. Carter has worked directly or indirectly for virtually every secretary of defense, no matter the Political Party of the secretary. He knows the department he has been asked to lead very well. And therefore, can begin leading it on day one. From 1993 to 1996 ash served as the assistant secretary of defense for interNational Security policy. During that time he worked on the landmark lugar arms control program, and i got to know him when we traveled together with secretary of defense bill perry and senators nunn and lugar to the former soviet union to observe them destroying Nuclear Submarines and dismantling missiles and missile sites as part of nunnlugar. I think we actually bonded personally at one dinner hosted by the high command of the Russian Military in which i believe its accurate to say that ash and i were the only two members of the american delegation to keep up with the vodka toasts of friendship with our russian colleagues. When when i think back to those days, and you think of the whats happening in russia today, and what russia is doing outside its borders, those memories are really quite poignant. Too much has changed for the worse. But, in thinking about introducing ash today hes done so much, its important to note that he spearheaded some developments during that period of time, particularly the removal of Nuclear Weapons from ukraine, kazakhstan and belarus. Which, needless to say, have continued to make our world a lot safer than it would otherwise be. Speaking of travel, ash had the good judgment, mr. Chairman to come with us several times to the munich security conference. And i must say watching him there i was impressed by the range and depth of his relationships with the top level of particularly military, but also Foreign Policy leaders of our european allies in nato. I would say, and i would guess that members of the committee would agree, that ash carters most important contributions during his past Pentagon Service have been in american lives saved on the battlefield. He was the driving force in providing 6,500 amrap vehicles to our troops in afghanistan in record time. An action that saved many lives and gave our troops the confidence that there was someone in washington who was working for them. Ash carters fierce dedication to our war fighters is well known, and i think will be one of his greatest legacies. More broadly the improvements he brought about in the Pentagon Acquisitions process show his mastery of this complex and critical field and will make him an excellent partner for you, mr. Chairman in the continuing work that i know you senator reid and this Committee Want to do to improve defense procurement. Dr. Carters service on boards and commissions includes the defense Science Board the defense policy board, the secretary of states interNational Security advisory board, and the Congressional Commission on the strategic posture of the United States. Ash carter has been accurately described as a man for all seasons. A man of enormous talents and experiences. It is also true that he has made choices in his life about how he has used his talents and experiences. He has chosen to go where his intellect, his values, and his patriotism, have called him. We are fortunate, indeed that president obama has nominated dr. Carter to be our next secretary of defense and if i may say so the president is fortunate that he will have so experienced a leader at the pentagon and so wise an adviser in the inner councils of this administration. All of which explains why im so truly honored to introduce Ashton Carter to this Great Committee at this time. Thank you. Thank you very much senator lieberman. Always glad to have you here. And if youd like to take a seat on the dais wed welcome it. Dr. Carter, welcome. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ranking member reid all of the distinguished members of this committee. Thank you all. Thank you for inviting me to appear before you as president obamas nominee to be secretary of defense. Im honored by his trust and confidence and also by the prospect of serving once again the troops, and the country that i love so much. If confirmed, i will take the office of secretary of defense after one of our nations most honorable and conscientious Public Servants, chuck hagel. I worked for secretary hagel. And ive known him for decades. Though not over all of the many decades he served our country. Among the many traits i admire in secretary hagel is the tireless care with which he carried out the most solemn duty of secretary of defense, which is to the relatively few brave young men and women who defend the rest of us. I also thank senator lieberman for his warm and generous introduction, as he noted its not the first time hes done so. But especially for his service to this body, and to the nation over many years. Thank you, sir. My perfect wife stephanie, and wonderful children will and abe are behind me as they always are, every day. And i thank them. The president frequently notes that america has the greatest fighting force the world has ever known. To the men and women of the department of defense who make it so, and to this committee, which watches over them, i pledge that if im confirmed as secretary of defense to keep faith with the dedication that brought them in to service. To ensure that their training and equipment are as superb as they are. That the wellbeing safety, and dignity of each of them and their families is fostered and respected. And that decisions about when and where theyre sent into harms way are made with the greatest reflection and care. The principle reason that stephanie and i made a uturn in our life to accept the offer of nomination is our respect and devotion to them. To chairman, members of the committee, ill be brief. If confirmed as secretary of defense my responsibilities would be to protect america and its friends and allies in a turbulent and dangerous world. At the same time i never lose sight of the fact that the United States remains the strongest, most resilient and most influential nation on earth. We do, indeed have the finest fighting force the world has ever known. We have an innovative economy that has long set the pace for the rest of the world. Our country has friends and allies in every corner of the world. And our adversaries have few. This is clear testimony to the appeal of our values our principles, and our leadership. All this makes me proud and hopeful and determined to grab hold of the bright opportunities in front of us, as well as to counter the very real dangers we face. These dangers, as the chairman has noted, include continuing turmoil in the middle east and north africa, and the malignant and savage terrorism emanating from it. An ongoing war in afghanistan. The reversion to oldstyle security thinking in parts of europe. The longstanding tensions from the past and the rapid changes in asia, and the continuing need for the stabilizing role of the United States in that region. Which are so important to the future. The continuing imperative to counter the use of weapons of mass destruction. And new dangers and new domains like cyber, as noted by senator reid. Strategy. Strategy needs to keep all these problems in perspective. And to craft lasting approaches to each of them. I have promised president obama that if i am confirmed, i will furnish him my most candid strategic advice. In formulating that advice, i intend to confer widely among civilian and military leaders including on this committee. Experts and foreign partners, and when the president makes a decision, i will also ensure that the department of defense implements it with its long admired excellence. I will also ensure that the president received candid professional military advice. This is not only consonant with the law as vin in this Country Committee but with good sense. Since our military leaders possess wide and deep experience and expertise. The law also prescribes the chain of command. And if im confirmed as secretary of defense, i will be a stickler for the chain of command. Id also like to say a word about the Defense Budget. Chairman, members of the committee, i very much hope that we can find a way to the out of the wilderness of sequester. Sequester is risky to our defense. It introduces turbulence and uncertainty that are wasteful. And it conveys a misleadingly diminished picture of our power in the eyes of friends and foes alike. Im not familiar with the details of the 2016 budget submitted just a couple days ago, and if confirmed, i will come back here for a full Posture Hearing to discuss that. But i strongly support the president s request for relief from sequester caps in 2016 and through the future year defense plan. If confirmed i will do my part to assist the president in working with congress to resolve the overall issues of the countrys fiscal future of which the Defense Budget is a part. But, i cannot suggest support and stability for the Defense Budget. Without, at the same time frankly noting that not every defense dollar is spent as well as it should be. The taxpayer cannot comprehend it, let alone support the Defense Budget. When they read as the chairman has noted the cost overruns lack of accounting and accountability, needless overhead, and the like. This must stop. Every company, state and city in the country has had to lean itself out in recent years. And it should be no different for the pentagon. And in this matter i know im echoing chairman mccain senator reid and this committee, which has long called for and taken concrete action on reform of acquisition and other parts of the defense enterprise. In the weapons system reform act of 2009, and before that dating back to the Packard Commission, and the Goldwater Nichols act. I began my own career in defense in connection with the implementation of the Packard Commissions recommendations. The issues and solutions change over time as technology and industry change. They extend from acquisition, which was high lated by the chairman and programs such as future combat systems and the president ial helicopter, which i canceled, i signed the cancellation orders for in 2009 to the ford aircraft carrier, which senator mccain also noted which was not satisfactorily solved and still not its overruns and i agree with the chairman in that regard, we got a lot of work to do. The issues and solutions for acquisition reform change over time as technology and industry change as i noted. They extend from acquisition, and this is important, to all other parts of the Defense Budget. Force size compensation and training as well as equipment. If confirmed as secretary of defense, i pledge to make needed change in the pentagon but also to seek support from congress, because i know that in the end, Congress Holds the power of the purse. I look forward to partnership with this committee, and what can be a period of historic advance. Mr. Chairman, senator reid, members of the committee, thank you. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to come before you. If confirmed, i will seek out your thoughts, perspectives and combat experiences to help me do the best job. Thank you. Thank you very much dr. Carter. And we will have multiple round s but well have short ones, five minutes, because that will give more opportunity for members to ask questions, and in in about an hour dr. Carter needs a short break as we all know hes recovering from recent surgery. So, well take a break then for as long as you need and we will go in to this afternoon so that all members are able to answer to ask sufficiently the questions that they have. And to start with dr. Carter members of this committee met with King Abdullah yesterday. He made a graphic statement about needing some weapons and the difficulties hes having with those, and we will be signing a letter this morning. And as i said it may require some legislation, but are you aware of the problems that jordanians are having with acquiring some of the weapons that they need . Im not, mr. Chairman. I learned of them this morning, as well. And if im confirmed i definitely want to find out what they are. And resolve them. Because we need partners on the ground to beat isis. And the jordanian people have clearly reacted the way that encourages us to support them. In combatting what is really a savage and thank you. Last week general matous was before this committee and said in afghanistan we need to consider if were asking the same outcome there as we saw last summer in iraq. Should we pull out all our troops on the administrations proposed time line . At great cost against our enemy in afghanistan general kaine said all we accomplished in afghanistan will be at risk as it was in iraq if the troops are pulled out not based on the conditions on the ground. How can we not learn the obvious and painful lessons from iraq . Do you have a position on of a withdrawal from iraq . Do you believe that it should be calendar based, as it is now . Or should we be looking at the conditions on the ground to base those decisions . Mr. Chairman thank you, and also thank you for your consideration about the back. I appreciate that. The campaign in afghanistan has been close to my heart for all the time that ive been associated with the department of defense. Ive been there a number of times. I think that success is possible there. But as you indicate requires the United States to continue its campaign and finish the job. I understand we have a plan. The president has a plan. I support that plan. At the same time, its a plan. And if im confirmed, and i ascertain, as the years go by, that we need to change that plan, i will recommend those changes to the president. Well, all i can say is its not a matter of years. Its a matter of weeks actually. Because one of the major withdrawals is going to start this coming june. And so i hope that you will assess that as quickly and as carefully as possible. In his testimony, the committee this week, dr. Kissinger said, quote, in the middle east a multiple of evils are unfolding simultaneously. Iran has exploited this turmoil to pursue positions of power within other countries. Do you agree with that . Yeah, i do. Do you believe that we need to have a strategy to combat isis and the continued successes in many respects that they are achieving . Absolutely. Do you believe we have a strategy at this time . I believe i understand our strategy at this time, mr. Chairman. I also have the intention, again, if confirmed, to make it my First Priority to go there to talk to our leaders military leaders there, to confer with you what do you understand the strategy to be . And to i think the strategy connects, ends and means, and our ends with respect to isil needs to be its lasting defeat. I say lasting because its important that when they get defeated they stay defeated. And that is why its important that we have those on the ground there who will ensure that they stay defeated once defeated. Its different on the two sides of the border. Its one enemy but its two different contexts, mr. Chairman. In iraq, the force that will keep them defeated is the Iraqi Security forces. Thats our strategy is to strengthen them and to make them that force. On the syrian side, not to take too long about it, we are trying to build the force that will keep them defeated. And thats going to be a combination of moderate syrian forces, and regional forces. Well it sounds like doesnt sound like a strategy to me. But maybe we can flesh out your goals. It sounds like a series of goals to me. Do you believe we should be supplying arms, defensive arms, to ukrainians . I very much inclined in that direction, mr. Chairman, because i think we need to support the ukrainians in defending themselves. I the nature of those arms, i cant say right now because i dont have i conferred with our military leaders or ukrainian leaders. But i incline in the direction of providing them with arms, including to get to what im sure your question is, lethal arms. Thank you very much dr. Carter. Senator reed . Thank you very much mr. Chairman. One way to evolve a strategy is to first look at the threats. The middle east. Do you believe the most immediate threat there to u. S. Interests and to the region is isil . I hesitate to say isil only because in the back of my mind is iran, as well. So i think that we have two immediate substantial dangers. In the middle east. One is isil and one is iran. In terms of our current military operations they are clearly directed at isil. Is that the appropriate response at this moment to the threats in the region . It is. And as you point out, there are two theories. One is iraq, where we have more traction and the other is syria. So you would think in terms of responding to the threat that our actions are vigorous support of the current Iraqi Government is appropriate in responding to this isil threat . It is appropriate. If i, as i said, whether and how to improve it will be my first job if im confirmed as secretary of defense. One of the issues in particular with respect to iraq is that not only improvement as you suggest in your comments the longterm defeat of isil rests not just on military operations but on political arrangements, and what weve witnessed in iraq particularly was a political arrangement that consciously and deliberately degraded the sunni population. At least thats their perception, and gave rise. So, would you acknowledge that part of the strategy has to be constituting an Iraqi Government that is perceived by its own people as being a bit fairer and inclusive . Absolutely. Thats what the previous government of iraq did not do. And that was instrumental in their military collapse. And one of the issues that complicates, you pointed out, in terms of a round being a strategic issue of the United States in the region, is their relative influence in iraq and throughout the region was enhanced over the last several years by the government in iraq. By the maliki government. Is that accurate . Thats accurate, yes. So we are now in a position of of trying to essentially contain the regional ambitions of the iranians and kinetically defeat the sunni radical islamists, is that the strategy . Yes that sounds right. And you understand that and that to you is a coherent strategy . It is. Yes. Now, that means that, you know, youre prioritizing or the administration is prioritizing these actions youve talked about, and building over time capability in syria. In terms of using your resources in addressing the most serious threats is that a coherent response in your mind . I think it is the beginning of a strategic response. I think that as i noted on the syrian side of the border the assembling of the force that is going to keep isil defeated there is were in an early stage of trying to build that force. We are participating in the building of that force. But i think its fair to say that were at an earlier stage there. On the iraqi side we have the existing Iraqi Security forces. Let me senator reed, if i can just note one other thing. Please. It may be something i missed in your line of questioning. There is an issue looming over this which is the role of iraq in the whole region i mean iran, excuse me, in the whole region. Which is why i pointed that out at the beginning. That is a serious complication. I agree. Let me turn to the issue of ukraine, which the chairman raised the issue of providing Weapons Systems to defend or allow the ukrainians to defend themselves. But Weapons Systems have to be differentiated from a commitment of American Military personnel. Would that be a clear line of demarcation that you would draw . Excuse me. I was suggesting the provision of equipment to the ukrainian military, yes. Thank you very much. Dr. Carter, for your service, mr. Chairman thank you. Senator wicker. Thank you very much. Thank you for your testimony, dr. Carter. I look forward to supporting your confirmation. I look forward to working with you. At a point some two or three years ago, the pentagon, along with the Administration Made a decision to rebalance to the asia pacific. So i want to ask you about that. Would you agree that our challenges with regard to an expansionist russian agenda the situation in Eastern Europe and other areas near the former soviet union, have become more challenging, and that also our challenges in the middle east are more problematic now than when the decision was made to the asia pacific . Youre absolutely right. The issues in the middle east, and in ukraine have developed since we first formulated that rebalance. Thats true. And to the extent that well, tell me this. How do you understand as a prospective secretary of defense, the rebalancing to the asia pacific will actually work . And can we afford to move resources from from europe and the middle east to the asia pacific, given the circumstances that we see today in 2015 . Thank you. Thank you for that question. The rebalance to the Asia Pacific Region as the term goes is, in my eyes, a commitment to continue the pivotal American Military role in the asia Pacific Theater which has kept peace and stability there for decades now. It has been that american underwritten peace and stability in a region where theres still many historical animosities, and unhealed wounds of the past it is that stability underwritten by the United States that has allowed the japanese miracle and the south korean miracle, and the Southeast Asian miracle, and today the chinese and indian miracle. It is thanks to us that that environment has been created. And in a sentence i think the rebalance is a commitment to keep that going. Now you asked can we do that . And keep our commitments in the middle east, and to europe at the same time. And my view is that we can, and must, and let me say why thats possible. I think that while isil and events in ukraine are terribly important in their own regard and require a lot of attention and take a lot of attention. Theyre on the television, theyre in the headlines and so forth, and the asia pacific is not, we have to remember that half the population of the world and half of its economy is in that region. And our military presence there, the naval presence, the air presence, our allies and partnerships finding new allies building new partnerships, conducting exercises, those things can be done at the same time that were doing what we need to do in ukraine and were doing what we need to do in iraq, and syria. So i think the world needs to know the United States can do more than one thing at once. And we can keep our commitments there. Is it going to be necessary to move resources from the middle east and from concern over europe and russia to the asia pacific, to move resources . Sounds like youre proposing a continuation of longstanding ongoing policy. Well, it is a longstanding, ongoing policy but to keep the American Military predominance in the asia pacific requires us continually to modernize, and add to what we have there. Were adding ships were adding Electronic Warfare that is were improving our forces qualitatively, were investing in them a new bomber. Which is importantly intended for that theater, which i think is very important. So were buying new capabilities that wont necessarily have a role in the middle east or in nato, but are principally designed for that theater. And i think we need to keep those investments going. You dont advocate a diminishment of the resources were spending with regard to the middle east or russia and europe at this point . I think we need to keep our investments going. When it comes to datetoday employments, and i want to get in to too much detail here but im sure you know this. When it comes to daytoday deployments and the location of ships and so forth we do move back and forth between the gulf and the pacific. And so there is some tradeoff there on a daytoday basis. But in terms of our fundamental investments, in new capabilities, and remaining ahead of any other military opponent, including in asia and in our building and strengthening in our alliances with japan with south korea, with the philippines, with australia, with thailand and new partnerships with other countries like india, we need to keep all that going. Its an important part of the world. Thank you, sir. Senator donnelly . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you and your family and i also want to thank secretary hagel for his service as secretary of defense and to our nation. He took the point in vietnam. He took the point for our Defense Department and were grateful for what hes done. I was privileged to travel with some other senators recently to the middle east, and we talked to a number of the nations there. And i just want to make sure that, in your mind do you believe when we look at isis our goal should be to eliminate them on a permanent basis . Yes, i do. One of my concerns is time. And what i mean by that is when you look at the map of where they were a year ago, where they are now theyve substantially grown. And so we have windows that were working in, and when we look at our plan, im concerned about how we look at the depth and the size of our plan, that what it really does, they have 30,000. Were talking hundreds. It gives them time to go even more, and you worry about a Tipping Point where x crosses y, and they become much more difficult. So, what kind of time plan are you looking at to get movement on this . I think its important to strike back at isil as were doing from the air, but to begin to retake territory as soon as we can build the forces on the ground. Which will be local forces that are capable of sustaining defeat when we have achieved defeat in a given location. So i hope that in coming months, and again im not in a position to have any special information about this or talk to our commanders or so forth but i its my understanding that in coming months the Iraqi Security forces assisted by us will begin to take back territory from isil. And i think youre right that its important to get that territory back soon because you dont want them to settle in and you dont want the population to settle in to having isil rule them in their barbaric way. When we talked to the king yesterday, and to others in the region, what they said is, were not asking you to fight our battle, but we need you, as a partner, shoulder to shoulder, to help us train, to help us plan, to help us implement. Is that what you see our ground role as . Yes, i think exactly right. Youre referring to the assistance we provide to the jordanians, if i understand. Right. And to the other nations who are looking at the same thing. Thats right. One of the things we had testimony on yesterday was in regards to switching themes a little bit dod and the v. A. With drug formularies. We lost 479 young men and women to suicide in 2013 who were in the military. We lost 132 in combat. We dont want to lose any more, so part of what general corrally was telling us was that with the drug formularies, it causes dramatic change for those who are coming off and going in to the v. A. All of a sudden they look up, theyre being forced on different drugs and stuff. As secretary of defense, are there things you can do to help us with that . I think there definitely are, and must be. I think the relationship between the department of defense, and the department of Veterans Affairs has to be a relationship like this, because its one soldier. If they cross the boundary from one to the other when they move and become a veteran, but its one soldier. And so, i am familiar or that is i remember from years back when i was in the department of this question of the difference formularies, people call dod calls a drug one thing and v. A. Calls it another thing and they have one set of dosages and our troops and weve got to get this together. Its one patient. They get lost in the shuffle. Exactly. And its at a most critical time to them personally. And so your absolute commitment to that, and i know it is is going to be critical. I wanted to ask you one other thing as im starting to get a little short on time. And that is your expertise in the nuclear area and i was wondering if you are familiar with the report issued by madeline creeden and rear admiral fanta. They did a departmentwide Nuclear Enterprise review. It is classified but it is very sobering. I just want to make sure i didnt know if youd seen it yet. If you have, will you take ownership of the issue and ensure its findings are addressed . Thank you, senator. I have not had access to that particular report, but with respect to the Nuclear Enterprise, i have a long history in that regard. And a strong believer in a safe secure and reliable Nuclear Arsenal for the United States. And that encompasses both the Nuclear Weapons themselves, it and the Delivery System ss of the department of defense, and the command and control systems for it. So i can well understand it. Theyre calling attention to the enduring need to make that a priority. Thats another thing thats not in the newspapers every day. Thank god. Nuclear weapons being used arent in the newspapers every day. But its a bedrock of our security and we can never forget that. And so continuing quality and excellence in the Nuclear Enterprise is very important. I am committed to that. Senator ayotte. I want to thank the chairman i want to thank you, dr. Carter, for all your service to the nation and your willingness to serve again. I would like to ask you about, according to the director of National Intelligence we know that at least 107 terrorists who were formerly detained at guantanamo and been released have been confirmed of reengaging in terrorism and in fact, an additional 77 are also suspected of that 73 in fact, we know that public reports tell us that at least two guantanamo detainees have also joined isis. And so what i would like to ask you, number one, there were reports that secretary hagel said that he was under pressure to increase the pace of transfers of guantanamo detainees by the administration. And as you know the statute says that you, as the incoming secretary of defense will have to make the determination, and only if you determine that the actions, theres a whole set of factors, but in particular, you have to determine that actions that have been or are planned to be taken will substantially mitigate the risk of such an individual engaging or reengaging in any terrorist or other hostile activity that threatens the United States or United States persons, or our interests, or i would assume our allies, as well. And so i would ask you, secretary carter soon to be secretary carter, thank you, but, i would ask you to tell us, and to make a commitment to this committee that you will not succumb to any pressure by this administration to increase the pace of transfers from guantanamo. Will you commit to that . Absolutely. And i would also ask you to commit to this committee that you will take with the utmost seriousness because we had general matous before the committee the other day and he expressed deep concern over the notion that one of our men and women in uniform could confront a terrorist that we had previously captured and the implications to them that you will commit to this committee and to all of us, that you will not allow the release of someone that you think could reengage in terrorism so that our men and women in uniform will be confronted with them again. I do senator. I understand my responsibilities under that statute and ill, as in Everything Else i do, ill play it absolutely straight. We appreciate that. Thats very important because we have seen an accelerated release of detainees and as you know, there have been public reports about one of the taliban five reengaging in terrorist activities. So this is something that i think is of utmost importance. The last thing one of our men and women in uniform should confront is a terrorist that we had previously captured. I know you agree with me on that. I wanted to follow up on the aid to ukraine and i really appreciate the comments that you made that you are inclined to support lethal aid to ukraine. When we met in my office, you had told me that you were actually there, and involved in the signing of the budapest memorandum in 1994. Is that right . Thats right. So as you look at whats happening in ukraine and having been there for the signing of that memorandum what are the implications given that the ukrainians gave up their Nuclear Weapon s weapons in return for the assurances not only from the United States of america, but russia, who has clearly violated blatantly the budapest memorandum, if we dont support ukraine given that we do not want more Nuclear Proliferation around the world. I would assume that it would send the wrong message if you give up your Nuclear Weapons and we dont provide you at least defensive weapons why would any country give up their Nuclear Weapons again . Could you tell me what you think about the violation of that mem mum and the significance of it . Thank you senator. It is a clear violation. I was there. I remember when that agreement was signed in budapest in 1994. As i think senator lieberman said, i ran the nunnlugar program during that period. And i was in ukraine the day the last Nuclear Weapon rode across the border from ukraine in to russia. And that agreement provided for russia to respect the territorial integrity of ukraine, which its obviously not done. And that was part of the climate and context in which the ukrainians agreed to get Nuclear Weapons in the first place. And so by the way the United States took on a commitment in the very same agreement to respect but also assure, as the phrase goes, the ability of ukraine to find its own ways as an independent country. That is at stake today. And thats why i think that we need to provide support to the Ukrainian Government as they try to maintain a position find their own way in europe. Oh, thank you. My time is up. But i also think its very important that we also get nato buttress our nato support for all of this. Thank you. Senator gillibrand. Thank you mr. Chairman. Welcome dr. Carter. As we met prior to this testimony, we covered a few issues, and im going to submit questions for the record since we wont be able to cover all of them but they include military Sexual Assault issues concerning combat integration military compensation cyber, iran, and syria. So i will send those, you can answer them in due course. But specifically lets focus a little bit on the military Sexual Assault issue, which you know i am very passionate about trying to solve this scourge. One of the concerns i have is that last year we had 20,000 cases of Sexual Assault and unwanted sexual contact within the military. And i would like your view as to whether you believe that level of Sexual Assault today is still the good order and discipline we would want from our services . No, senator. Its not. And i use the word passion. Im at the same pogs passion you do. This problem with Sexual Assault is something that is persists in our military. Its widespread in our society. But its particularly offensive in the military community because the military ethos is one of honor. And trust. You have to trust the person whos, so to speak in the fox hole next to you. These are violations of honor and trust. Also, in military life, we put people in positions, we put them in situations of austere deployment. A situation where the hierarchy of military life is a necessity, in battle. And these also provide opportunities this context, military context for predators, so it is more offensive in military life even than in civilian life. And weve got to root it out. And i know that many members of this committee, but you, especially, senator, have led in that regard, and im grateful for the for the thoughts, and frankly for keeping the heat on. If im confirmed ill feel that heat and ill understand it, and be with it. The one statistic i was particularly concerned about the most recent report is that of all those who were willing to report the assault openly were retaliated against. 62 of those who reported these crimes were retaliated against experienced some form of retaliation. So im highly concerned that the military is still failing in living up to their zero tolerance policy. Do you agree . I do agree that retaliation is a dimension of the problem that, to me at least is becoming increasingly apparent. This is a problem if i may say, and you know this because youve worked so hard on it but that the more we dig in to it, the more dimensions of it we come to understand. And i think the idea that victims are retaliated against, not only by the hierarchy above them, but by their peers is something that is unacceptable. But we have to combat, also, and the survey that you refer to indicated that that is widespread. And we need to get at that. I understand from your testimony that you place a premium on the chain of command. And i fully understand that for combat situations the chain of command is not only essential, but necessary in every respect. I would like you to, though, consider all options for how you can reform the military Justice System to actually professionalize it, make it more effective, and when our allies have reformed their military Justice System to guarantee more civil liberties, and to professionalize it and to take out biases theyve not seen diminution in the ability to train troops to instill good order and discipline within the troops, and to do their jobs. I would ask you that you would keep an open mind to look at all possible solutions for improving our criminal Justice System within the military. I will. Thank you. Another concern that i have is in terms of the issue of how we can create opportunities for women in combat. One of the issues that i have looked at is how are each of the services being able to open those positions opening all positions to women in combat . Because as you know in order to become promoted within the military, oftentimes combat missions are required and having certain roles that require combat is required for promotion. Are you committed to allowing women to serve in all positions, and to gender neutral standards for each of the services . Im certainly committed to gender neutral standards. The what i do know is this, that the services are examining whether there are any position ss in the military that should not be open to women. I strongly incline towards opening them all to women. But i am also respectful of the circumstances. And of professional military judgment in this regard. Ive not been involved in those studies. If i am confirmed id want to confer with our own leaders in the department of defense. With you, and others who have thought carefully about that problem, and tried to come to a view. Senator ernst. Thank you dr. Carter for being here today. Thank you mr. Chairman. Also, senator lieberman, thank you for joining us today. As we sat down in my office the other day, one thing that hopefully was very clear to you was my passion for the National Guard and the army reserves, and all reserve members. Actually. And so we have spent a considerable amount of time talking in this forum about sequestration and the effects on our services, not just our active duty forces but also those that serve as wonderful weekend warriors. So i would love for you to please address the panel, and just talk talk to us and explain to us those impacts that you have seen regarding sequestration and how it has impacted those reserve and National Guard forces, please. Thank you, senator, and by the way, thank you for your own service. Appreciate it. And i begin by saying that we owe a great debt of gratitude to the guard and reserve, for what theyve done over the last 12, 13 years. We couldnt have done i know this from the time i was in the department of defense previously, in the wars in iraq and afghanistan were at their peak we couldnt have sustained the tempo of combat in those two locations without the contributions of the reserve component of our military. So if theres ever a time when theyre value was made clear its been in the last 10 to 12 years. And they are impacted, as every other part of the Defense Department is, by sequester. Thats the terrible thing about sequester. Its everybody. And it hits them hard. And it hits them soon. Which means that we dont have time to adjust. So i think the guard and reserve component have borne the impact of sequester as all the rest of the departments have. Sad to say. And thank you for that. I appreciate that. If confirmed, we do we do have a number of rising threats that we see all around the world. And specifically, in the middle east right now. So considering those threats, with many new possible deployments, coming up then if confirmed, how do we ensure that our guard and reserve units then maintain their ability to reinforce our active duty component, as effectively as they have in the past dozen years . How do we ensure that theyre being supported . Thank you for that. And that is the key issue, as you well know. And i think that the reserve Component Forces need to be as prepared to go in to action if theyre called to go in to action, as any active duty element. But you never want to send anybody into harms way on behalf of the United States who hasnt had the training and isnt fully prepared, and isnt adequately equipped to do the job. So i think its important that the guard and reserve are at a state of readiness that is commencerate with the need we have for them, and in one other thing ill add is that they also not incidentally at all, very importantly, play a role in responding to disasters in our own country. Thats another important and by the way, also amply demonstrated in recent years, attribute of having them. So both for defense of civil authorities, and for deployment in a National Security emergency, they need to be fully ready when we need them. Thank you much, dr. Carter, and thank you, mr. Chairman. Senator manchin. Thank you mr. Chairman. Dr. Carter thank you so much for first of all all the service youve given. Having such an esteemed senator introducing you. That shows your intelligence there. And next of all, willing to serve at this most difficult time. I appreciate all of that. Because i know how difficult it is. Let me go, you know, we had an unusual day yesterday, and we had to speak to King Abdullah. And without regarding too much about im sure that youve been briefed on that. But the bottom line is this, were all concerned i think that our chairman has taken the lead on this, how were going to accelerate what we do and what we think in this committee of how quick we can get necessary military equipment to the people willing to fight, and the jordanians are willing to fight. And about the red tape. I just couldnt believe what i heard yesterday all the red tape that they have to go through to get something on the front lines to help them defend themselves. I didnt hear so much they need our combat troops. They need our expertise and our people in the right places to make sure were efficient. They just need the weapons to do the job. Do you have thoughts on that . Or how you can help us on that and break through this gridlock . I do. And i dont know what you heard but i can well believe what you heard because i have a long experience of frustration with getting equipment to the war fighter. Our war fighters, never mind partner war fighters on time. This is an element that in that is important when we talk about acquisition reform the cost control is very important. But also getting things done. When i was working on the wars in afghanistan, and iraq, it was, even for americans, assistance to our own forces, way too much red tape stood in the way. You had to constantzly try to cut through that. And i guess in the context of the jordanian circumstance, which im not familiar with, i am not im sure you know more about it on the committee than i would, as a nominee. But i do read the newspapers, and i understand the need. And i can well believe that its slower than King Abdullah can finds acceptable and that you and i would find acceptable. I guess all i can say is if im confirmed as secretary of defense this is one im pretty familiar with, and id work to get those things out seems like the greatest challenge is coming out of the state department and were going to help them work on that i think, and chairmans committed to that and the Ranking Member and all of us are on the same page. This is not a partisan thing. This is basically an american thing we want to get done. If i can go to that basically and the auditing im very concerned about the cost of our military and if its being spent efficiently. Theres not a western in West Virginia, not a person in the country, that wont sacrifice for a person in uniform. Not one. Theyll give up something. Theyll pay more taxes. Theyll do whatever you ask them. But weve got to make sure were spending it wisely and i think that our chairman has been very diligent on this for many, many years. Look at the staff and how they double and quadruple and every time we get a new change. The staff. We dont talk about that. We just talk about your readiness and having people able to perform but no ones checking the staff sizes. And im told from the people on top that they dont need these but no one can get rid of them. Put them back where theyre needed. Also using our guard and reserve. But the staff size thats something you will have oversight on. It absolutely will. And i agree with you. We need acquisition reform. We need lots of other things, too. Overhead Headquarters Staffs, lots of parts of the of the department. For just the reason you said. And let me tell you why the audit is so important. Why im so committed to having an audit of the Defense Department. I think we can help you help yourself of the institution, and the reason i say that is theres a lot of things that youre doing, that sometimes you dont ask for, you dont want. Theres equipment being sent your way. Theres things being produced in different parts of the country. Just because of who we are. We want to make sure that our people are getting the jobs, i agree to that. But i can tell you. If theres something were building in West Virginia you dont need need, i will be the first one to say were going to find Something Else to do. Were not going to force you to buy something you dont need or want. We have to look at this and we wont know unless we have an audit and i would hope that youre committed to helping us get that audit and complete transparn transparency of whats going on. Also the contractors. I have been here four years. I cant get an accurate account of how many contractors we have and what branches. Thank you, i am committed on the audit front. I agree with that as well. I appreciate what you say about us working together to make sure we buy what we need and we buy it well. Thank you, sir. Senator sullivan and then well take a break after that. How long do you need . 15 minutes and then after that the next questioners would be senator heinrich and senator fischer and senator shaheen would be in line for the next questioners after a 15minute break. Committee will stand in recess for 15 minutes. After senator sullivan is finished with his question. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And dr. Carter, i want to thank you for your service and your family, your wife and kids. I know how much they go through in these hearings. Sometimes its tougher on them than it is the nominees. I want to to start with just a little history and geography. 1935 general mitchell often referred to as the father of the air force was testifying in front of congress. He said quote, i believe in the future whoever holds this place will hold the world. It is the most important strategic place in the world. It is the most Central Place in the world for aircraft and that is true either of europe, asia or north america. You know what place general mitchell was referring to in his testimony in 1935 . I think, senator it was alaska. Correct it was alaska. Do you agree with general mitchell . I do i point out that one proof of what he said, i suppose suppose, is that your state is home to one of our principle Missile Defense batteries and the reason for that is its kind of on the way to and from a lot of bad places. I look forward to hosting you in alaska soon to show you why general mitchell was correct. But i want to get excuse me senator reid says maybe thats why he was courtmartialed. I think he may have had a drinking problem, but im sure. His strategic assessment was still very correct. A tough part of your job is as a member of the president s cabinet you also critically important part of the job, if confirmed, is leveling with this committee, showing your straight forward approach, which is great, but also with the American People. I think we all recognize there are challenges, but in some ways when the president is talking to the American People, his views seem o to differ. In his state of the union, he painted what i would consider a benign, almost delusional view of the world environment with quotes like the shadow of crisis has passed, were stopping isils advance, were opposing russian aggression, we have halted the progress of Irans Nuclear program. These are all quotes from the president to the American People. Do you agree with his assessment in these areas . I think if im confirmed as secretary of defense im going to be confronting some of the most challenging problems that we have had in our National Security in a very long time. My intention my obligation will be to help our president and help our country confront those problems and provide the advice to the president that will help him deal with what is though we have many efforts and many successes because we are the indispensable nation in this world, we have many challenges and i think my role for him, if confirmed, is to help him work through these challenges. Just in terms of straight forward approach, you have been watching the international environment, do you agree with what the president was saying and telling the American People . I think its critical that he level, that you level, the administration levels with the American People on our challenges. Ill give you another example. Hes talking about ending combat operation operations in afghanistan and yet were going to maintain a robust c. T. Presence, which i think is important. But a robust c. T. Presence is not ending combat operations. Do you agree with what the president was saying in the state of the union on some of these specific quotes i mentioned . I certainly agree with the president s overall thrust that we have a benign world environment . I would say that the world continues to pose serious challenges to International Order and that the United States is indispensable to the solution of those challenges. Thats what i would say. Let me ask a final question. In the hearings the last three weeks that the chairman has had, which have been a great. Education for all of us for the American People, i think there was consensus that we certainly need to work on all instruments of American Power to integrate those as part of a National Strategy to address significant challenges that the president has not laid out. One of these instruments that we didnt have ten years ago but there was common agreement on is energy and being once again the Worlds Energy superpower in terms of producing oil and gas and renewables. Last week the president took over 20 million acres of some of the most perspective lands in america for oil and Gas Development off the table. Do you agree that having energy and using that to help our National Security is important and would you agree that taking such huge areas of land off the table, billions, potentially billions of barrels of oil, you think that helps or undermines americas National Security . I certainly think Energy Security is an important part of National Security, and im incredibly encouraged by what the progress that the United States has made in developing new resources both oil and gas in recent years i think its showing up in terms of our economy and also its showing up geopolitically. With respect to the particular issue you raise, senator, im simply not knowledgeable about it and cant give you a knowledgeable answer. I think those kind of actions undermine our National Security significantly. I understand. The committee will stand if recess for 15 minutes and then reconvene. The next questioners will be senator heinrich and senator fischer and senator shaheen. Seeing senator john mccain, the chairman of the senate arms Services Committee as he gafls out the committee for a 15minute recess. You may have also seen a moment or two ago the code pink protesters at this committee hearing. And also at last weeks hearing which was interrupted by some of their protesters. The hearing where the Committee Heard from Henry Kissinger, George Shultz and madelyn albright. Youre hearing from Ashton Carter former Deputy Defense secretary from 20112013. Hes been nominated to be the next secretary of defense. He will be president obamas fourth secretary of defense if confirmed. They are taking a break. Lets take a break about 1 00 eastern for lunch and then resume. They are expected to go until 3 00 this afternoon. Throughout the day were asking you on facebook and also on twitter your priorities for the defense secretary and your reaction to the hearing. Just a couple comments here. This one from marie who tweets that as long as we have weakling democrats in the white house, we cant fight against terrorism one of the reporters covering this is john bennett who says the secretary nominee carter endorses the white houses isis air strike strategy but well hear more from Ashton Carter as senators return with their questions. We thought during this break we would show you the Opening Statement by the defense secretary nominee. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ranking member reid, all of the distinguishing members of this committee, thank you all. Thank you for inviting me to appear before you as president obamas nominee to be secretary of defense. Im honored by his trust and confidence and also by the prospect of serving, once again the troops and the country that i love so much. If confirmed i will take the office of secretary of defense after one of our nations most honorable and conscientious Public Servants chuck hagel. I worked for secretary hagel and i have known him for decades. Though not overall of the many decades hes served our country. Among the many traits i admire in secretary hagel is the tireless care with which he carried out the most solemn duty of a secretary of defense, which is to the relatively few brave young men and women who defend the rest of us. I also thank senator lieberman for his warm and generous introduction as he noted its not the first time hes done so. But especially for his service to this body and to the nation over many years. Thank you, sir. My perfect wife stephanie and wonderful children are behind me, as they always are every day, and i thank them. The president frequently notes that america has the greatest fighting force the world has ever known. To the men and women of the department of defense who make it so and to this committee, which watches over them, i pledge that if im confirmed as secretary of defense to keep faith with the dedication that brought them into service. To ensure that their training and equipment are as superb as they are. That the wellbeing safety and dignity of each of them and their families is fostered and respected. And that decisions about when and where they are sent into. Harms way are made with the greatest reflection and care. The principle reason that receiveny and stephanie and i made a uturn to accept the nomination is respect and devotion to them. To chairman members of the committee, i will be brief. If confirmed as secretary of defense, my responsibilities would be to protect america and its friends and allies in a tush lant and dangerous world. At the same time i never lose sight of the fact that the United States remains the strongest most resilient and most influential nation on earth. We do, indeed, have the finest fighting force the world has ever known. We have an innovative economy thats long set the pace for the rest of the world. Our country has friends and allies in every corner of the world, and our adversaries have few. This is clear testimony to the appeal of our values, our principles and our leadership. All this makes me proud and hopeful and determined to grab hold of the bright opportunities in front of us as well as to counter the very real dangers we face. These dangers, as the chairman has noted, include continuing turmoil in the middle east and north africa and the malignant and savage terrorism emanating from it. An ongoing war in afghanistan, the reversion o to oldstyle security thinking in parts of europe the long standing tensions from the past and the rapid changes in asia and the continuing need for the stabilizing role of the United States in that region which is so important to the future. The continuing imperative to counter the use of weapons of mass destruction. And new dangers in new domains like cyber as noted by senator reid. Strategy, strategy needs to keep all these problems in perspective. Perspective and to craft lasting approaches to each of them. I have promised president obama that if im confirmed i will furnish him my most candid, strategic advice. In formulating that advice, i intend to confer widely among civilian and military leaders including on this committee. Experts and foreign partners. And when the president makes a decision, i will also ensure that the department of defense implements with its long admired excellence. I will also ensure that the president receives candid, professional military advice. This is not only consonant with the law as written in this very committee, but with good sense. Since our military leaders possess wide and deep experience and expertise. The law also prescribes the chain of command. If im confirmed as secretary of defense, i will be a stickler for the chain of command. Id also like to say a word about the Defense Budget. Chairman, members of the committee, i very much hope that we can find a way together out of the wilderness of sequester. Sequester is risky to our defense. It introduces turbulence and uncertainty that are wasteful. And it conveys a misleading diminished picture of our power in the eyes of friends and foes alike. Im not familiar with the details of the 2016 budget submitted just a few days ago and if confirmed i will come back for a full Posture Hearing to discuss them. But i strongly support the relief from sequester caps in 2016 and through the future year defense plan. If confirmed, i will do my part to assist the president in working with congress to resolve the overall issues of the countrys fiscal future of which the Defense Budget is a part. But i cannot suggest support and stability for the Defense Budget without at the same time frankly noting that not every defense dollar is spent as well as it should be. The taxpayer cannot comprehend it let alone support the Defense Budget when they read as the chairman as noted, of cost over runs, lack of accounting and accountability, needless overhead and the like. This must stop. Every company, state and city in the country has had to lean itself out in recent years. It should be no different for the pentagon. In this matter, i know im echoing chairman mccain senator reid and this committee, which is long called for and taken concrete action on, reform of acquisition in other parts of the defense enterprise in the weapons system reform act of 2009, and before that dating back to the Packard Commission and the goal waters nickel act. I began my own career in defense in connection with the implementation of the Packard Commissions recommendations. The issues and solutions change over time as technology and industry change. They extend from acquisition, which was highlighted by the chairman in programs like future combat systems and the president ial helicopter, which i cancelled. I signed the cancellation orders for in 2009. To the ford aircraft carrier, which senator mccain also noted which was not satisfactorily solved and still not. Its overruns and i agree with the chairman in that regard we have a lot of work to do. The issues and solutions for acquisition reform change over time as technology and industry change as i noted. They extend from acquisition and this is important to all other parts of the Defense Budget. Force size, compensation and training as well as equipment. If confirmed as secretary of defense, i pledge to make needed change in the pentagon but also to seek support from congress because i know that in the end, Congress Holds the power of the purse. I look forward o to partnership with this committee in what can be. A period of historic advance. Mr. Chairman, senator reid members of the committee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to come before you. If confirmed, i will seek out your thoughts, perspectives and combat experiences to help me do the best job. Thank you. Ashton carters Opening Statement this morning. Hes president obamas nominee to replace chuck hagel as secretary of defense. He would be the fourth secretary of defense under president obama. The Armed Services committee in a bit of a break. Should be gaveling back in shortly. In the Opening Statement, you heard he talked about the 2016 budget looking forward o to working with congress to get the Defense Department out of what he called the wilderness of sequester. About that proposed 580 billion budget. Their headline said obama boosts defense spending. The president s budget for 2016 for the fiscal year 2016 is 4 above the spending for 2015, but thats a fight yet ahead in front of the Senate Armed Services committee. Today they are hearing from Ashton Carter and we expect them to gavel back in shortly with another break between 1 00 and 2 30 or so. If you missed any of todays testimony in the hearing with ash carter, you can see it in its entirety at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan. The committee will reconvene and recognize senator heinrich. Thank you, chairman and welcome back, dr. Carter. Its certainly been a pleasure to work with you and i just want to say its really refreshing to work with someone who worked this this potential position who has your technical background and your ability to work with people across the services and with congress. You seem to balance those things remarkably well speaking as an engineer who struggles with that myself sometimes. If i remember right, you served as a staff director on the strategic posture of the u. S. That released its report back in 2009, when i was sitting on the house arms Services Committee. And i think that report made some very important strategic recommendations. In particular, i thought the idea that livermore should be designated as National Security rather than Nuclear Weapons laboratories was a very important recognition of how the threat environment that we face in the world today has changed. In addition one of the things the Commission Recommended was that the president issue an executive order formally assigning the secretary of Defense Joint responsibility for the health of these laboratories. And you and i discussed this a little bit when we met in my office recently. I wanted to ask you based on a recommendation from the Strategic Posture Commission what sort of joint responsibility do you believe that the department of defense should have for our National Labs . Thank you senator. I recall our conversation and youre right, excuse me i was the executive director of the commission that did make the recommendation you named, you pointed to. The socalled National Laboratories at the department of energy are National Laboratories. I know this because when i worked in the department of defense as Acquisition Executive we used them a lot. We asked them to do things because of their technical excellence. So those laboratories that were found ed founded to serve the Nuclear Arsenal of the United States and continue to do so now do lots of other things for National Security for the department of defense, the intelligence community, the Law Enforcement community, i think they call it work for others, which means other than the department of energy, but its important and it was certainly valuable to the department of defense when i was there to be able to get that kind of technical excellence. I think one of the challenges has been that originally work for others didnt really exist at the National Labs. They were solely Nuclear Enterprises and as that has become a larger and larger percentage of what they do its been more challenging to sort of feed the underlying foundational aspects of the lab, the overhead and other things. So what i would hope is that if youre confirmed and i certainly hope that you are, that i can count on being able to work with you to figure out. Theres not a way we can formalize that responsibility for the health of d. O. D. And the other agencies i mentioned as well as the longterm health of those National Security laboratories. I understand and if i am confirmed, i look forward to working with you on exactly that, i understand. I want to move back to ukraine for a minute. We heard early ler about the issue of providing additional defensive military u equipment to the ukrainians. We have also heard a lot of testimony in recent weeks emphasizing the importance of deterring additional russian aggression in the baltics. Particularly by continuing to position more troops and equipment in those places, and i just wanted to get your sense for are we doing enough in that region to deter additional russian aggression in the baltics . Thank you and i think its very important that we do deter russian aggression in the baltics. The Baltic States are a part of nato, after all. Its a pretty big deal. And but to answer your specific question, are we doing enough, im familiar with what were doing. I have not been in a position to discuss it with our commanders there. Thats something that i would, if i were confirmed, be a very early priority to see if we are doing enough. I know we are doing things we are rotating forces in there to serve as a warning and a trip wire that nato really is there and i support doing that but everything were doing im probably not aware of. I have not investigated, but i promise if i am confirmed, i would. Its very important. Thank you very much dr. Carter. Dr. Carter thank you for your service and thank you for being here today. Yesterday we saw the Islamic State burn alive the pilot of one of our key ally. In recent months they have buried women and children alive. They have crucified christians. They have beheaded american citizens and our allies. They have Critical Knowledge that we need to stop them. They know where hostages are being held. They have information that would allow us to go after the financial support. They know where other Senior Leaders are. They have a lot of intelligence value. If American Forces were to capture one of these leaders, would you recommend that the president send him to guantanamo to be fully interrogated for intelligence value . I would certainly recommend that he would be interrogated for his full intelligence value. It would be a legal determination about where he ended up and so forth but i think its important that we get that intelligence value if we capture people like him. Would you recommend he stay in american custody or be transferred to the custody of an ally . As i sit here right now, i u dont know enough to answer that question. That would be a legal determination about his ultimate disposition, but i think the key from a secretary of defenses point of view would be lets get that intelligence. And would you want to see him transfer o to the United States mainland given his miranda rights or put in an article three federal court . Again, i dont know what the ultimate disposition would be appropriate, but i coknow that it would be important to interrogate that individual, so whatever the ultimate disposition or Legal Process was, it should make provision for interrogation. I want to move to the recommendations of the National Defense panel for the overall military budget. The Defense Panel is a bipartisan and congressionally mandated panel that reviewed the qdr. That panel stated, quote, congress and the president should reveal the budget control act and return as soon as possible to at least the funding baseline proposed in the fy 2012 Defense Budget, end quote. The panel went on to note that even while that amount would be inadequate it represents the minimum required to set course and set the military on a more stable footing. Do you concur that bob gates 2012 recommendation for the coming fiscal year is the minimum funding baseline needed for the department of defense . The 2012 baseline just to make sure i understand correctly, is the would have removed 500 billion from the defense plan at that time. Sequester would remove twice that so i dont know what the National Defense panel, but if what we were saying was that the sequester level was unacceptable and that the level that secretary gates recommended was the one that they supported, i actually supported that too and continue to think that sequester is a bad idea. And i am familiar with the results of the National Defense panel and its membership, which is distinguished. So to be act, secretary gates budget said in fy 16 it should be 600 billion. Sequester levels would be just under 500 billion. This would be another 70 billion plus that the Defense Panel recommends for the coming year. I see what youre saying. Yes, thats absolutely right. I think the Defense Department budget has been under pressure now for the last three or four years in a way that i experienced the effects of firsthand and they are damaging and thats one of the reasons i want to get back on track to getting enough money for defense by getting rid of sequester. So why some congressional number in that neighborhood whiegt be better than 500 billion, you think 610 billion as recommended by that panel is the minimum necessary to put our military back on the right course . I wouldnt say its the minimum necessary to get us back on the right course. Were not going to get that amount of funding, but i can tell you we can make good use, i believe, the department of defense can make good use of the fund ing funding the president has requested. Ill say one other thing. If im secretary of defense, i would like to see more spending on defense. Im very open about that. I want o to get sequester and i would like to see us spend more on defense. I think that were having this may have been what the ndp was getting at were having to accept risk in the execution of our strategy as a result of our funding problems which i would rather see us not accept. Thank you. Senator shaheen . Thank you, mr. Chairman. And thank you, dr. Carter for your past service to this country and for your willingness to continue to serve. I want to talk a little bit about the proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. I remember being at the Kennedy School when you gave a compelling presentation that showed dismantling some of the weapons through the lugar program. I continue to believe that this is one of the most serious dangers we face both for the United States and the world particularly with terrorists like the Islamic State, who seem to be willing to do anything to achieve their ends. And i wonder if you could talk a little bit about how to balance the need to address Nuclear Weapons and material that is still out there that is still with the effort of d. O. D. To modernize our Weapons Systems and where you see the priorities are and what we need to do to address that. Thank you, senator. I think we need to do both and can do more in the way of securing fiscal materials and the wherewithal with Nuclear Weapons and also biological weapons around the world. And i also believe that the United States needs a safe, secure and reliable nuclear deterrent, because as much as we would like to see Nuclear Weapons and other weapons of mass destruction rid from the earth, that doesnt look like its something thats going to happen soon and its important that the american deterrent that we provide to our own country, but also to friends and allies who rely upon him is safe, secure and reliable. I think we need to do both and can do both. You wrote an article last year for Foreign Affairs and you talked about two lessons from iraq and afghanistan. First, that the pentagon was not prepared to fight a nontraditional enemy and, second, that the length of those wars was underestimated. There was little incentive to pursue acquisitions tailored to the specific fights. Can you talk about how as secretary of defense you would avoid repeating those mistakes of the past two wars . Yeah, thank you and this is something that i have a lot of passion about, which is why i wrote that. The experience that i had all too often in trying to support iraq and afghanistan is the executive was that when the troops said they needed something, the response of the bureaucracy tended to be oh we have one of those, were making one of those, we have one, it will be finished in ten years. I mean, incredibly that is in essence the response that would come back. Wed all recognize immediately that thats not sense call because they needed that equipment, vehicles they needed it now, not 15 years from now. Our acquisition system got in the habit, and i think the chairman was referring to this earlier because its a driver of cost but also this problem got in the habit during the cold war of doing things very slowly. Soviet union we always had plenty of time. The soviet union, the cold war would go on for a long time and we would have programs that extended over 10 and 15 years. You cant do that when youre in the middle of a war and people are dying and success depends upon your acting more quickly. That i obviously feel passionately about that anybody who observed that tendency would have the same attitude i did. Weve got to turn faster as a military. When youre in competition with other countries that are using the Global Technology base to advance their own military, if were going to continue to be the best military in the world we cant make steps in 15year increments. We have to turn faster than that. I think thats the larger meaning of going forward, the lesson, to your word of that experience. My time is almost over but you and others here today have talked about the importance of reform. I assume that will be a top priority when you go. Back to the department as it has been in the past . It would, if im confirmed, absolutely. Thank you very much. Senator inhofe . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Dr. Carter, i apologize for not having been here and i dont want to ask something thats been over and over again. We have a conflicting meeting thats taking place right now. Everyone who has appeared before this committee has talked about the mismatch thats out there unprecedented mismatch. Im talking about all the chiefs, the oldtimers, we had George Shultz, al awlakilbrightalbright all of them could not find a time in history with the level of threats were faced with today and the limited resources we have. And thats the mismatch that they are talking about with the things all over the world that are taking place right now. Do you agree with that . Let me restate a that. In the years you have had such a variety of experience, do you ever remember a time like this . I think we are in a time where the number and severity of the risks is not something i have seen before in my life. How do you, even the president after what happened yesterday im sure is not talking about Junior Varsity anymore. We know we have a serious problem with isil. We have been talking about the fact that they are building a militia and we have seen the brutality of what they are capable of. I wonder sometimes if i would like to have a stronger response from the president when the disaster took place yesterday, but do you i fail to see a strategy in terms of dealing with isis with that force thats over there. Do you see a strategy . Where will you be on this . Thank you, i can describe what i believe to be the strategy and to revert to what you said at the beginning, we used when i started my career in defense, it was a simpler world. There was one big problem, which was cold war and nuclear disaster. To get to your point i assume this is what your other witnesses were saying. Its a much more complicated world, and many more problems and issues for the United States to take on. At the same time i believe were up to it and that were capable of surmounting all these problems. With respect to the strategy for isis, i would describe it in the following way. Strategy is about connecting ends and means and the end here is the defeat of isis and the sustained or lasting defeat of isis. And to achieve that lasting defeat of isis, we are trying to rebuild the morale and power of the Iraqi Military and the confidence of its government in a multisectarian approach so that we dont revisit the maliki experience, which led to the disintegration of the experience. So on that side of the border, the lasting defeat will be made lasting by an Iraqi Security forces and associated forces in iraq that are rebuilt. One enemy, two locations to get to the other location syria i believe the approach there similarly needs to be to inflict a lasting defeat and in order to do that, we need a partner and we are trying to build that partner in terms of a moderate syrian force and local forces from the region that can with our air power and other kinds of assistance inflict defeat onnist skpis then make it a lasting defeat. Thats how i would characterize what i see. Im not in the counsels of government, but thats what i infer. I appreciate that very much. When you were in my office we talked about having just returned from ukraine and also when i first walked in senator heinrich was talking about lithuania and that area. Their concern was all of our attention seemed to be in that part of the world concentrated on ukraine. Its true, we have never had i happen to be there when they had their election for the first time in 96 years they dont have a communist in their parliament in ukraine. So we have that problem at the same time as the others youre addressing. What do you think about our european strength as it is right now . Are we adequate . Are we becoming inadequate . I think that our strength in europe is our alliance with nato and the political solidarity that that represents, which is very important when it comes to the Baltic States and also the response in ukraine, which while not a nato nation is certainly a european nation and european unity is an important part of that. So one of our strengths is that. Another strength is our military strength. And there i understand that we are adding forces Rotational Forces to the Baltic States as a presence there as a deterrent to any russian kind of adventurism on the part of russia. In those states i certainly support that, and if im confirmed, id want to look into what more we can do. I wish the european states and secretary of defenses have said this were investing in their own defense. Lastly, im out of time, but for the record if youd submit this for the record to me, in the event were able to get the perpetrator of the horrible crime that took place, would you examine the expeditionary legal complex that we have as a place to do our interrogation . I heard your response to the first question that we at least considered that. Sure, ill learn more and respond. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, dr. Carter. Thank you for your continuing presence at this hearing. I appreciate your acknowledging at this hearing the importance and the seriousness of Sexual Assault in the military. And in response to questions that have been submitted to you, you said that you would take a personal role in addressing the prevention and dealing with this scourge in a much better way. So i will have a continuing interest in seeing how you do in that regard. I also agree with you that the security of our country is very much dependent, i would say, on maintaining the stability in the asiapacific area, so of course, we need to continue our commitment to the rebalance and at the same time be able to deal with the instability in other parts of the world. Now president obama recently visited india and announced a series of Bilateral Agreements with Prime Minister modi. Can you talk briefly about the future of the u. S. India relationship in the context of our rebalance commitment . Thank you senator. The rebalance is a rebalance not only within to the asiapacific area, but within it. Our historic focus has been east asia and i think that your question points to the importance to pay greater attention to south asia as well. India is, in my view, destined to be a Strategic Partner of the United States. Its a large democracy shares a lot of our political values and values of pluralism so i think that destiny will bring us together but im for hastening that. In the Military Area and the defense cooperation and Technology Cooperation areas i think theres a great deal that we can do with india. If im confirmed i would take a strong interest in doing that. Thank you. Do you view u. S. Energy security as a vital component to our overall National Security, and clearly on the military side . What role if any, do you believe that the department of defense has in supporting efforts to increase u. S. Energy security . I think Energy Security is an important part of National Security. The Defense Department does play a role not a central role but a role in Energy Security. I think every dollar we spend of the Defense Budget we need to be able to justify on defense grounds, and we make some investments in Energy Technology because they pay off for the Defense Budget and for the soldier, we make investments in batteries, solar cells, things that are inhalation insulation. So in some ways the department of defense, like other large institutions in the country, is investing in Energy Efficiency in the future. I think thats an important thing to do. D. O. D. Is the largest user o of energy in the federal government. Regarding acquisitions, with your experience in the defense acquisition process including the time in which you led the Acquisition Technology and logistics directory at the pentagon, as you review our d. O. D. Acquisition program with the various cost overruns delays et cetera, which others have noted including the chairman, what would be your First Priority to improve the acquisition process . For example, would you look at the kind of contracts that we enter into. , training, requirements process, what would be your First Priority to improve matters . All of those are important. To take the point you made about contract structure, contracts are a way of providing incentives to industry to control costs and meet schedule, thats an important part of negotiating a strategy. To get to your other suggestion in order to negotiate those contracts well, we need people on the government side who are capable, who understand acquisition and who understand industry. I am in favor of introducing reintroducing to the acquisition system the role of the customer, which is the chiefs of the military services. I think thats been a proposal made by others with which i associate myself, so theres no one silver bullet. There are many things that we need to do to improve acquisition. Thank you. Senator fischer . Thank you mr. Chairman. And thank you, dr. Carter, for your service and your willingness to continue that service to our country. I appreciated our frank conversation that we had in my office the other day, and i look forward to many more in the future. In that conversation and today also you talk about the deterrents, our Nuclear Deterrence is being the bedrock of our defense. I appreciate your views on that and i agree with your views. We also talked about modernization and the importance of modernization and how as a country we need to step forward and really see that through if we are going to continue to enjoy the security that we have as a country. So thank you for your comments on that. In 2013 you led the strategic choices but the gao has issued reports that cast doubt on if that will take place and even if we have an accurate picture on what the full resources are that are devoted to that Headquarters Staff. So a couple of questions here will you, if confirms maintain the goal of the 20 reduction in the Headquarters Staff and how will you accomplish it if we dont have any idea what those numbers are . I certainly think it is important to to diminish Headquarters Staff and other forms of overhead. I think the 20 goal is a sound one. I do not know where it stands in terms of implementation but if confirms i will try to meet that goal. Because we have to get rid of the overhead so we can spend the dollars on the war fighter, which is what it is all about. Have you seen the gao report questioning if those numbers are even out there and if they are even available, and if you believe that, how are you going to get the numbers . I have not seen that gao report. But if i am confirmed well find out where the department stands in terms of implementing that goal and if they are off track, try to get them back on track because i think it is a good goal. Do you think now is the time that we should look at elevating cyber to its own command or even with the commission that we had yesterday, there is a recommendation in that commission for a joint readiness command. When we look at overhead and administrative costs what would be your initial response to those that are promoting ideas for additional commands. Im all for paying much more attention to cyber and think we need to do that. But the creation of new commands and new headquarters in this budgetary environment is something i think we need to look at very closely and cautiously. As you know, our chairman senator mccain, is interested as we all are, in gaining more knowledge about the information sharing with regard to our Cyber Security threats and that is one area that i believe has broad support. I know there is support not just from members of this committee and members of congress but also the president has discussed the need for informationsharing on those Cyber Security threats. I agree that information sharing and better defense is a first step, but do you think that we can achieve relative Cyber Security simply by improving those defenses or do we need to perhaps go on the offense and impose more i guess you would say visible costs with regards to our actions on Cyber Security . I think both are important. We need to improve our defenses. But we also need to improve our abilities to respond. And those responses can be in cyber space or in other ways, but certainly they should include the option to respond in cyber space. And the option to respond, would you say that would include demonstrating that we have the capability to do so, is that part of our deterrence when it comes to protecting our country our agencies and private businesses when it comes to Cyber Attacks . I agree with you. I think deterrence requires that a potential aggressor know that you have the capability to respond and they obviously cant know all of the details of that or they can counter respond but they should know you can respond. And would respond if necessary. And would respond if necessary. Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Senator cask ill. I want to talk about the weapons. You are in a special position because you have been in the weeds on all of this in the previous position and we worked on war time contracting reforms which are now in the statutes and i know you will be aggressive about making sure of all of those provisions are adhered to. I also want to address a question to you for the record on the murky line on the building of infrastructure during contingencies in theater while we are fighting. I think what weve learned in iraq and afghanistan through the special Inspector Generals reports is that this line of passing back and forth responsibility for building roads, building highways building grids, building Water Systems and power plants between aid and defense has made it difficult for us to hold everybody accountable that needs to be accountable for dramatic failures and on that note i want to talk about special Inspector General reports. Yesterday i learned for the first time in six years the special Inspector General reports as to the way we are accomplishing our mission in training the afghan Security Forces was going to be classified by general campbell. That was never done before. That is essential to robust oversight. I kicked up dust last weeb about it and on monday it was announced that general campbell was reversing his decision in some regard. I want to ask your commitment to make sure that throughout the chain of command there is an understanding that the decision to classify is a very, very precarious decision because if you dont do it when it needs to be done, but if you overclassify it removes the ability of us and the taxpayers to hold the military accountable and i wanted to bring that up to you and ask you for your commitment in that regard. I give that commitment. And i also wanted to briefly talk about Sexual Assault in the military. The report that came out in december while it still shows work to be done, i think it is important that on the record we talk about the success that we have had. Reporting is up. Weve gone from one in ten victims coming forward to one in four in a matter of a few years. Incidents is down. Importantly, restricted reporting is up. And maybe, the most Important Information in that report that hasnt gotten a lot of cover in anonymous surveys and focus groups with victims more than two thirds of the victims said they had complete confidence in their commanders in how they are handling the crimes and they feel their privacy is being respected and that they are being supported. That is huge. And i wanted to point that out because i do think we are making progress. But on retaliation, that same report, as senator gillibrand reported, we still have a 62 of retaliation. If you look at the report you realize it is not retaliation by the convening authority, by the command as making the decision as to whether to go to court marshal. But it is peer command. We make retaliation a crime. We expect to get say report in how many times that has been pursued in the military Justice System. That just went into place a relatively short time ago. What do you plan on doing in connection with this retaliation problem and with this new crime in the military Justice System to pursue it. Thank you and thank you for everything youve done. Ive, from the outside looking in observed and admired the ideas and the energy and the commitment youve shown to this getting rid of this scourge of Sexual Assault, so first of all thank you for that. With respect to retaliation, that is one of the dimensions that i think the report you cite uncovered as very prevalent. I think the 62 of victims were reporting experiencing retaliation. And as you say not so much although not to the exclusion of but not so much from the chain of command, but from peers and subordinates. And you are right, this is a crime and its prevalence suggests we are not doing everything we can to root out that crime so if im confirmed you can count that im attentive to this issue of retaliation and determined to do something about it. I look forward to working with you if i am confirmed. Thank you very much. Dr. Carter. I look forward to looking with you. Senator lee. Thank you very much dr. Carter. I appreciate you being here. I appreciate the visit we had in my office the other day. And youve certainly proven yourself as someone who knows a lot about the department of defense, having served at the highest levels as Department Secretary in the past. I want to talk about a few things. First lets talk about the f35 for a minute. The f35 is an amazing system with units at Hill Air Force base that are set to be hosting the f35 starting this fall. It is a program, however, that has been marred by delays and cost overruns as you know. As the department of defense looks at acquireing other new Weapons Systems and equipment to make sure that we maintain our Technology Advantage over our adversaries, i think it is important not only to work time and cost efficiencies and acquisition into the equation for such programs but also to integrate that with logistics and maintenance processes that are absolutely essential to make sure we get our moneys worth. And of course with the program like the f35 the biggest single expense through the life cycle isnt just acquiring it it is maintaining it and making sure we get our moneys worth out of it. Given that the department of defense has been reforming the acquisition process in various ways for decades, what would you do differently not only to improve that process but to make sure that acquisitions and development and logistics are all aligned in a way that increases the life cycle and increases the efficiency and utility of these various Weapons Systems . Thank you, senator. It is exactly as you say. The lions share of the cost of any weapons system is not in buying it, but in having it. Which is why in getting to the f35 system that you cite, the longlasting strike is still ongoing and it going on as long as it is in existence has to go on as long as it is in the aircraft. We have worked on cost control in the eric and in sustainment as well, exactly as you say. Thank you. And i appreciate your thought on that especially because your experience gives you a real strong ability to appreciate the nuances involved there. General john kelly, the commander of south com called last years border crisis an existen shall threat to the United States. Do you think our ability to adequately enforce security at our borders does present a Security Threat to the United States including a Security Threat that could involve the possibility of terrorists entering into our country without our knowledge. I think control of our borders is an important part of our National Security yes. And that is something you would continue to watch out for if confirmed at this position . Absolutely. It was reported on february 2nd, a few days ago, that iran successfully placed another satellite into orbit using a twostage rocket. Do you think the continuing development of iranian Ballistic Missile Technology Presents a threat to the United States and what do you think we should do about it . It is a threat to the United States and friends and allies to the region and one of the things that iran is doing that is dangerous. With respect to the Ballistic Missiles that threaten the United States, that is one of the reasons that we need to keep our Missile Defenses and especially our icbm defenses current, capable and large enough in size to deal with both the perspective iranian threat and the also very real north korean icbm threat. Thank you. As has been noted in several capacities within the department of defense including most recently as the deputy secretary, youve had to confront the issue of sequestration. Now many of us, including myself did not want sequestration to hit. I voted against the budget control act in part because i didnt think that we ought to be putting this burden disproportionately on the department of defense as we were. None of us wanted the supercommittee to come up with a solution after that happened and many of us hoped it wouldnt come to that, and of course it did. But one of the lessons that i think we learned from two years ago was that while it is good to hope for the best, we also have to prepare for the worst. What can you do to make sure that were not caught flatfooted and that we are ready for anything that we have to confront on that issue . Well, we need to continue to adapt our plans to the resources were given. My own view is that we have made adaptations over the last few years to our strategy to accommodate the budget squeeze that are getting to the limits of what it is safe to do. And that is why i really want to see an end to sequester. We need to do more to spend the defense dollar better and im all for that as well. But it is also basically it is the truth that we are getting to the point where we have bept the strategy bent the strategy as the phrase goes, and i dont think it is safe to keep bending it. Thank you. I see my time is expired. Chairman. Senator kahne, but before that i would like to announce we will break after after kahne, and then senator graham and there is a vote at 2 30 so well reconvene at 2 45 for the benefit of the few remaining senators and any second round that any member wants and we appreciate your patience dr. Carter. Senator cain. Thank you, chairman and thank you dr. Carter for your strong testimony today. The chair and the Ranking Member in their opening comments put the issues on the table and i want to focus on the elimination of isil. It was asked if that should be the goal. We all had the challenge yesterday of visiting with King Abdullah at a very emotional and difficult time. But i was struck by something he said to us. He said, look we need you desperately, but this is the fight that is the regions fight. If were not willing to stand up against extremism in the region there is no amount of outside forces as powerful as they can be that can beat this fight. And he really took ownership of it in a way that i thought was pretty courageous. Do you think it is possible for the United States military to eliminate isil on our own or even with other western nations if the region doesnt go allin to combat the home grown jihadism in the most home grown by isil . We have to have regional partners because we have to make sure that the defeat inflicted upon isil is a lasting defeat. And for that there needs to be conditions created in the where isil is now occupying territory that dont make it a breeding ground for victory for that kind of what is the right word malignant and vicious kind of terrorism. So the United States involvement is i believe, essential. It is necessary. But it is not sufficient to have lasting victory. I would share your view necessary, essential not sufficient. It is still my hope that the white house will send us a draft for use of military force. I think after the president s comments after the state of the union it seems more likely. I dont think this is a war that can be waged in perpetuity without putting our thumbprint on without risking our lives, congress will debate and vote and authorize it. But if we have that debate about the american role, one of the things that i think is notable if the region has to go allin against the isil threat, so far 80 of the airstrikes has been u. S. Flown. Jordan has been rock solid in doing airstrikes but the other nations that are directly threatened by isil much more directly than we are threatened by isil have not, other than been associated with the coalition, have not stepped forward in showing and been willing to show they are going all in against this threat and i think that is subject of significant debate if we get into a discussion on authorization. Second, dr. Carter, on afghanistan, i completely agree with senator mccain the chairmans point in his opening. I hope we have a conditions based strategy and not a calendarbased strategy. And i think it is okay we have a plan. A plan is a plan. You can adjust the plan based on the current reality. Senator king and i were in afghanistan in october and talked with general campbell and it seemed like after those discussions, the white house did adjust the plan once already. There were ideas about the way u. S. Forces would be used in calendar year 2015 that after hearing from gem campbell and others, the white house adjusted the authorities during this calendar year and that was a decisionbased decision which is good. But i worry for the same reason you do. Weve, at the expense of blood and treasure, achieved a lot in afghanistan. The nations Life Expectancy has gone from 44 to 61 in ten years. And my back of the envelope math say People Living ten years longer seems to be a good roi to me, for as expensive as its been so why would we want to go backward . I think in afghanistan what we heard when when he were there was a little bit of the iraq worry. Wow, theyve taken their eye off the ball before because of things in iraq and pulled resources away and this is the perception in afghanistan maybe this is getting ready to happen again, as significant a threat as isil is and we need to be at it, in afghanistan they are nervous that the isil threat will pull our attention away and they could lose the gains and i hope in your capacity as you dig into the plan and the daily conditions that well make the right decision about how to keep the progress that weve gained in afghanistan and that we wont let a day on the calendar be the determination of our policy. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Do you want to respond to that doctor . 2106 americans have lost their lives in afghanistan. Afghanistan is from where the attacks emanated so i think finishing the job there is very important. Ive been part of that war in my previous time in the department. It is what i woke up to every morning and so im very committed to success there. And we have adjusted what weve been doing continuously as we went along. So i dont have anything to add to what you said except to remind that the afghan Security Forces are what we increasingly have trained to provide security on afghan territory. They are going to need support after 2016. In the president s budget about which ill appear before you in a few weeks i understand that there is if my memory serves, 3. 8 billion requested for the afghan Security Forces. That carries through the end of 16. And then a question arises will we stick with them the afghan Security Forces. So it is not just about american troops, it is about the overall commitment so that the afghan Security Forces can keep the peace there after 2016. Senator graham. Thank you. The idea of Joe Lieberman introducing is a risky proposition, but well see how that turns out. Bottom line, do you agree with the following statement the only reason 3000 americans died on 9 11 is the islamic terrorists who attacked us could not find another way to kill more of us. Yes. If they could they would kill more of us . That is my guess. I dont think it is a guess i think it is a fact. Do you think isil represents a threat to our homeland. I think they do. They say they want to attack us. There is no reason to believe they are kidding. I agree. The head of isil is in camp buka and he said ill see you in new york. Right. And they want to hit us. So i couldnt agree more with senator mccain, and if you dont get that it is not just about a buyin. They have the best platform since 9 11, they hold a large territory and they are rich and have crazy people under their control and they mean it when they want to hit us. Do you think alnusra wants to hit us . They do. They recruited a guy from florida, a suicide bomber, he came back before he became a suicide bomber and they are trying to hit us too. Do you think aqap wants to hit us. Very definitely. They are the people who hit us in paris. Do you think the iranians have to believe that a military options on the table during these Nuclear Negotiations . Absolutely. And if they dont, were making a huge mistake, right . Absolutely. Do you think the russians are being provocative at a time when the world is already in chaos . Yes. Do you think that a cyber pearl harbor is a potential threat we face . Absolutely. And were not ready for it . Agree with that also. Do you think china is intimidating their neighbors . Certainly trying to. Can you tell me in light of all of this why in the hell would the congress be devastating the military budget . Can you explain that to me . No, i cant. As long standing im against sequestration. And i left out a bunch of threats, because i only have five minutes. Canada is in good shape so we appreciate canada being a good neighbor. So the plan on the table now is to have 1,000 troops left in afghanistan, kabulbased. Do you agree with me given the conditions that exist in the region that the likelihood of a reemergence of al qaeda and other terrorist troops along the pakistanafghan border, we would be wide to have troops outside of kabul . That is not the plan now senator. Can you please tell me why i am wrong . It is the plan to go down to 1,000 by 2017. They increase the number of troops in 2015, but it is the plan and if you are going to be sect of defense, you need to understand. The plan is to go to 1,000. I think that is beyond unwise. That will destroy our ability to see, hear and listen to what i think is a reemerging threat along the afghanpakistan border. So if im wrong about the plan, please correct me. This is something you can go home and check out for yourself. No i think you are correct about the plan. That plan has to change and if it doesnt we are incredibly stupid as a nation. I want to withdraw from afghanistan responsibly. I want lines of defenses over there so they dont come here. Doesnt that make sense . It does make sense. Im glad Afghan People are living longer and girls are going to school. But im worried about americans living longer. And the reason i want to continue to invest in afghanistan and al nusra and all of the other, is because they are trying to hit us. Do you believe the only way to deter radical islam is you cant deter it you have to sir, i cant give an answer. They dont mind dying. I think a counterterrorism strategy begins foremost with defenses but has other dimensions as well in terms of removing the conditions that create safe havens and some of the ability for recruiting of terrorists so it is a complex issue, but protecting ourselves needs to come first. And ill close to me. To me it is not complex. The only way you can keep them from coming back here to america, is to stay over there, disrupt the operations keep them on the run, dont let them gather strength make poor, on the run and entrenched. Ill limit this. Syria, how in the world are we going to dislodge isis from syria without a ground component. And i agree with senator mccain that that needs to be syria based. People want to go in. Saudi arabia said you could have our army. The amir said you could have our army. How can we train up an army and send a force into syria if we dont first deal with the assad air threat. How in the world could you train somebody to go fight isil and one day they turn on assad and not expect him to kill them before they get the capacity to come after him one day. How does this work without dealing with assad . Senator let me Say Something about that. It is a very important question. The situation in syria, is as you indicate more than a problem of isis, it is is a problem of the assad regime as well. And the forces that were supporting there have first and foremost the job as weve discussed here this morning, of defeating isil. But i believe that they also need to be creating the conditions for the removal of assad. That is a much more complex task. I understand that. Im not trying to oversimplify it. But i think that has got to be at the end of the road. And if that is what you are pointing to, i completely agree with you. Well, couh just say you really didnt respond. In all due respect, dr. Carter, to sending young syrians, in training them and sending them into syrian and be barrel bombed by assad. And the unworkability of that is in contradiction to everything the United States ever stood for or thought for. I hope you will rethink your answer to senator grahams question. Thisiddy assy of cooperating with the iranians and quote taking isil first of which bashir assad is nonsense and immoral. The committee will return at 2 45 since there is a vote at 2 30. And members who seek a second round or those members who have not asked questions will be allowed to at that time. So well stand in recess until 2 45. Thank you. Ashton carter who served in the Obama Administration from 2011 to 2013, nominated by the president to serve at the next secretary of defense, replacing chuck hagel who is stepping down. He also served in the bill clinton administration. The Senate Armed Service committee taking a break for a series of vote in the senate and recess and back at about 2 45 eastern we think and well have live coverage here on cspan3 when they reconvene. And well reair all of todays testimony at 8 00 on cspan coming up tonight. And this would be the fourth secretary of defense in the Obama Administration, replacing chuck hagel who is stepping down. In a minute well show you some of the hearing so far today. Weve been asking throughout the day your thoughts on the priorities for the next secretary of defense and comments on facebook and twitter. Taking a look at facebook. June said the next priority should be to not spend all of the taxpayers money on war. Jeff said wouldnt it be nice if we didnt have a terrorist organization. But sad reality is we do. And obama is kicking the can down the road. And the world sat by and allowed hitler gain power and we are doing the same thing with isis, al qaeda and boko haram. And the nominee was asked about National Security strategy and the pentagon budget and Sexual Harassment in the military and other issues. The proposed pentagon budget for 2016 would be 585 billion more more or 585 and both john mccain and Ashton Carter talking about ending the budget caps on the pentagon spending. Comment on twitter from todays hearing again asking your thoughts on what the priorities should be and this one from victor who said i keep hearing there is no strategy. The obvious is you cant have had over 2,000 sordies without one. And talking about the bombing of the Syrian Rebels and that issue coming up for discussion in the session. So the Armed Forces Committee coming back at 2 45 eastern and well continue our coverage then. In the meantime well show you some of the testimony so far of Ashton Carter and some of the senators on the committee. Good morning. The Committee Meet this is morning to consider the nomination of dr. Ashton b. Cart toe be the secretary of defense and there are standard questions that my committee ruled that i would put forth to dr. Carter at this time. Dr. Carter, in order to exercise its legisl