Need a better solution than the one now being considered. Two years ago we saw Congress Reach a twoyear agreement to be bipartisan budget act. Although we preferred a longerterm solution to sequestration, that deal was able to provide dod a measure of stability needed to plan for more than a just one year. Today, i hope we can come together for a longerterm, multiyour agreement that provides the budget stability that we need by locking in budget levels consistent with the president s request. I pledge my support this effort as well as the support of the entire staff of the department of defense. I would like to work with each of you as well as other leaders and members of congress to this end. End. If we are successful, i am if we are successful, i am confident we can build a force of the future that is powerful enough to underwrite our strategy and show resolve to friends and potential foes alike. A force that is equipped with bold new technology and ideas, able to lead in cutting age to abilities in cyberspace. Cyberspace. A force that is lean and efficient throughout the enterprise that continues to attract and inspire new generations of americans to contribute to this great mission. That is the vision for the force of the future i have been pursuing since i took office 11 weeks ago. And i hope to continue doing so in partnership with all of you. Mr. Chairman, this is the time for coming to governor and problemsolving, coming together and problemsolving. Much like in december 2013, our only choice is to come together to find a real solution that reflects our strength and security as a nation. I look to this committee and its many leaders who sit on it to help us get on the right path out of this wilderness. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Secretary. I noticed in the submission we had before us this morning, you created or proposed to create a new unit. A point of partnership socalled. Apparently to be led by a civilian with a military deputy and staffed with an elite team of active duty reserve and civilian personnel. It sounds like an ambitious undertaking. May be complicated. There is the suggestion that the team will vote for breakthroughs in emerging technologies. I wonder if you could let us know how much you think this is going to cost, and how long it will take to be up and running . Secretary carter i surely can provide you with the costs and i will do so. As far as the mechanism is concerned, it is an important effort. It is an experimental effort as is our socalled Defense Innovation unit. I announced the creation of it a week and a half ago. It has a couple things that it brings together. One is our need to continue to be on the cutting edge, especially the cyberedge represented by the Silicon Valley tech industry. Second, our need, which i mentioned in my statement, to attract the very best to defense. We want to have an open door. We are and exciting and attractive lease for the attractive place for the countrys smartest people to come and work, even if they can only work for a period of time. And third it combines an ingredient you mentioned, which is the use of the reserve component, which is a huge treasure for our department. A lot of reservists are technologically savvy. They will contribute to the region. It brings a number of ingredients together for the future. We are going to try it out. It is an experiment, but it is not a costly experiment. I think it is critical for us to have an open avenue between us and Silicon Valley. We need to be an Innovative Department so that we stay fresh and attractive. Senator cochran thank you. Senator dempsey, i will ask if you would like to make your opening statement. You may proceed at this point. General dempsey thank you chairman. Thanks very much at the outset for the very kind words about my service. It has been a rare privilege to hold this position and be able to represent the millions of men and women and their families concern around the world. And thank you to this committee for their support. This is my last during. I last hearing. I think you for the opportunity. And if it is not, i suppose until we meet again. On that note, i fully support the nominations of general. Board as dougford as general vicechairman. You can trust them, which i think is the right word, to provide you timely, pragmatic, and effective military advice. I would like to reiterate something that i said in the previous hearings this fiscal year which is that the Global Security environment is as consistent is as uncertain as ive seen in 40 years of service. We are at a point where our global aspirations are exceeding our available resources. We have heard the congress of the United States loud and clear that we have to become a more efficient, and we have to do the rigorous Strategic Thinking to determine the minimum essential requirements that we believe are essential to protect our national interests. In my judgment, this budget represents a responsible, nation of capacity and readiness. But we are at the bottom edge are manageable risk in achieving and fulfilling our National Security strategy as it is currently designed. Funding lower than pv 60, and lacking the flexibility to make the internal forms internal reforms that we need to make will put us in a position where we have to change our National Security strategy. Let me describe what kind of change you might see. For the past 25 years the u. S. Military has secured the global commons, we have deterred our adversaries, we have reassured our allies, and we have responded to crises and conflicts, primarily by maintaining our presence forward or abroad. It is been our strategy to shape the future any interNational Security environment by our forward presence and by building relationships with regional partners. In general terms, about 1 3 of the force is forward deployed, and one third is getting ready to go. This puts significant strain on the men and women in europe, but we have kept the nation safe by following that paradigm. Meant and women in uniform. Sequestration would change the way we deploy the force, and change the way we affect the security environment. We would be almost 20 smaller from what we started than when i became chairman. Our forward presence will be reduced by more than 1 3. We will have less influence and we will be less responsive. Conflict will take longer to resolve, and will be more costly in terms of dollars and casualties. In an age where we are less certain about what will happen next but certain that it will happen more quickly, we will be further away and much less ready then we need to be. Sequestration will result in a dramatic change to how we protect our nation and how we promote our National Security interests. Our men and women in uniform are performing around the globe with extraordinary courage character, and professionalism. It seems to me that we owed them and their families clarity and predictability on everything from policy to compensation, health care, training, equipment, and readiness. Settling down the uncertainty we have experienced over the past 40 years and our decision processes and getting us out of a one year at a time cycle will hold us keep the right people. And that is our decisive edge. We will be able to maintain the military is that the American People deserve, and frankly they expect. I am grateful for the continued opportunity to support our men and women and uniform and i will promise to run through the tape in the time remaining and make myself available at any time to help you shape the policy and fiscal decisions ahead of you. I think youank you again members of congress for your support. Senator cochran thank you general. I recognize mr. Durbin. Any comments . Senator durbin thank you chairman cochran. I was going to go into the oco issue, but both of your statements have been unequivocal ont hat that issue. I want to go to an issue not of budgetary cuts went, but a consequence nonetheless. Budgetary comes consequence. I did it with some reflection, knowing that wit would require commitments of the United States. I know that this may not be a genocide by classic legal definition, but this is the cement Syrian Crisis by our time. Millions of people displaced. I would appreciate it if you tell us what you think of this concept and the challenge it could present to us. General dempsey sure, thank you senator. Youre right what is happening in syria is a terrible humanitarian tragedy. It has been going on for several years. There are many displaced people within syria and fleeing to countries around. We are caught between two forces or the country is caught between two forces both of whi ch are intervening to this violence against the very people of the country namely isil and its like, and the syrian regime. We are trying to create a third force to combat those two and to create an environment in which the Syrian People can live in peace, which they deserve. Your questions about, can we establish ourselves in a humanitarian six of . Humanitarian safe zone . We talked about that yesterday. In concept that is an area in which people could flee and find safety. What i was saying to you was that we would need to, and have thought this through, how secure that zone would be. Doing Something Like that would be contested, both by isil forces and other syrian forces. It would not necessarily be supported by the neighbors supported militarily in a strong way, therefore something we will do ourselves. That is a combat mission and a major one. The practicalities of it are significant. That is what i was sharing with you yesterday. Perhaps general dempsey would like to add something to that, but we would need to fight to create such a space. And then fight to keep such a space. That is why it is a difficult thing, or challenging to use your word. Senator durbin my concept is that it would not be alone. My hope is that it would be done through the United Nations or in concert with other nations to join us with his effort. I am not naive enough to believe that isil is going to sign up. So we have to prepare to defend the space. Secretary carter thanks senator, it would not be isis but the regime itself that challenges the region. For this to be practical and effective would have to involve regional partners. I can tell you that militarily, in contention with european command and our turkish counterparts, we have been planning for such contingency for some time. The question, can we do this . Of course, we can. There would be opportunity costs, that is resources put elsewhere would have to be repositioned. I want to point out the cognitive dissonance about talking more about doing more in the world when we are facing losing another 250 billion over the next five years. I will say that it is practical militarily. But it would be a significant policy decision to do so. Senator durbin thank you very much. Senator cochran senator shelby from alabama. Senator shelby i congratulate you on your long career, your 41 years since you graduated. You served this nation with honor and dissension. Thank you very much. Honor and distinction. Secretary carter, it is my understanding that the department of defense has recommended a legislative solution which would allow the use of as many as 18 rd, 19 80s force future space launch competitions. Is that correct . General dempsey yes. Senator shelby we hope there could be 23 years in ensuring access to space. Have you looked at that, and do you agree or disagree with that . How can we ensure there is no gap because these programs are so important to National Intelligence and other things. General dempsey it absolutely is. Secretary carter we cannot afford to have a gap. Just to scope out the issue as a whole, these engines that power some of our rocket boosters are manufactured in russia. We want to get off of that dependency on russia, but it takes some time to do so. In the meantime, we dont want to have a gap. Therefore, our approach is not to order more, but not to cancel the orders we have placed for the engines while we are able to prepare competitive engines that are not russian into the space business. That is our strategy, and you are absolutely right that we need to launch National Security settlers. Senator shelby but it is important for us to build our own satellite in the future. But it takes time. Secretary carter correct. Absolutely. Senator shelby i post this next question to you and general dempsey. The iranian threat, not just to the middle east, but to the persian gulf. We are all familiar, not as much as you towo are, with what is going on any given. On in yemen. A lot of our allies are nervous there, as they should be. As our administration is negotiating with iran on a Nuclear Weapons it seems that they continue to supply a training and so forth to their allies all over the area causing us and our allies more than apprehension. I would like your comments, where you can on iran. I believe senator durbin brought up isis in a sense, what is going on there. And then in yemen we are on a different sides. What is our challenge to north korea too, and perhaps even with russia . I know that is a lot of questions. [laughter] secretary carter thank you, i will say some thing briefly about some of them. You are right that iranian behavior is concerning on a number of fronts and locations. Both as regards to the stability of the gulf countries, freedom of navigation which is very important, and other things. In addition to their nuclear program, of course, which is the concern that inspires the negotiations to which you referred. I will say that for us in the department of defense, this creates a continuing requirement for present ince the region, reassurance of our allies and partners in the region. Particularly israel, but not confined israel. Confined to israel. Also of course with respect to the nuclear agreement, the president has said that he would take no deal over a bad deal, and therefore we are under construction to have a military option. Those are our responsibilities in respect to iran. Isis is a continuing threat, both in iraq and syria. Then you see the ability of it as a movement to inspire the lost and the radical worldwide to acts of the violence. It is seriously concerning in both of those respects. We are combating it from the air and with partners in both iraq and syria. Just to touch on north korea north koreas behavior i was in south korea a couple of weeks ago it continues to be provocative. We need to watch it carefully. We say that south korea is the place where we need to fight to night. It is not a game over there. We need to be present and ready. One thing we cant trim is our deterrent in the korean peninsula. I can keep going, but i will see if the secretary has any general has anything to add. General dempsey let me unpacked really briefly. I said that this is the most uncertain security environment i experience in four years. Here is why we face are mergingr emerging threatse we face emerging threats from many areas. A rising china which is not yet a military threat, but if that relationship is not minute carefully, not managed carefully, could become one. We have a large body of nonstate actors al qaeda, other groups who have aligned themselves. And for the first time in my career, they are both manifesting themselves simultaneously. This is not a time to be withdrawing from the world. The senator from rhode island, mr. Reeves. Thank you general dempsey for your Extraordinary Service. I think youll attribute it to the brilliant first glassman who mentored you at west point. Just for the record. Thank you for your Extraordinary Service to the nation. In regard to the proposals to do things that might help defense general dempsey indicated in testimony that there are nine of lines of operation against isil. The department of defense has two of those lines. The other lines are agencies that were not benefit directly or as much from this oco maneuver. Is that fair to say . General dempsey to tell you the truth, i have not looked at anyones budget although than myself. Two of the lines are military, others are other agencies of government. The efforts of the state department are contracted because you dont have that expertise. Fbi, dea agents deployed forward you have a whole strategy that will become unhinged even if you get the extra oco money. General dempsey again senator i dont know what the other the permits are lacking, i literally dont know. Other departments. Those kind of threats that you described, the threat of nonstate actors requires a whole government approach, not just military. One example that leaps out to everybody. The statistic used in social media by isil. And our response to that without traditional nondefense actors who have a role in this, our response will be as it has been today. You dont have to concur, but that is my conclusion. Mr. Secretary, you made an interesting point notably only in terms of having a longterm strategy with a longterm budget but how you can do things that require componentry partners in government, when they dont have the resources. The other point is about the world watching. You traveled to the capital. In fact, you are getting intel about our adversaries. They are looking at us unwilling to invest in a National Security. And they get it, unfortunately. Secretary carter that is my experience, and you travel as well. And among our friends it is concerned whether we have our wits about us in terms of the danger of the world, the responsibilities of america, and the inherent strengths of our country. I obviously dont talk to our potential foes, but they talk to others. And they say see what the americans are doing to themselves . I would like to come back and say we are still the worlds greatest fighting force. We are amazingly experienced including in our military, in complex missions. We do take a whole government approach, which is necessary in the world. You need to tell people that they cant look at the difficulties we have, and we obviously have them in terms of reaching a budget, and concluded that in america has eclipsed or is losing its power. I hasten to say that. At the same time, it would certainly approve our standing were we to come together, as i urged for our budget. Another aspect too is that we remain at the paramount military force in many dimensions. But the gap is narrowing in so many areas. It used to be not fight tonight in korea, it was fight this month. We cant do that any k longer. When we put an aircraft of the air, it will be dominant for 10 years. It may not be as long now. A lot of the programs not reached by oco for these proposals are these longterm investments in capabilities, cyber and elsewhere. Where, if we dont make them now, we can keep the lights on, but that apple gets to the point that gap will gets to the point where it disappears. Is that fair . Secretary carter it is very fair. The senator from maine. Thank you very much mr. Chairman. Welcome, thank you general dempsey for your service. Mr. Secretary twice this morning we have heard general dempsey say that this is the most uncertain security environment that he has seen in his 40 years of service. Ms collins it is the navy that allows us to project power particularly in areas where we would otherwise be denied access in trouble spots around the world. Yet the navys 30 year shipbuilding plan does not include enough funding for ships to fully support the 300 ship goal over the entire 30 year period. We have seen the need for naval ships to be deployed just last week. I had the opportunity to honor an Aircraft Carrier in response to the Iranian Naval forces boarding upon a commercial shipping vessel. At the same time, Combatant Commander requirements or Missile Defense platforms are soaring in the middle east and the asiapacific region as our adversaries developed technology. Recently, the office of Naval Intelligence just last month described how china has launched more naval ships than any other country during the past few years, and will do so in the next 2 years. Mr. Secretary, you are well aware that ships cannot be built overnight and that Operational Requirements are increasing. What then, is the departments plan to mitigate the risks associated with the shortfalls in shipbuilding and to preserve a robust Shipbuilding Industrial base . Secretary carter thank you senator. Let me say that i completely agree with you. It is one of the great strengths of our country is our ability to project power around the world. The navy is an important ingredient of that. And also to ensure freedom of navigation and to dominate the naval comments, as we are able to do. Naval commons. We are committed to continuing to do that. And youre right we cant do that without an Industrial Base which is robust. We have, as you know full well, a fibrous and competitive marketplace. Vibrant and competitive marketplace. But we need to keep that going. I suppose with this links up with this discussion state about the longterm budget is the point you made, that ships of quality made elsewhere for our navy those are not one year projectss. If anyone your budget if a one year budget arises, we need to that kind of horizon and our Industry Partners need that kind of horizon as well. That is why we are asking for that kind of planning horizon. Thank you. The general commander of nato testified last month before the Armed Services committee that russia and prorussian separatist horses continue separatist forces continue to exploit ceasefire in ukraine to reset and repositioned themselves, and that they appear to be preparing for a fresh offensive against ukraines military. He voiced his support for providing the ukraine with offensive military hardware to deter a russian advance. By contrast, i recently met with german chancellor merkel, who argued the exact opposite against providing offensive weapon. Would you give us your thoughts on this issue and what factors you are considering in deciding whether or not to provide military weapons to ukraine . And what is your assessment of our ability to protect those in ukraine . Secretary carter first of all general read love is right. It appears that the clearly russianbacked separatists in Eastern Ukraine are preparing for another round for military action that would be inconsistent with the minsk agreement. We are supporting the ukrainian military, not with offense of ive arms, but. I think chancellor merkel is making an important point, mainly that the big in her once or big influencer, if there is anything that influences russian behavior, is the common asian of sanctions combination of sanctions and falling oil prices. That is what is punishing russia now. You mentioned chancellor merkel, it is the weight of european sanctions that matters most, because they do most of the trade with russia. That is why we are so intent on working with the europeans led by germany. I depreciate the steadfastness of germany in leading those sanctions. By ourselves, we would have a lot less pressure to apply to russia, simply because the volume of trade is less. We need to germany and if europeans to apply and the europeans to apply that kind of pressure. I cannot predict whether that will work or not but that is the main thing applying pressure to russia, even as we try to assist the ukrainians in defending themselves. Thank you. Ive been advised that senator mikulski has a need to be out of here by 11 30. Im going to ask unanimous consent that she be permitted to proceed now. Senator schatz will be the next senator following her, if there is no objection. I ask unanimous consent on her behalf. Senator mikulski thank you senator schatz, i need to be involved at the white house with the baltimore situation. First of all we want to thank general dempsey for his many many years of service. But dr. Carter, we also want to thank you for coming back. You had a pretty good life lined up for yourself, but you are willing to come back and serve. We are grateful both to you and of course to general dempsey. We have learned so much from you and i can understand why the men and women in the military have such, natalieot only respect but admiration for you. Your inspirational leadership is something that has inspired us all. In terms of the testimony today i found this enormously sobering. And the threat that the nation is facing and the threats that we are imposing upon ourselves it seems that we have to wo threats the threats around the world and threats that we are imposing. The most stunning prospect of the sequester, where we all met and kind of bonded to years ago is very troubling. The budget we just passed yesterday is a so deeply flawed that it will only provoke tremendous problems in this committee. I am deeply concerned that what was passed yesterday, despite the best efforts of the chairman, we result in 3022b allocations that will trigger only more gridlock and confrontation. This is not something i look forward to as the ranking member. I have such respect for the chairman, on both sides of the aisle, but we are not headed for a good situation. There are those who say, let us put the taps on dod. It is clear that the compelling needs that you presented i also want to look at the domestic caps. One of those troubling things that i heard in your testimony is that we cant even get our military or civilian defense employees a 2. 3 costofliving increase. Well you had to do it, but my god, what a nickel and dime approach to our problems. Again, this is not criticism. Let us change the hours of the commissaries so that people have less resources to nutrition food, and all of the good things. Commissaries are becoming nutritional settlement houses in many areas. Let me get to my question. As you look at this years budget and appropriations twoi Different Things there are those who support the dod caps. Has the department looked at lifting the domestic caps. I think of something that general dempsey mentioned to me several times that only one will be eligible out of many who wants to serve. That one can read, one is too sick to serve, and one has mental disabilities. So our of 4 people who wants to join our military, only one is eligible and yest here is where we are. Can you comment about what i just said . Secretary carter two comments. First of all, thank you. With respect to confrontation and gridlock, i hope that we are able to come together and get past that by the end of the year so that we dont find this situation of confrontation and gridlock. I earnestly hope we can do that. A nickel and dime approach, as you say, isnt the right one. We need a longer horizon bancorp. Horizon than that. Senator mikulski i am being critical of all of us. Secretary carter it is not a way to run a Proud Department that is protecting us. You mentioned other department as well. The chairman mentioned the same thing. We are defense but National Security is bigger than that. National security, which i need to take an interest and responsibility for, is bigger than our department in todays world because of the complexities and threats. We need homeland security, we need a Law Enforcement and other things that are not military an d in our budget. Finally, you mentioned quality people for our force. We have a big nixon force in terms of the quality of people. We have a magnificent force. That is because we can be selective from a large pool of americans who were patriotic and wants to serve. We need to make sure that we have future generations that wants to get into it. That is why r rd and what other things that makes a country great is important to National Security in the long run. So i think we need to think larger about National Security. General dempsey nothing to add to that, senator. Thank you for the kind words, by the way. The chair recognizes senator moran. Senator moran thank you very much secretary carter and general dempsey. General dempsey, thank you for your service. Thank you for meeting with me several months ago at fort riley. I value that conversation we had. Thank you from kananssans from having in your background advanced degrees from the college of fort leavenworth. We are grateful to the nation for your service. Mr. Secretary, i look forward to Getting Better acquainted with you, and the entree you make this morning suggesting that we do that. General, let me start by asking you a question. We have had a conversation that seems to be about sequestration oco funding. Let me ask you in the absence of the sequestration, can you think of any circumstance in which you would be recommending to the secretary, to the president , to us as members of congress, that an army of less than 490,000 men in uniform . General dempsey the active plan we have now takes the army to 450,000. Senator moran in the absence of sequestration, what sequestration requires, would you otherwise see a circumstance in which you would be recommending that 450,000 personnel to the secretary . Is there a scenario in which that would ever look good for the safety and security for our country . General dempsey the chief says the secretary and the army have a plan that they have put forward where they say they can meet National Security interest at 450 active. They have numbers for the federal reserve. The general himself will tell you that that number would be at greater risk than a 490 army. The question then really becomes back to my testimony about the security environment. Where do we want to maintain the forward presence that we have . If the answer to that is, we wants to be less forward and more at home, we just incur risk. The chief of staff of the army says he can manage Security Strategy at 450. Anything below that he says he cannot. He says he would sure like to keep 490, but in the current budget scenario, we cannot do that. Senator moran our country is safer at 490 than 450 . General dempsey that is a lmost a stark choice to take. The army can manage its strategy at 450. But if his body decided we have senator moran one of the things that seems clear to me is the opportunity you mentioned the reserve in response to the chairmans question. The National Guard one of the things i think those components provided regard to cyber passion provided in regard to Cyber Security is personnel that have outside experience, that have the latest technologies and advancements available to them in their day jobs, and then they bring that to protecting our country through the work they do then in the guard or the reserve. I think you confirmed that in response to the chairmans question about the value of that relationship and what the guard and reserve can provide in Cyber Security is that true . Would you explain why that is important to you . Secretary carter you are so right. Its important because cyber pervades everything we do. None of our equipment or our plan operates properly just like much of the rest of Society Without the web. So having the best technology embedded in our military defending it so that others cannot disrupt or exploit it using cyber offensively as necessary and required these are all important parts of the future, of the military, and we have excellent people in both military and civilian fulltime. There is a great untapped resource, the one we are talking about, which i completely agree with you, we need to tap it more, that is the guard and reserve. A lot of those people are cyber savvy, and using them to help us in this mission is a great resource. Senator moran i think this can be close to a yes or no answer in your buying efforts, are you beyond the theoretical demonstration of the value of this program, and are you ready to pursue acquisition to prove that it works . Secretary carter yes. Senator moran thank you. Chair cochran senator schatz is recognized. Senator schatz thank you for your service. Secretary carter, thank you for the visit to hawaii and i want to especially acknowledge your commitment to the asiapacific rebalance. China is constructing artificial land and redrying maritime redraw eyeing redrawing maritime borders in violation of longstanding customary and international law, while other countries that lay claim to the islands have built small outposts and engaged in minor maintenance on features they already occupied. In less than one year, china has rapidly exceeded anything its neighbors have done. Chinas artificial islands are expected to support airstrips, which will allow military to land fighter jets and surveillance aircraft, adding a military dimension to a complex regional dispute. There was a caution that these could eventually lead to the deployment of longrange radars and advanced missions. What are we doing to deter chinas continued aggression in the South China Sea . Secretary carter great question. Thanks for your hospitality in honolulu, and thanks for the interest in the asiapacific strategy, which is critical because half of the world s economy is in the asiapacific theater. We pay a lot of attention to the middle east, but the chinese behavior in the South China Sea is something that we oppose because the militarizing of these situations and the creation of confrontation over longstanding land disputes is not the way to resolve problems. We make that clear to the chinese. Everybody makes it clear to the chinese. The one thing it is having the effect of that, among other things china does, having the effect of increasing the pace and depth with which our allies seek out to work with us, so in the case of the philippines, for example, the libyans want to do the fill opinions the philippines want to do more with us thats not unrelated. That kind of behavior is both demonstrates that kind of chinese behavior, both demonstrates the need for the rebalance in order to make sure that the stability system of asia remains as it has for decades, one of peace and stability, and its also, oddly, a source of further strengthening of our partnerships and alliances in the region, which we alone have. Senator schatz thank you. When we look at the challenges we face from potential adversaries, making investments in antiaccess areal denial capabilities, its clear we got to continue to take advantage of our technological superiority. Investments in technology will require continued investments. The dod and industry have invested over 1. 5 billion 1. 5 billion in unmanned combat demonstration programs, which has stood up to mature these technologies. The demonstration technology is getting scheduled to conclude this month. To give us an opportunity to learn more about future you class operation and carrier wing investment. Given the investment weve already made, do you think it would be premature to pose an investment now, and other steps you think the navy could conduct that would further by down future risk . Secretary carter you are absolutely right. The program is a demonstration and has reached the end of what it was anticipated to do. I think we will have to, however, do more research and testing. Not necessarily the same airframe, for the reason you cite, namely Unmanned Aircraft in the navy. That is part of the future. Think that is what we recognize that is what the uclass is all about. We are trying to determine what the requirements will be for the Program Going forward. I think once those requirements are defined, there will be a path of r d and demonstration that follows from that definition of the requirements. The navy has not yet finished at finished that process. Senator schatz thank you. Chair cochran the time of the senator has expired. Mr. Daines from montana. Senator daines thank you for being here. Given the increasing aggression in parts of the world including russia and iran, our Nuclear Triad is as important as it has been since the end of the cold war. My favorite commander coin is from 341st air wing, which says that montana has been scaring the hell out of americas enemies since 1962. I applaud the administration for sequestering funding, but i have been concerned by the president s willingness to unilaterally reduce our arsenal. What is the administrations outlook on the future of our nuclear forces, and is the president committed to maintaining a strong Nuclear Triad . Secretary carter yes, the president has expressed a continuing commitment to the triad, and i think that is important because as he has, too, and i certainly support the Nuclear Modernization program and sustainment programs that we are doing in partnership with the department of energy, the three legs of our triad, as you mention, and also the commandandcontrol that goes with our arsenal, i know that slogan well, that unit well, but it speaks a truth, which is that even though Nuclear Weapons are not in the news every day thank goodness they remain the foundation of our security and so we need to maintain them. We need to modernize them. It is important that we have the programs and the dollars to do that. Senator daines i want to pivot over and talk about afghanistan and iraq for a moment. Thank you, general dempsey. An honor to have you here this morning, truly. Last month i was in the middle east with leader mcconnell. We were in iraq and afghanistan. I was so impressed meeting with our men and women in uniform. I thought very highly of them. I have been spending time with them. It just raised my expectations. Amazing group. But we are seeing a stark contrast between the two countries, iraq and afghanistan. It seems we lost many of the gains we made in iraq and are at risk of doing the same in afghanistan if we withdraw in the wrong way. We see that things are working well in afghanistan, currently with the taliban, one commander on the ground talked about the timeline of with drawl. I think we were all glad to see that the president had the flex ability to extend the troop level now through 2015, but what are you hearing now, and what are your thoughts about the president s plan to draw down by january 2017 . Secretary carter thank you for going there in visiting our folks, and im not surprised you found it uplifting. We all feel incredibly proud. I dont want to speak for general campbell, but i think what i see is great promise in afghanistan, that we are going to achieve the objective we set ourselves, and that is an enormous tribute to our men and women who have been there lo these many years now. In addition to the performance of our own force, the important ingredient is the performance of the Afghan Security forces. The whole idea is to build them so they can keep the peace in afghanistan. That is, so to speak, our ticket to an orderly we will never be gone from afghanistan because they will be an ally not ally, but a Security Partner for a long time. The Afghan Security forces are performing well, and a key part of that is that the president and chief executive have come together in a National Unity government, and they Pay Attention to the military. They also by the way thank us. I think that our strategy is paying off. Senator daines do you think the current plan of withdrawal puts us at risk of watching the same scenario play out in afghanistan that we saw happen in iraq . Secretary carter i think we are all, including the president continually assessing progress. The change that he made in the plan emphasizes the importance placed on that and their progress. Senator daines i guess lastly again, so proud of the men and women serving in that region can you assure us the situation on the ground and not a political calendar is driving the decision about withdrawing u. S. Troops . Secretary carter i think Everyone Wants success here, and to have gotten so close, to have gotten to the five yard line and fumbled the ball, nobody wants to do that. Nobody is going to do that. I think that things are i dont want to be too rosy about anything, but i think that we can see the kind of success we have striven for so long ahead in afghanistan, and i think we are all committed to doing it. Chair cochran the time of the senator is expired. The senator from california, ms. Feinstein. Senator feinstein thank you very much. To the chairman, i want to wish in the very best. I particularly want to thank you for your intellect and your good sense. Its a unique combination, and its very much appreciated, so thank you. To our new secretary, its good to see you in a new capacity. I only see you at the Aspen Strategy Group otherwise. Its very nice to see you here. Ive got a question i understand the inclusion of the 1. 2 billion for research and development for the long range stealth bomber. This would replace the b1 and b52, and we know that this is necessary. What i do not understand is the air force proposal for a new era new air launched, Nuclear Capable Cruise Missile. As i understand it, for the first five years, Development Costs are 1. 8 billion dollars, but this is only half the cost because this particular missile will be capable of carrying a highyield nuclear weapon. The air forces decision is driving a Life Extension Program at the department of energy for the w 80 warheads, which is projected to cost another 1. 8 billion over the next five years. This is a large expense, and it competes for funding with our Nations Nuclear nonproliferation programs. I question why we need this Cruise Missile that can deliver Nuclear Warheads from great distances in addition to the numerous gravity bombs submarine Ballistic Missiles and intercontinental Ballistic Missiles weve armed ourselves with. I absolutely think it is a mistake to never our limited to diverge divert our limited budgetary resources from nonproliferation efforts, which is going to happen, for this purpose. Heres a question what is the military believe that this longrange Standoff Nuclear missile is necessary to maintain our Nuclear Deterrent . Secretary carter the reason for the advanced Cruise Missiles to replace the Cruise Missiles that exist now, in recognition of the fact that air defenses are improving around the world, and that keeping that capability to penetrate air defenses with our Nuclear Deterrent is an important one, and you are absolutely right the w80 warheads as the warhead that will go in the advanced Cruise Missile, and it, too, needs work, and that work is done by the department of energy and paid for by the department of energy budget. I guess my hope is that we could accommodate oath because i think it is important to have continue to have a penetrating Cruise Missile for nuclear deterrence, but i also think nonproliferation is incredibly important as well. Senator feinstein i chair that energy and water subcommittee, and i have watched nuclear cost go up all over. Every project starts out in hundreds of millions and ends in the billions. I really questioned adding a nuclear Cruise Missile to all of the problems we already have. I may have a very hard time voting for it. I just want you to know that. My belief is that we have enough Nuclear Weapons in this country and that they are huge, and, hopefully, they will never be used. I dont know that the deterrent argument is met by another Cruise Missile, but this one is Nuclear Capable. I dont know the size of the warhead, but im going to find out. Anybody general . General dempsey this rule this will require a much more comprehensive answer, but it is part of sustaining the triad. The joint chiefs all of us have rendered our advice that the triad, in order to preserve our deterrent capability, must be sustained, and we should not negotiate any further reductions until we are joined by those other Nuclear Capable nations in the world. Our deterrence has worked for the past 70 years. I would never recommend changing it unilaterally. Senator feinstein thank you mr. Chairman. Chair cochran thank you senator. The senator from missouri. Senator blunt thank you chairman. Secretary carter, i thought you were fairly cautious and overall observations about how the rest of the government should be funded. I know it does reflect a lot of what you do, and i appreciate that. Senator moran and i served with a congressman from georgia, who one of his favorite sayings was you have to fish your own cork. Ive never heard anyone else say that saying, but i understand it. Your cork here is the Defense Department. I would be glad for you to correct me if im wrong, but you corrected a 534 billion for defense, which last year was a little bit less than 500 billion. I believe the budget resolution i voted for yesterday actually gives you more money than you requested. Do you not want more money than you requested . Secretary carter senator, two things first, defense is my responsibility, as you indicated, however, its really National Security which is my responsibility, which is why i indicated i think about things more broadly than that. I think that is expected and necessary in todays world, so i do think more broadly about that. We think that the amount of money we have requested and the manner in which we have requested it meets a National Security strategy of the United States. I will repeat something the chairman said, which is and the reason why we are so insistent upon the necessity of getting through this budget wilderness is that having gone through this herkyjerky history over the last few years, we are on the edge of being able to accomplish the strategy as we now have it. We have all testified to that effect, and its all true. We need to get a longer horizon, and its not just money for this year. Its money as requested in a multiyear budget plan. Thats what we are asking for. So we do not have a one year at a time approach. You cannot do defense or National Security with a one year at a time approach. Senator blunt i voted for the budget, so i am for National Defense and for looking for ways to help do that, even within the current law. Both a restriction and advantage of the current law is it is the it is the law. We have to look beyond that to get somewhere else, but i think the current law does lay out a 2 increase now, not for this year because we sort of averaged that out last year, but you have asked for 534 billion and we ought to look at that, and i think that congress has expressed in the joint budget resolution a desire to give you more than that if you have need for more than that, and it will be interesting to see how that discussion goes on. In terms of what we are doing, senator moran asked about the right size force. General dempsey, i will let you respond to this first. Last week, we talked about how the reserve could conan fits reserve component fits into that. One of the things that i think came out of that discussion was a sense that is the fulltime force gets smaller, it would possibly make a lot of sense to look at the reserve force in the National Guard force in a new way so that they are there when you need them. Does it seem logical to do that as the fulltime force gets smaller that we would want the guard and reserve to get smaller as well . General dempsey actually, this is a Good Opportunity to go back to what the senator from kansas and i spoke about. My responsibility is actually joint force, which is how these things fit together. Even though i dress like i dress, im a big fan of the navy and im a big fan of the army, and i think the air force senator blunt its that one day of the year general dempsey its more than one day of the year. We play each other frequently in sports. But my response ability is to my responsibility is to bring it all together and active reserve. In the world in which we live, it may seem counterintuitive but because i said in my testimony that i cannot sit here before you and tell you exactly what is going to happen next but i can tell you with certainty it will happen more quickly we have to balance what is in the active component because they are ready to go tonight. The guard and reserve, who have to do incredible work for the nation but have to be mobilized, the training work has to be increased to a certain level before they are deployed if you want to keep them at the same level of expertise of an active soldier, they will cost the same thing, so this is about winding the right balance. Finding the right balance. I believe we have down the right balance. Senator blunt you mean they only cost the same thing when they are called up to active duty . General dempsey i mean if you want them to be at the same state of readiness as an active component soldiers, you have to pay them the same as an active component soldiers to give them more drill days and the opportunities to prepare. Senator blunt maybe i misstated my question. What we were talking about was the number of the reserves that were ready to ramp up when they need to, not that they would be active at all times. General dempsey i understand, but what im suggesting is what weve done in this budget submission is found what we believe to be the right number of active guard and reserve for the requirements we see coming in from Combatant Commanders on a daily basis, the responses to daily security threats, so we believe weve done exactly what you said, and i would also point out that the active component has been reduced at much greater rates than the guard and reserve, so the guard and reserve have been somewhat if i could use the term advantaged in the budget process, but i think we would be taking too much risk if we migrate to much more from the active to the guard and reserve. Senator blunt im out of time. Thank you for the answer and thank you for your Great Service to the country. Chair cochran thank you senator. Next is senator jon tester from montana. Senator tester thank you. Thank you and to your support staff sitting behind you because i know what an important job they do. On retirement, i dont know if there will be any flyfishing in your future, but speaking about fishing, weve got some pretty good fishing holes in montana, and we be glad to have you come up and try it out. Thank you for your service. Its interesting as weve just come off a conversation on the budget and we have the Defense Department here, and i cannot thank you enough for the work you guys do and National Security you are exactly correct. I look at the figure, and i know the talk around the budget, and even though i mean, as the activities in the middle east and pacific and all over the world tend to make me not want to sleep at night and im sure it has a much bigger effect on you than me, im also concerned about the investments we are making in this country and infrastructure and housing and highways and electrical grids. The list goes on and on and on. You are up here. You have the most senior members of appropriations on this committee. We think its very important. We tend to put infrastructure and affordable education and all those things that have made this country great due much to the g. I. Bil i might add and the background, and its bothering me, too. China is spending 400 billion on infrastructure. A little over three times what they spend on their military. Weve got some problems, and i dont expect everyone to look at that. We are the big dog. We have responsibilities being leaders of the free world. Our other countries stepping up and helping . Isis, to me, is just as big a threat in russia and china and brazil and india i mean these are bad guys. Are other countries stepping up, or do we continue putting our young men and women on the line and the lion share of the risk and money, or is it a shared endeavor . Quite frankly, i compare it to being on the playground. As long as somebody else is beating up the bully, i sure in hell aint gonna walk up to him. Secretary carter i have a lot of sympathy for what you just said. We are a great country. We assume great responsibilities. We have values that others admire and that are worthwhile for people everywhere, and we express that around the world, but sometimes it does feel like a lonely mission. You mentioned some countries but just to take the middle east, for example, we need our partners in the middle east to step up and do more. The reason is burden sharing, as you say, but theres another reason as well, which is nothing sticks if it is just done by us. If we are going to have peace in iraq, for example, and defeat isil, the only thing that will keep them defeated is an iraqi force. We can help, but at the end of the day, it has to be the local people. Senator tester i think it would make our military budget go a little further if we had some of our allies stepping up a little bit. Its my understanding the pentagon is exploring how to open up combat missions for women. And will report its findings to Congress Later this year. Where are we at in that process . Secretary carter you are absolutely right. We are opening up to women just as many possibilities or positions as we possibly can in the military. We are down now to a fairly restrictive but important category, both in the army and marine corps, and the leadership there is looking at what is possible, with the implications are. From my point of view and i think this is widely shared we want to do as much as we can. The presumption ought to be that women can serve everywhere in our military, but there may be exceptions to that. We are still working our way through that in both the army and the marine corps. That process is not complete yet, but i think its a very important evolution, and something that very good people with great determination and dedication are looking at. Senator tester we will have our recommendation to the secretary in september. The one thing that we have done that is important to note is we have scrutinized standards so that we know weve got the standard correct, and then we can make a determination who can meet them. Senator tester to make this crystal clear, in carrying out this nations combat mission, is there a valuable role and has there been a valuable role or women in uniform . General dempsey yes. Senator tester thank you. Chair cochran your time is expired. Senator from alaska, ms. Murkowski. Senator murkowski thank you. I would remind you that that big fish in my office, theres more in the waters. There is flyfishing in montana, but we welcome you to alaska at any time. Again, thank you for your service. I want to talk to you about the arctic. I had submitted women from the war college wanted to talk about issues, and i asked them if they were sitting in my chair today what would you ask the secretary and general dempsey, and without question it was the arctic. Where are we in the arctic when it comes to u. S. Investment . The general opinion is that if its talking about icebreakers or communication infrastructure, or even wheeled vehicles that can operate in arctic environments, the United States may be 40 years behind depending on who you are talking to. I was at the Arctic Council meeting last week with secretary kerry, and all anybody wanted to talk about was Russias Arctic push and what we were going to do with that regard, and i think we are all trying to understand exactly what russia is doing there. Weve had plenty of arctic studies. Secretary hagel completed an arctic strategy. Weve had a few expenditures out there with respect to the arctic, but im not aware of any comprehensive spending strategy to address how we deal with our National Security deficiencies in the arctic. I know that northcom is working on a paper to identify some of our security needs, but i think it is vague at this time as to whether it is a fullfledged plan, or if it is simply a planning document. I think we are beyond the time to be doing plans, and honestly, im not really interested in more study. I think we need to be moving forward, so the question to you is if this committee were inclined to give you some meaningful guidance here on how we would move forward to implement and arctic National Security strategy within this bill, what do you suggest we do . I think we agree we have plenty of issues from the military and from a defense and National Security standpoint of in the up in the arctic, but other nations are looking at us and saying, wheres the United States . How do we respond . Secretary carter first, i want to respond to the point of view you are expressing. Its going to be a major area of importance to the United States strategically in the future. I think its fair to say we are late to the recognition of that. I dont want to give you an offthecuff answer, but i would like to work with you. I appreciate your going to the Arctic Council meeting, but i think a plan that is more than aspirational is needed. I would be happy to work with you to that end. Senator murkowski i think it is more than timely. Some would suggest we have no more excuses on this. To the discussion about making sure that we maintain the forward pressure that you have mentioned, as you know, weve had listening groups around the country, some 30 different bases we are in a very unique position in alaska, as you know. None of those Combatant Commanders over the past several months think that it is prudent to a reduction, and i guess the question to you is as we are ensuring that we are making sure that that forward presence, that we are making sure that we are not withdrawing in the world, as secretary carter has said, our people listening to what the Combatant Commanders are recommending when it comes to being prepared for the Security Issues that present themselves in the high north . General dempsey im reminded of the plaque under the fish in my office, which says if id only kept my mouth shut i would not be up on this wall. Absolutely we are listening. I remind myself of what the secretary said we really just started this about two years ago. We work hard at it. Northcom has probably the most prominent voice, but we have some work to do. Senator murkowski know that we stand ready to work with you. Id love to have a discussion about what we really think this push is and to have a better strategy moving forward. Thank you. Chair cochran thank you senator. Senator from vermont. Senator leahy thank you and welcome here. General dempsey, i think i join everyone else in complimenting you on your service. I will miss the st. Patricks day breakfast. General dempsey we can still do that. Senator leahy youre welcome to come fishing in vermont. Its got some great spots. Im not the first among the members to talk about how we have to do more with less. Secretary carter, you must groan every time you do that because im afraid some are saying we do everything with nothing. The conversation you and i had prior to your confirmation. There has never been a time in my 41 years here in this tenant when the military has been as small as it is now, so its not just important that actually its required to invest every dollar wisely. Going back to our earlier discussions, where are we in the process of deciding how the military is shaped, what equipment it needs, the requirement for National Guard forces, and the requirement for domestic emergency . Are there currently plans for how the National Guard personnel and equipment that we fund would be used in a domestic event . Secretary carter yes, senator thank you. It was actually several years ago when i was deputy secretary, i was asked i asked the National Guard bureau to look at exactly the question you are raising. Namely, the guard has a National Security function but also has a very important defense support to civil authorities function, which i respect, and which it has had for the 200odd years that the National Guard has been in existence, and which is critical when it comes to floods and other kinds of disasters. The question you are asking is well, the background is we have never written down what it is that is required to respond to those disasters and potential disasters, and that is the process the general has embarked on. Hes looking at the regional Disaster Assistance plans and trying to create an overall Disaster Assistance plan so that we can use that to inform the resources of the garden dispensed civil authorities as concern. Senator leahy a country as large as ours, we tend to not have great earthquakes in the northeast, but look at terrible earthquakes in some parts of the west. Look at tornadoes in the south and so on. General dempsey, you have to sit there as chairman of the joint chiefs and juggle all the demands and requirements of all the different departments. Is this an issue that comes up to you . General dempsey absolutely. Over the last several years, the commander of northcom has gained greater voice inside of our processes, both for the distribution of force and shaping of it. The other thing that gets very little notoriety but is very powerful is the partnership between the federal Emergency Management agency and Northern Command and the guard bureau. The seven regions of fema are well partnered to respond to crises inside the homeland. Senator leahy i remember after we were devastated a few years ago by a hurricane in vermont. Towns cut off, bridges to one torn apart, and going in with a helicopter and seeing the guard, and it was salvation. My time is about out. General dempsey, you have pushed hard on changes to work on the issue of Sexual Assault in the military, and if you could have your staff look at what you found effective and what more needs to be done because its an issue that comes up so often. I would like to get the best answer possible. General dempsey you use the past tense, and i could assure you its the present tense, pushing present participle, actually. Senator leahy thank you. Lastly, secretary carter, we talked about jet engines. I know you have been a proponent of the air force advanced engine program. How does something this important wind up in the cut off list . Secretary carter i think you are referring to the Advent Program. It is an important one, and the reason for that is we need more fuelefficient jet engines, and the reason we pursued the Advent Program was in part as a followon and a competitor to the f135 engine, which is a joint strike fighter, so it is an important program, and it is important for us to stay competitive in the jet engine area, both for military by the way, thats not the reason we do it, but for commercial competitiveness also. Chair cochran if there are no other questions, let me thank the panel for your cooperation and your presentations today. It will be very helpful in the appropriations process. We are grateful for your service and look forward to continuing the dialogue as necessary during the 2016 appropriation process. Senators may submit additional questions, which we will forward to you and request that you respond to them in a reasonable time. The subcommittee stands in recess. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2015] former House Speaker jim wright died. He served the fort worth area. He was the first to step down due to an ethics scandal. Resident obama released a statement which said in part, he was a committed public leader and proud world war ii veteran. Speaker boehner praise his predecessor for his lifelong commitment to public service. He went on to say, speak or write understood as well as anyone the institutions closeness to the people. And finally, these comments from speaker pelosi. As flags fly at half staff over the capital this evening we will show you his hourlong resignation speech delivered almost 26 years ago. The distinguished speaker is recognized for one hour. Speaker right wright i have had the privilege to be a leader of this institution. I am thankful to the people in texas for their friendship and understanding. A few days ago, there is a poll where 78 of people said they approved of my services. I am proud of that. [applause] you, my colleagues. Democrats and republicans. I o a great deal to you. You have given me the greatest gift anybody could give. To be the speaker of the u. S. House of representatives is the grandest opportunity that can come to any lawmaker anywhere in the western world. I would be remiss if i did not express my appreciation for that opportunity. I hope i have reflected credit to the people of my district. And upon the people of this house. [applause] i am proud of a number of things we have done together while you let me be your speaker. Many people feel the congress is the most responsive and productive and perhaps 25 years. Many of the things we did were truly bipartisan in character. Together we made it possible for great leaps to be put forward. Such as our competitiveness in the world. We fashioned in the beginnings of an effective war on drugs. Stamped out that minnis of the streets and minnienace of the streets and schools. We began an effort to help the homeless. We have work to do to make housing affordable to low income americans so there will not be any homeless in this country. We did things to help abate catastrophic illness. Clean water legislation. A great many other things. For your help, your great work in permitting me to be part of this institution, i thank you and i shall be grateful for your cooperation. I want to assure you that under no circumstances, when i ever knowingly or intentionally do or say anything to violate its rules. More depart from its standards. All of us are prone to human error. The speaker of the house is the chief enforcer. It is a wonderful thing. Any member of the house may at his will i have no quarrel with that. Nor any criticism of people who serve on the committee of we have to have such a committee. For over a year, just about a year i have baked to tell mice died of the story. That to which i have to respond keeps changing. Silence is no longer tolerable. Nor for the good of the house is even desirable. Without any rancor or bitterness hard feelings towards anybody, i thank you for indulging me. As i answer to you and the American People. My honor reputation and all the things i have tried to stand for all these years. The past year, the committee has had these matters under advisor advisement. I have eight for the chance to speak. Finally, on the 14th someof september, i spent the day advising as candidly atnd freely as i could. I believe everyone was satisfied. The five original charges lodged have been dismissed. In place came three additional charges. The 69 are merely a matter of a multiple counting of the three. The committee said, there may be some reason to believe rules may have been violated i o it to you and the American People to give a straightforward answer on those areas. I am convinced i am right. Maybe i am wrong. I know that each of us should be careful to doubt a little his own infallibility. Before those charges were issued as press leaks filtered out almost daily tarnishing my reputation i pleaded for the privilege to calm and answer those questions before charges were made. Under the rule, that was not permitted. Lets look at it. One by one. Dispassionately. The committee has raised these three questions are. It doesnt say they know i violet of the rules. It just says they might have some reason to think i might have written i have been trying to address it. Im going to do it now. The three questions are these did my wife bettys employment at 18,000 a year with a Investment Corporation and the attendant benefits of employment, use of an apartment and Company Owned car counts as a gift from our friend. You have read in the papers suggestions made by committee counsel. I may have received after 125,000 in gifts. Half of it, 72,000 was bettys salary. The other half involved the use of the car and use of a apartment on a per diem basis. Whether it is right or wrong, let us look at it. Was that a gift . First question i should like to suppose, why was betty working for the corporation . The answer is very simple. She was only one of the four of us who had the time in information to look in the Investment Opportunities that this corporation was created to explore. George maddock, my partner, was looking after his own matters. Marlene maddock was raising a family. I was busy being a member of congress and a majority leader i didnt have time to spend on it. Betty alone of us had the time and opportunity and experience and desire to give effort and energy to exploring and promoting Investment Opportunities. She did indeed form work, and it paid off for the little corporation. She studied the stock market on regional stocks, buying and selling, some of them i had brought into be corporation and had owned personally. She advised when was a good sign to sell, and the corporation made some money on those regional stocks. Not a lot of money, but by some peoples standards, we made some money. It paid for her salary seven times over. She maintained frequent contact with a company in exploring gas wells in texas. She borrowed money from the corporation in order to do that. She studied the site of the drilling and maintained contact with the company for us in that instance. She went to new york and studied the gemstone business and the corporation to make that investment in gemstones, made money on that. She investigated into a building apartment conferences for young people, and concluded that the interst rates or unbearable. She spent time studying the wine culture industry, which was just Getting Started in texas. She looked into other prospective investments, such as a small, limited partnership in the middle east and date prospect in and the prospect in sulfur extraction. She went against those investments, and it is lucky that you get, because many people lost money. I want to record affidavits several Business People who know from their personal business experience and can attest. One by kf snyder, one by john freeman, one by lewis ferris junior, one by j b williams, all attesting to their personal knowledge of the things that he did. The outside counseling part of the committee suggested that her employment amounted to a gift. I dont know why she concludes that she didnt perform duties. On page 20 of the statement of alleged violations, a very strange suggestion based on a statement that there was no evidence either supporting or eastablishing that the money was in return for identifiable exchange for work products. i dont know what he means by work product. Do you want so many pages of shorthand notes . So many pages of type manuscript . She wasnt a carpenter. Is a womans mental study and her time and her advice not to be counted as a work compensation . How the committee could conclude that there was no evidence that betty performed duties was very troubling to me. When i was before the committee, that wasnt one of the things being considered. They didnt ask me to point to any elaborate detail, as i had just done, to say the things she did. They assumed, assumed that there was no evidence. But there was evident. Two people, of whom questions were asked, both testified that she did work. The report says that they couldnt identify 12 days in a whole year. In which she worked. Whole year period in which she worked. In the testimony before the committee clearly said she saw betty there for 7 days every month and on weekends and spoke of her knowledge on great work in washington and elsewhere as evidence. They wanted to conclude that my wifes service an officer in a professional real estate and construction firm. She was making more than 18,000 working with the congressional committee. Here is the supreme irony. In 1976, when i was elected majority leader, betty voluntarily left her job as a staffer on the committee so as to avoid any criticism of this institution or of her husband on the ground that we were both on the public payroll. How many colleagues in the house and senate do you know whose wives are on the public payroll doing good work . And yet betty didnt want to be the cause of any outside criticism. She occupied to that job before our marriage. And she chose to leave, to save the institution and her husband from unwarranted criticism. Thats the kind of person she is. It seems to me that there is any isnt any justification at all for these questions. Whether she earned her 18,000 a year. Does a number of congress have to prove that his wife earned that much money . Bear in mind, this money was not paid by mr. Medic, we were paid on behalf of the corporation on which betty and i were owners. In addition to her salary as a gift sums up 145,000 in gifts. Betty had the use of a company car. Thats true, she did. For the first three years, it was used largely by mr. And mrs. Maddock. It wasnt mr. Maddocks car, we owned half of it. Over the next four years, betty had most of the use out of it. I have done what i can to resolve any doubts. I want to do the right thing the honorable thing. I bought and paid for that car out of my personal funds. The trustee in my trust under my instruction paid the corporation full book value on the day betty started driving it plus interest. The interest amounted to about 9,000. What more can i do . Thats been done. Concerning the apartment, betty and i have been more than anxious to do what is right and honorable about that. We didnt think there was anything wrong with paying at a per diem rate. The apartment was not held out to anyone else. It was not for rental purposes. They owned about five apartment in the complex. It was for their employees. There wouldnt have been anybody in the apartment paying any amount of money at all. We paid on a daily basis for our use of that department. Meanwhile, in an effort to resolve any doubt, last year, i told mr. Maddock that i didnt like the situation, being criticized. Someone in the Committee Council said that it was all right, that it was in the paper. In the paper four years ago. A statement quoting chief counsel of the committee on standards, saying he didnt see anything improper with it. I relied on that. Nevertheless, lester i said to maddock, i said i want to buy the apartment. I will pay you for it. I did. I paid the amount suggested and appraised by two real estate persons at fort worth. 58,000. Anybody thinks that is too low a price . Ill sell it to you today, 58,000. Well, i just wanted to clear the air and remove doubts. If we made a mistake, we have done what we can to set things right. I dont think we have violated any rules. My respect to you leads me to want to tell you that the second alleged violation continues on the assumption that bettys employment of these benefits were gifts. It further assumes that george maddock, our friend and business partner, had a direct interest in influencing legislation which would make it illegal for us to accept gifts. How do they arrive at that suggestion . I have known this man more than 25 years. He has been my friend, good, hardworking man. His father had a wholesale Grocery Store in lebanon. His father came in a wagon, a cart. Georgia has been successful. Never once in all of the years i have known this man has he ever asked me to vote for or against any piece of legislation, not once. That is not the basis of our friendship. It is not the way our relationship goes. All i wanted was to be friends. Not one time has he ever asked me to intercede with any Administration Agency of government on behalf of him or of any institution. Not once. How did they say that he had i a direct interest and influence on legislation . On page 58 of the committee report, it is suggested that while he was in the real estate business and had oil and gas investments, the committee might infer that he could be deemed a person with an interest with a in a direct nature. Every taxpayer has an instant tax code. Everybody who expects to receive Social Security has an interest in the code. All people have an interest in the results of legislation. That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about whether they had a direct interest in trying to influence the course of legislation. Where would you go to find out what that means . If somebody wanted to associate with you, and be in business with you . Whom would you consult if you are in doubt . I was not in doubt but suppose you were. Dont you think you would consult the people who wrote the rules . Well the people who wrote the rules do not think he had an interest. David obey was the chairman. He asserts clearly emphatically , both in an affidavit that he wrote that does not fit George Maddox case. He does not have an interest in legislation. The rules that david and his committee wrote. Carroll sawyer, former republican member from michigan who served on that committee along with david obey, says the same thing. I have here an affidavit. He
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.