Pretty explicit. Some of that i quote in my book, others you can find online. Now i say that with the caveat that sometimes in particular crisis appear washington keeps his own counsel things caps on profile. The Duties Committee is pretty quiet but more generally speaking he is talking about the mercantilist system. Kind of along the lines of what your doing. You mean in their financial efforts of the relationships with each other . Sharing information. Yes, we do. I have been operating from prince for a long time. About a decade ago the the branch at monticello. They do firstclass work and have uncovered a great deal about jefferson. I cannot claim any amazingly revealing new correspondence has been uncovered. I think some of revealing material i found has been jeffersons notes on conversations. Washington tended to hold informal cabinet meetings but to talk to members individually. Jefferson was the exception. As soon as the conversation was done. Particularly when washington started complaining about how he was feeling worn out and tired, freight his memory was going. Jefferson would say tell me more. Their relationship has been studied quite a bit. There has been a lot written about it. But it was clearly a nuanced the men respect each other. We tended to focus on the points of division. I saw flaws in china. When he feels jefferson was made a promise when he feels he broke the promise washington takes a personal. His own diary which is interesting. A big round. The conversation that came out. Good research to be done. I great storehouse. Hindered younger graduate students. Now, Like Washington and get paid for doing this tonight. Yeah. So, that means you can help out. Do that in an orderly fashion. Dont even have to read it. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I just want to take a moment to offer my deep condolences and solidarity with our allies in belgium across there and across the european union. This mornings first attacks are not only attack on the people of brussels but against europe and civilized people everywhere who condone such horrific acts of terror. In your written testimony you at five evolving challenges that are driving the department of planning and budget. I want to focus on the fifth challenge countering terrorism overseas and protecting our homeland. In your written testimony you outlined objectives to defeat isil and you say the the most important to protect the homeland. With that in mind please provide the specific steps the department is taking to coordinate with its interagency partners to protect the homeland and what Action Congress need to take to bolster those initiatives, funding, legislative. You mentioned the development of transritual counterterrorism strategy. Could you describe the pillars of that and how it complements current efforts to deny terrorists a safe haven from which they can train and launch these kinds of attacks for example, here in the homeland . Certainly. And thank you for the question. I will start and ask the chairman to reinforce. Youre right, our mission of protecting the homeland which we need to do at the same time we fight overseas to be isil is one we share with the intelligence community, with Law Enforcement out at all levels. And also with homeland security. We work very closely with them. Through transport we have a command which is precisely that mission which is to protect the homeland by working with other interagency partners. Northcom. We have plans to reinforce them if they request it. We support them all the time with equipment, technology, intelligence and so forth. Its a twoway street. Its a very smooth working relationship, the chairman can elaborate more of that. One thing about your particularly ask you to elaborate on is your second point. One of the things that i am looking at in connection with what the socalled goldwaternichols issue is strengthening the role of the joint chiefs of staff and the chairman in precisely this way, the transregional coordination. With Combatant Commanders. They are excellent but their focus on particular regions. I look to the gym and he doesnt excellent job of this, a policy resources in making sure the different ones are cooperating, northcom any other Combatant Commanders. To be specific what we did back in november we asked special Operations Command to take the lead. Not for special operations perspective but because they did have connective tissue in each one of our combatant commands incapable of doing this. To Begin Development of a transregional terrorism plan encountered violent extremism. We been working at that for a couple of months. We had a meeting on friday afternoon were i can think of the joint chiefs and all combatant commands to look at it. Critical to that is having a common operational picture across all of our combatant commands. Thats the first part. The second thing is have an assessment process that integrates with all see transregionally into a single vision that the secretary of defense can see. At the end of his comments, a process to make recommendations for the prioritization and allocation of resources across all combatant commands so much like were trying to provide pressure across isil in iraq and syria we try to do the transregionally at the same time. So we are very focused on that. You asked a specific question about what we do and to improve our interagency, and i would add interagency and international cooperation, which is very critical. Within the interagency we meet routinely and the secretary and secretary kerry lead the effort speak we do deep dive issues on resources or foreign fighters or intelligence sharing. With regard to our partners we have a very Promising Initiative in jordan were we have i think up to 15 nations to participate in an information and Intelligence Exchange to help us just on the problem of foreign fighters. Those processes are necessary. Theres a lot of walls for us to break down in order for us to be effective. Thats what we are in the process of doing. Our transregional plan is designed not only to integrate our capabilities across the combatant commands but also with our coalition partners. Thank you. Im interested in the Jordan Initiative and i will have my step follow up if thats possible. Thank you. Thanks, mr. Chairman. Appreciate the panelists. The attack this morning reminds us we are still at war with an evil, determined enemy that must be defeated. Earlier in the testimony today we had discussion about restoring deterrence as well, peace through strength, and im interested in hearing first from general dunford. The Rand Corporation has published a study limiting regret, building the army we will need. And here we are talking about the er i initiative. Rand concludes will need three armor Brigade Combat Teams and a social forces to restore credible deterrence. Im interested of whether or not you agree, and if you dont get what you think is necessary to restore the credible deterrence. And for both the secretary and for the chief, i have a bill, bipartisan bill over 40 core sponsors, which stops the drawdown or the army and the marine corps. Thats the total army, the army, national guard, army reserve, into active duty marine corps and the marine corps reserve. Assuming that that would come with the necessary resources or operations so that we dont hollow out the force and a couple of modernization that goes with it, im interested in your assessment on how that would impact the risk that we currently have, given the fact earlier testimony mr. Secretary, you talked about where we are today was based on a series of assumptions which have changed. So how would this posture act is enacted with the necessary resources, how do you assess that would impact the risk, and how might these additional land forces be a raid to do with such things such as the er i . Ill start, for the chairman on the two issues, first with the armor Brigade Combat Teams, the chairman can elaborate but, i want to go into operational plans. We are developing our operational plans for the defense of nato territory against both ordinary attack in what i called earlier hybrid warfare. And we are developing those plans and requirements that come from them. Im not familiar with a particular report you cite, but that is not a necessity as a consequence of russian behavior. With respect to army and marine corps in strength, the chairman can speak to that also. Im sure the chiefs have as well, but just in the army and marine corps, their emphasis to me and the preparation of this budget has been on readiness. And get in strength plans to come down from the levels they were previously, and their priority is the readiness of the force not changing those goals. I concur with that. Chairman . Weve made a down payment what we need in europe and, of course, its not just about army forces come is the aggregate. Nber i think you know where that armored equipment and Head Quarters and other units that are part of our stocks. We pay for a constant presence of another Brigade Combat Team to be over there for exercise and assurance for partners as well as it turns. With the overall number is that we may have a year or three years down the road i couldnt speculate. I dont think the rand stud stus wildly off base but again to me its a function of not just look at our present and isolation but look at the aggregate of joint capability that will do what we need to do which is to deter. With regard to the industry issue, my greatest concern is, in fact, that we have balance in the force and we have not only the right force structure on the right capability. You exactly what you are going to grow the force we need to make sure that the infrastructure supports that. Make sure that manpower supports that, make sure the equipment modernization supports that anthony operations, maintenance dollars that will allow us to train as well. All of those have to be adjusted at the same time otherwise the force gets out of balance and thats where our focus was on capability overcapacity. The reason is we felt like were getting out of balance. We did have the right amount of training, equipment in place to make sure the units we had read the highest level of readiness possible. Thank you, general. Let me say just for my colleagues and for the record people watching at home, for the record, we are on tap to draw down our land forces to preworld war ii levels. We have general milley here last week, and he describes the array and the mission set and given the changes to the assumption as high risk, given the fact we turn this off it takes three to four years to get the combat readiness restored. I think this bipartisan bill, we need to summon the will, give it enacted. With that i know my time is expired. Thank you, chairman. Mr. Scott. Thank you for being here today. Your statement warned expanding iranian influence and increasing capability in the region. In your assessment is iran more or less capable today militarily speaking than they were the day the nuclear deal was signed . Congressman, i believe iran was spreading the light influence before the light influence before the agreement that i think theyre capable of doing it after the agreement. I havent seen any measurable increase in the capabilities but again im under no illusion about what their capabilities are what the current level of activity is across the middle east. Have you seen any change in their behavior . I have not. With the caveat their spreading malign influence before the agreement. No the of 150 billion to help them spread it. If theres been no change in behavior then certainly by concern is the world is not more safe but less safe with them having that money. Just a couple of quotes from the president. Today after two years from negotiations the United States together with our international partners, animosity a stock coverage of longterm deal with the rand prevented from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Offers a new direction, different path, tolerance and peaceful resolution with conflict. Another quote september 10 of 15, this is a victory for democracy for america and National Security of the sake and security of the world. And then the budget that was presented and i agree with the budget statement, irans activities continue to post a threat or interest in dallas in the region to combat those threats. The budget continues efforts to iran accountable for to destabilizing behavior by advance preparations foster come original partnerships and planning to preserve the president s options for any contingency. So one statement, september budget statement five months later. What is the Defense Department into medicaid, what is a clearly going with somebody iranian Ballistic Missile program . Well, thank you for that. And youre right, the nuclear deal with iran was about their nuclear efforts program. If implemented it will know whether its a limited or not, will keep them from having a nuclear weapon. That doesnt stop them from having of the capabilities and exhibiting the behavior that consensus. One of those is Ballistic Missile. Thats why we are strengthening our Ballistic Missile defenses in the region, in europe, to defend our friends and allies, our own forces that are deployed there. Thats why we had aegis afloat and thats why we have beaches ashore. Thats why we have our other partners procure those same Missile Defenses from us thats why we help israel with its defense against shortrange rockets, both the iron dome system and the David Cicilline system. They are developing the arrow system against longer range systems. We helped him without so were doing a great deal in the Missile Defense area in that region. If i could quote james clapper, director of national intelligence, what he said on february 9, iran probably views joint comprehensive plan of action as a means to remove sanctions while preserving preserving nuclear capability. General austin march 8, 2016 come we have not seen any indication that they intend to pursue a different path. I think he is talking about with regard to their malign activities, not specific with nuclear, with regard to general austins statement of there. But i, just a few things that they have done since then, aside from what they did to our sailors, theyve continued to test Ballistic Missile. October 11, 2015 detested and degeneration of surface to surface missiles. The u. N. Stated this test violated resolution 1929. They launched another mediumrange missile. On march 8 several missiles from multiple sites. The iranian general commits the program stated revolutionary guard court said will not give in to threats. The time it was to have changed our commitment to the department of defense at all. We remain posture and committed to defending our friends and allies, our own interests in the region countering irans malign influence in all of these areas. Its good if its supplemented which it is being so far, at eliminating the nuclear danger. But for Everything Else we remain full speed ahead and on course for what we were doing last year, the year before, and those programs are just building. We have a major commitment. My time is expired. I just dont understand why we would not have included other threats in any type of deal that gave him 150 billion. The gentlemans time has expired. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I like to talk about our current rules of engagement in our theaters of operation. I have Service Members were leaving the military and coming to me saying that this is dangerous, we are not able to engage in a way that will allow us to defeat our enemy. I understand the need to try to keep down civilian casualties. I get that completely but i have a concern with protecting our enemies more than we are those that we are sacrificing to try and save. Thats the real concern. Throughout history we have people have given their lives so others can live. With what we see taking place my concern is every time we let an enemy go because of our very restrictive rules of engagement, hundreds if not thousands of more innocents are killed. They become fatalities because of genocide. Are we really winning . And sweat like you to address our rules of engagement by mary so many complaints about. We assess and read and assess them all the time, including but they strike by strike basis. So your question is very apt, very appropriate we try to balance those things, and we do it every day and we do it in a very practical way. When was the last time we changed them . We modified all the time. Let me ask the chairman to explain. Id like to distinguish between rules of engagement and Collateral Damage. Those have been considered a bit and some of the discussion. Ive heard the same thing. I want to make it clear the rules of engagement are enduring. Anytime one of our young soldier sailor edmond and marine is in harms way and its a hostile intent and you can possibly identified an enemy, they can engage. That hasnt changed. Theres no restriction to do what must be done to protect themselves. With regard to Collateral Damage we make an assessment. Virtually on every time we engage. Right now we start with a baseline of zero civilians, but im here to take if we have a target that justifies an expanded view of Collateral Damage in a particular case we will make that adjustment. So to your question when was the last time we change, i can assure you it was this morning but it was not a sometime in the last couple days were general austin made a decision to expand the number of something casualties that might be incurred in a particular target, given the importance of that target. What we have tried not to do is make enemies of the very people we are trying to protect in places like iraq and syria. We try to make sure that the entity we dont become the enemy. We are fighting with our values and at the end of the day five, 10 years from now when this war is over it will be because we won the war of values and ideas not because we dropped the bomb in one place or another. I u