inspector general roth, you talked about the port added collection information sharing that resulted in human trafficking coming across our borders. i appreciate you keeping an eye on that and you know, everybody being aware of that. i have not yet received an answer for a letter i've written. we had i.c.e. agent taylor johnson in one of our hearings involved in government whistleblowers and the retaliation against them which is really prevalent in the federal government. it's jaw dropping. so director soldana, i'd appreciate if you would respond to that because now apparently agent johnson has been terminated and the process hasn't really gone through office of special counsel, inspector general. i'm really concerned about that will particular case. >> we have that letter and we're preparing a response, sir. >> again, the oversight of student viz sas. i will try if we've got to produce some legislationings to facilitate the computer system, the i.t. systems to do this. coming from the private sector knowing what's available out there, this shouldn't be that hard. it's a critical step we have to take. so again, i do want to thank all of you for your service to this nation. you know, i realize this is tough. there's no perfect system. you have a serious responsibility. i know you take those responsibilities seriously. thank you for your service to this nation, for taking the time for your thoughtful testimony and answers to our question. with that, the hearing record will remain open for 15 days will remain open for 15 days til march 30th at 5:00 p.m. for the submission of statements and questions for the record. this hearing is adjourned. today on c-span a cushion about the genocide of christians and other religious minorities in the middle east carried out by isis. the director of the hudson institute center for religious freedom will speak at the event hosted by the clare booth policy institute and heritage foundation starting at noon eastern. every weekend on american history tv on c-span3, feature programs that tell the american story, some of the highlights for this weekend include saturday evening at 8:00 p.m. eastern on lectures in history, dickinson college professor david o'connell discusses presidential legacies, and the factors that contribute to a successful presidential term. then at 10:00 p.m. on "real america" in september of 1963, two months prior to his death, president kennedy traveled across the united states to promote conservation of natural resources to are future generations. sunday morning at 10:00 on "road to the white house rewind" a 1984 democratic debate in atlanta includes former vice president walter mondale, senators gary hart of colorado and john lynn of ohio, former presidential nominee george mcgovern and reverend jesse jackson. for the complete american history tv weekend schedule go to cspan.org. next a discussion about foreign aid programs hosted by the brookings institution and the american enterprise institute with usaid administrator gayle smith. the event begins with remarks from senators david perdue and jeanne shaheen, members of the foreign relations committee. this is an hour and 15 minutes. >> again, ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon and welcome. two items of housekeeping. again, per senate rules, protesting is prohibited, and we would ask you to please ensure that your cell phones have been shut off. it's my honor to welcome from aei danny plecco. [ applause ] >> thank you, everybody, for not protesting and for clapping instead. ladies and gentlemen members of the diplomatic corps it's really a great pleasure to welcome you to this joint american enterprise institute, brookings event with the new agency for international development administrator, gayle smith. we've titled this event "u.s. leadership in international development." that could mean absolutely anything. but i know that gayle has a lot of fresh ideas and fresh thinking that i hope will take the last year of this administration into a strong start for the next administration, whatever that is, and remember, no protesting. let me just -- we've got to laugh about something here in washington. let me just take a moment and introduce senator david purdue who's going to be helping us open up today. senator david purdue is the junior senator from georgia and the chairman of the senate foreign relations committee subcommittee on the state department and usaid which oversees the authorization of a.i.d. i'm delighted on behalf of brookings and a.i.d. to welcome him to the podium for a few words of introduction. thank you. [ applause ] plauz. >> thank you, dani. i really appreciate that. i want to thank you for being here today. this is one of the most important things that we do, i believe, in the united states congress because this is where we put the face of america before the world. i am a freshman senate, i've been here a year now. senator jean shaheen and i share two spots on the committee that oversees this effort that we're going to talk about today. i've lived outside of the united states and i've seen the best of america through our embassies, our state department people but also through usaid and the way we manifest our care for human beings through our money. i want to put that in context today. the good news today as i stand before you, since 2000, foreign aid is up over 50%. these are real dollars. the bad news is it's only a fraction of what's needed. if you talk to the people who are professionals and look at the needs around the world, some 60 million people today are displaced. 60 million, think about that. that's bigger than most countries. in one country alone, half their people in syria, over 11 million people, have lost their homes. i was blessed to be able to visit serbia just a few weeks ago on a trip over there to see the refugee pipeline from greece to macedonia to serbia to croatia to austria to germany and met with several heads of states about how the refugees are being weaponized. this is a major concern right now that there are countries like russia and syria who are purposely going through an effort basically to rid their area of certain ethnic people. we've seen that before in the world. the history of the world, in my mind, has had dangerous periods. we are certainly in one that's extremely dangerous right now and it's measured no two ways. one, i would call it a global security crises. on three levels. we have the rise of rivalries, russia and china being ever more energetic military and the second thing is the growth of terrorism. isis and some 19 affiliates now all the way from malaysia, indonesia, the philippines to algeria, they've proven they can strike anywhere at any time as we've just seen here in our homeland. but the one that really bothers me is the fact that we have a growing proliferation of nuclear capability among rogue nations. like north korea and indeed iran, and so the world is very dangerous. yet at the same time one of the biggest dangers that faces the globe, i believe, today, is this sweeping global debt crises and we are certainly a big player. we have a large debt and it threatens our ability to lead around the world, not just in moments of crises but in leading democracies and growth of democracies. one of the greatest pressures right now anywhere in the world are on these fragile democracies of these ex soviet satellites that are fumbling through, trying to find their young democracies and at the same time take care of this great humanitarian need that's on their borders today. and we just see today that they're slowing down. last week we had ten countries in europe slow down their take of refugees and so forth. that's going to create a problem in greece. it's already, you see the refugees pooling there. i'm going to egypt in a few weeks because i believe there's a problem there and it's going to get much worse from subsha heron africa. the other part of that crises is our own funding in the united states federal government. we're the larger philathroper. we are twice as large as the second player in the u.k. they give more to the go, dp, to give them full credit, but we are substantially the leader in terms of philanthropy. the chinese are getting involved. they don't publish their numbers. we're at the $35 billion range and we would love for that to be much higher. here is the issue. the state department all in, state department and usaid from 1992 to the year 2000 we averaged about $20 billion running that entire enterprise. between 2000 to 2008 we went to average 30 but because of iraq and afghanistan primarily we went from 20 to 40. since then, since 2009, because as militaries come out of embattled areas like afghanistan and iraq, you see the need for us aid and state department personnel go up dramatically. we're now at the $54 billion range. so from 20 to 54 in 15 short years, you can see the pressure that those of us -- i'm on the foreign relations committee. i'm also on the budget committee, and so i see both pressures. this is one we have to come to grips with. the world needs it. we're the richest country in the history of the world. yes, we're the largest supporter of philanthropy in the world today and i'm proud of that. i'm proud of the fact these professionals -- gayle smith, i feel like i'm her parent. gayle came before me and was a nominee and we held hands as we went through that process together. she faced some tough questions in front of the committee. she weathered that and she really presented a great plan and a great heart for the future of usaid. it gave me energy and confidence that she was the right person at the right time, and i'm hoping she has a lot more time than she thinks she's going to have in this role. when you look around the world, i'm very excited about some of the success stories. we have a lot of challenges, no doubt, but when you look at the fact that we give 25% of all philanthropy in the world, round numbers, and that doesn't count churches and individual philanthropy which i would argue is 25% of their comparative numbers abroad, i look at things in africa, for example, in addition to the refugee crisis, you've got an entire continent, where a third of the people don't have access to electricity. if you lin in singapore, there are four things that you have to have to have economic development and power is the number one requirement. portable water, trained forces and infrastructure. usaid has one of the best models out there. they take a dollar of usaid or foreign aid, anybody's aid, and they put it with private dollars and get a leverage effect. it's a forced multiplier. the best i guess example of that is the power africa initiative where with $7 billion they were able to attract $43 billion -- i'm a business guy and i love this. as a politician now and somebody on the budget committee i love it more because they're taking the dollar of dplan philanthrop multiplying it with real economic investment that will have a return. they're facilitating capital investment. a third of africa through this thing is going to begin to be addressed in terms of providing power. i think that's so remarkable and i want to take my hat off to usaid and thank them for that. what we have to do now is we have to get serious about focusing on the priorities. we don't have enough money to meet every need. we can't hold the hand of every person that's displaced. 60 million people. so we have to prioritize and make sure that every dollar we spend is leverageable and actually gets the result. so we have to monitor and evaluate these programs and make sure they continue to be effective. that's what gayle talked about and i was so moved by the fact that she has a conscious about that and this is not just throwing money at the world. people don't respond to that. they respond when they see your heart. i know americans. i've lived outside. i know what the ugly american looks like but i also know what the philanthropic american looks like. no american that i know when they are faced first hand with a need will turn down a helping hand. that's not in our nature. so i think usaid does a phenomenal role. i'm anxious to see gayle's footprint and pressure and focus on this as we go forward, and i just want to thank all of you for your continued support of this vital, vital u.s. strategic effort. thank you. [ applause ] >> i'm george ingram with the brookings institution. it's a distinct pleasure to be here with dani and aei and sponsoring this event for gayle smith. it's my honor to introduce senator shaheen. i don't need to introduce you to this crowd. i think the one thing i can note is that with your service on the armed services committee, the foreign relations committee and the appropriations state operations subcommittee, that you must personify the three ds. the development, diplomacy, and defense. we particularly, those of us in the development community, appreciate your being a leading champion on the importance of development of an agile aid and the efforts you went to to get gayle confirmed. thank you for being here today and being such a champion of development. [ applause ] >> thank you, george. here i thought you were going to say i get to decide where the money goes. well, good afternoon, and welcome to this great crowd for what i know will be a stimulating conversation. i have some brief prepared remarks but i just want to make a statement about the importance of this kind of dialogue because i'm delighted to be here with my colleague, senator perdue, who sits with me on the foreign relations committee. but more importantly i think it is that brookings and aei are here hosting this conversation because one of the things that we're seeing through this election cycle and that we've seen too much in recent years is division throughout this country on almost every issue. so to have a conversation where we listen to each other to hear other people's opinions, where we can disagree in a safe way and try and build some consensus i think is really critical. so thank you, george, to brookings and danny and to aei for hosting this conversation. thank you very much. [ applause ] it's really great to see so many scholars and experts from the washington policy community and of course i appreciate senator purdue's remarks and the fact that the issues of national security, promoting development and democracy abroad are bipartisan issues that are in our shared mutual national interest. a very special welcome to those of you who are here from usaid and of course to your new leader and your imminence. it's always nice to have you in the crowd. we need all the prayers we can get, so delighted that you're here. without question the mission at us aid fostering sustained economic growth and resilient democratic societies has never been more important. powerful dynamics including war, sectarian strife, poverty and climate change are destabilizing countries and entire regions. by contrast, development and economic opportunity are great stabilizers. make no mistake, us aid's work is national security work. as the president's national security strategy issued in 2015 notes, we have an historic opportunity to end extreme poverty within a generation and put our societies on a shared and sustained path to prosperity. in so doing, we will foster export markets for u.s. businesses, improve investment opportunities, and decrease the need for costly military interventions. usaid is hard at work addressing the crises, the refugee crises arising from syria's civil war and advancing development in afghanistan and across the world from southeast asia to africa to central and south america. i had the opportunity to travel to afghanistan right after i got elected to the senate and be part of a conversation about what we were going to do there to continue to promote afghanistan. i remember very clearly listening to the conversation about what was working there, and people talked about do we need more of a military buildup, what has worked. the thing that there seemed to be unanimous opinion about having worked the best to that point in afghanistan was the effort to build health clinics across the country. people said not only have these clinics provided access to healthcare for people, but they've given people in villages, particularly women, a voice in decision-making in those villages and what a difference that had made in afghanistan. so there's no doubt as we look at our opportunities around the world that those efforts to invest in economic development and promote opportunities for people make a huge difference. as president ashraf ghani said when he was speaking to the joint session of congress, he said educating one afghan girl would change the next five generations of a family. putting all of those children in school in afghanistan makes such a huge difference. this is something that the development professionals of us aid understand so well and i commend them all for their devotion to these efforts. because the us aid mission is more important than ever, it is critically important that we have a leader of the highest caliber at the top of this agency, and that was why i was thrilled that the senate confirmed gayle smith to serve as administrator. i wish we had been able to get it done faster, but i'm glad that it finally got done and ms. smith has been administrator since early december. but more than that, for seven years she's been a leader within this administration in shaping and guiding america's international development policy. she has helped to put development front and center in the u.s. national security agenda. administrator smith served as special assistant to the president and senior director for development and democracy at the national security council where she helped manage the u.s. response to more than 15 major crises. administrator smith was previously a senior fellow at the center for american progress. she was co-founder of the enough project and co-founder of the modernizing foreign assistance network. during the clinton administration she served as special assistant to the president and senior director for african affairs at the national security council and as senior advisor to the administrator and chief of staff of usaid. clearly she's had the experience to be the leader of usaid, but what i didn't know until i was doing a little research was that she had a whole life before she came to government service, which is very interesting because prior to her government service she worked as a journalist in africa for more than two decades, covering military, economic and political affairs for the bbc, associated press, reuters, the financial times and other news outlets, and she won the world journalism award from the world affairs council in 1991. and in 1999 she earned the national security council's samuel nelson drew award for distinguished contribution in pursuit of global peace. ladies and gentlemen, usaid and all of us are fortunate to have an administrator with such depth and breadth of experience in promoting economic development across the globe. it is an honor and pleasure to introduce usaid's administrator, gayle smith. [ applause ] >> wow. good afternoon, everybody. i, too, want to thank aei and brookings for hosting us here today. i want to thank george and danny specifically. i'd also like to welcome the members of the diplomatic corps that are representatives from embassies. i told you the state department was just last month, we really value your partnership. i want to thank senator purdue and senator shaheen. i am truly, truly honored by your words but also by your partnership which i think sends the important signal to all of us about what we can do. i also see in this room a lot of faces of people who have worked for usaid for many years. many legends, many people who built the foundation of the agency i'm proud to serve today. i just want to say thank you to you and i hope i can live up to your hard work and everything you've done. i think the senators here today represent something that's critical to our success and that's the incredible bipartisan -- in fact, i think it's almost nonpartisan support the development now enjoys. i've had a lot of meetings with members of congress since i was nominated, and i will tell you in no single meeting did i need to make the case that development was important or that usaid is important. that's a big change and that's a big deal. as it turns out, with bipartisanship we can get a lot done. i remember when i first started in this administration and there on day one were pepfar, the millennial challenge corporation and the president's mill aria initiative all good ideas realized by president bush. it never crossed president obama's mind to do anything but build on the progress that they had achieved. today, pepfar is supporting life-saving treatment for 9.5 million people and has provided 68 million people around the world with testing and counseling. an aids-free generation is a real possibility for the first time. and that's because a republican president had the vision and courage to invest billions to fight hiv and aids and a democratic president was smart enough to scale success where he saw it. that's because two parties and two branches united around the simple idea that the united states could and should be the country to lead the fight against an epidemic threatening every country on earth. next year, a new administration will pick up and run with the pep far ball and future leaders will keep going until we live in an aids-free world and that's the way it should be. pepfar is just one of many great examples. the senator mentioned power africa. last week i was able to co-host a reception to celebrate the electrify africa act which was passed by congress and signed into law by the president last month. there senators and representatives from both parties and members of president obama's administration were united in a simple message, we can change people's lives when we work together. because of their efforts and the efforts of partners from african governments and g.o.s from the private sector, the work of power africa can continue from administration to administration until the lights are on at every home, business and school in sub-saharan africa. as the senator suggested, that's the way washington should work. we have the opportunity to go now for a triple. that's a big thing for me. i'm not good at sports metaphors. with the global food security act. if passed, when passed, the act will solidify the incredible progress made by feed the future and position the u.s. for continued leadership in the global fight to end hunger and malnutrition. it will mean that we can build on the hard won development gains ranging from a 33% drop in child stunting in ghana to a poverty reduction of 16% in targeted areas of bangladesh. so the fact is is that when we work together we are a powerful force for change. that's why i'm very glad to have all of you by my side as we work to lock in over this coming year what we've accomplished and to meet the challenges that are ahead of us. and i'm enormously proud to lead usaid and very confident of what we can achieve together. let me thank you again for all of you being here. the usaid as it should be is an ever-evolving institution. for too long it's been viewed as the u.s. agency for foreign assistance. usaid has long since abandoned the notion that the solution to development is assistance alone. trust me, assistance is important. i am cramming for my first budget hearings, and i will make a very strong case, but we've also learned that how many dollars we spend is neither the exclusive measure of our commitment, nor the means by which we measure success. part of that is because we've adjusted to a new landscape. when us aid was founded more than 50 years ago, donor governments were responsible for nearly three-quarters of all finance flowing to the developing world. now we account for less than 10%. so usaid is acting on the fact that it takes multiple streams of capital to finance and sustain development and then we can make much more of our assistance dollars, as the senator has said. we're making smarter investments with our assistance, leveraging private capital to scale our impact, and supporting government, small businesses and entrepreneurs to mobilize domestic resources. and the results are nothing to scoff at. thank you, senator, for your comments. usaid and the other agencies driving power as you said have mobilized $43 billion, the bulk of which is private capital. in latin america we've leveraged five times -- five dollars for every one dollar. we've helped entrepreneurs in asia secure financing for clean energy projects and partnered with major corporations like coca-cola to improve access to safe drinking water and distribute critical medical supplies. our challenges going forward i think are scale and sustainability. we need to help economies become less dependent on aid by driving steady flows of domestic and private capital and we need to craft what i would call systemic public/private partnerships that achieve impact across supply chains, delivering results for development and changing business models for the better. the usaid that i lead is also acting on the fact that development is not just an aspiration but it's also a discipline. i'm very proud to see that, since adopting a new evaluation policy in 2011, usaid has averaged 200 external evaluations a year and staff and partners are using these to adjust projects and inform future design. we're doing more to measure impact, even in areas like democracy rights and governance where impact is harder to measure than for example in maternity child health. the agencies now creating the feedback loop needed to ensure that what we learn is built into everything that we do. our challenge going forward is to institutionalize this practice, including by strengthening our bureau for policy, planning and learning, to ensure that we can drive with evidence, make mid course corrections, scale what works, and importantly, be fully transparent and accountable. us aid is also acting on the fact that local ownership matters. since 2010, us aid has doubled the percentage of funding obligated through local governments, civil society partners and local businesses. our gains in ending preventable child and maternity deaths, improving reading skills and building stronger democratic institutions have derived in no small part from the leadership of communities and countries. the success of feed the future has much to do with the fact that african leaders acted on their own to increase -- to call for an increase in spending on agriculture and that every country should have its own food security plan. we can achieve more when we join forces with others, including many of you in this room. that's why we partner across the us government with agencies from the department of agriculture, to the overseas private investment corporation, to nasa. that's why we've revitalized institutions of higher learn here and abroad. we've strengthened relationships with communities of faith and engagement of private sector is fully embedded in the way we do business. our challenge is to marshal these forces not just for good but also with the scale we need to keep pace with demand. we're acting on the fact that development solutions are manifold. i think many of you know that for decades this field has been characterized by the flavor of the month phenomenon, and depending on who you ask and i've been at this for a long time so i've been through all of these. the one really critical key to development has at different times been agriculture, good governs, infrastructure, democratic systems, gender equity or innovation. the fact of the matter is that development requires all of these and more. our challenge is not only to integrate these but we have the opportunity to integrate our newest force multiplier, the the global development lab, so that it can spur and integrate innovation across and beyond the agency. finally, and this is a new and i think extraordinarily positive development, us aid is acting on the fact that our role as a development agency is also to bring analysis, solutions, and expertise to the mix. when it comes to seizing the opportunities and tackling the challenges that confront our government every day and in every corner of the world. that means using our early warning systems to enable the u.s. to respond early to crises, sharing our analyses of state fragility and long experience with transitions to help shape effective policies and garnering decades of experience in the individual countries to help inform our next steps. our challenge now is to build the systems to ensure that us aid's extraordinarily foundation of knowledge is brought to the policy table with rigor and with regularity. even as i work with the men and women of usaid and i want to say it is an absolute privilege to do so, i've also got an eye to the challenges we face as a broader community. i've been in this field for over 35 years now which means that senator purdue actually can't be my father. he's really not that old. i honestly can't remember a moment as pivotal as the one that we face now. i think everyone in the room knows that this is a moment of extraordinary progress. over the last 30 years, extreme poverty has been cut in half, boys and girls are enrolling in primary school in nearly equal rates, and there are half as many children out of school today as there were 15 years ago. the number of children who die from preventable deaths has been cut in half since 1990. every continent has seen substantial gains with individual incomes growing by more than a third in every region of the developing world. it's also a moment of global consensus. in the last 12 months, the world has agreed to the new sustainable government goals, a policy frame yrk for financing with development assistance, private capital domestic resources, and a plan to curb climate change. but flowing against all of this positive momentum are what president obama has called the dangerous currents that risk pulling us back into a darker, more disordered world. you can see these currents at work around the world, in the volatility world commodity prices and shifts that knock economies off balance and punch families back into poverty, in the sharp edge conflicts that tear regions apart and are spawning record waves of refuges and displacement and the willful abuse of human rights, denial of humanitarian access and closing of space for civil society, in the rise and expansion of predatory terrorist networks across vast regions, in the ravages of the weather or even the tiny mosquito bite that becomes a global health emergency overnight. that's what we're up against. as a global community, we have to answer volatility with stability, injustice with rights, despair with opportunity and conflict with peace. even with all the gains we've seen, that is no easy task. and when you step back to see the full picture, it's almost as if the good and the bad, the signs of progress and the dangerous trends, are in a dead heat with one balanced against the other. now our work at this moment is made easier because there's a global and national consensus that development matters. you just heard it from our senate leaders. six years ago when he signed the first ever presidential policy directive on global development, president obama committed us to making sure that the united states will be a global leader in international development in the 21st century. the steps we're taking at usaid are helping our nation live up to the president's pledge, and going forward is the latest national security strategy affirms, the united states will continue to lead with all the instruments of american power, defense, diplomacy and development. but even with the commitment to strong u.s. leadership, there are some challenges we can't tackle alone. to conquer the dangerous currents there are questions we have to answer with one voice, the global community committing together to a better world. i'd like to pose three. the first is whether, even as we respond to the urgency of now are we bold enough to invest now to manage a future of rapid and often tumultuous change. this is atime when humanitarian need across the globe is as great as i can remember. every time a disaster hits, the world is there to respond with food, medicine, even with the tools to rebuild. we're good at it, and nobody is better at it than the united states. but over the last seven years, usaid has deployed 23 disaster assistance response or d.a.r.t teams, 23. and responded to an average of 60 emergencies per year. no matter the crisis -- syria, or the sahel earthquakes or ebola, usaid has been there to serve people's needs on the ground. many of these crises are chronic, complex and severe and require more time, money and more people to respond. this year's el nino, for example, is unfolding on a global scale and threatening the livelihoods of people from latin america to africa. and in too many cases, like in south sudan, governments make an effective response even harder because those charged to lead have turned their backs on the people who need them the most. we are today feeding people in south sudan each month and responding to el nino on four continents just as we will continue to respond wherever there is need. the american people expect it and respond themselves with generosity. but even as we respond, we need to make sure that the urgent does not crowd out the important. we need to make long-term steady investments to prevent the crises that shatter the lives of millions and cost the taxpayers billions. investing now means staying the course for years to come on, for example, the global health security agenda, thankfully propelled in this initial phase by congressional approval of our emergency ebola request last year so that every country in the world has the capacity to prevent, detect and respond to diseases like mers, ebola and zika. it means scaling dramatically some of the most effective and least visible work usaid is doing to foster resilience where the capacity of people, communities and countries to withstand external shocks. it means building the institutions needed to sustain democracy and governance from taking a page from what the world has done to strengthen globe at public health and marshaling the resources and political buy-in that can generate scale, build a body of evidence and model success. we must also maintain a steady drum beat to uphold the basic norms without which we cannot succeed against the corruption that undermines progress and zaps citizens' faith in their governments, for the rights of all citizens in society, and for the obligation of governments to prevent discrimination against women, people of faith, against minorities, against the lgbt community, against the disabled or any other person. the second question we have to answer is whether we have the strategic patience to support the transitions before us until they succeed. brief interruption. usaid and our partners work in some of the toughest environments you can imagine as do many of you. countries working to build institutions of governance from nothing, countries reeling from decades of civil war, consumed by insecurity and instability. our men and women risk everything. sometimes paying the ultimate sacrifice as they and our partners plant the seeds of dignity and opportunity. that would be incredibly difficult under any circumstance, but try it with limited funding, too few donors, security constraints and ever growing expectations and most people would simply give up. but our people don't and we owe them our thanks and a commitment to pursue change that lasts at least as long as these transitions take. progress cannot be measured in four or eight-year increments. that's not how development works. it's not how transitions work either. the world bank found in a recent study that even the fastest transformers took 20 years to achieve functioning government systems and another seven to bring corruption under control. these are countries with a solid head start. they began with conditions that helped expedite the process, like a history of working government or a relatively literate populous. given the enormous difficulties there are some who say the hard work isn't worth it, but tell that to president santos of colombia which 15 years ago was on the brink of being declared a failed state. today he says the colombian people see the future with hope. and that's because colombia, with our robust and steady support, did the hard work to tackle the structural conditions allowing drug cartels to run rampant, to climb out of recession and to end a decades' long war. we were with them every step of the way and we'll be with them when the next phase of the transitional phase can begin. because we know that sustained effort pays off. ask the woman who worked as a usaid foreign service national for more than 15 years, serving her country and ours by helping kosovo write a constitution and build institutions where there were none less than a decade ago. today she sits as a judge on our country's highest constitutional court. now consider what it will take when the time comes in syria. change takes time and hard work. it also takes strategic patience and managing expectations of administrations, of the congress and of the media, but it's worth it, and if we know anything it's that the cost of impatience are far too great. the last question we have to answer is this. are we willing to adapt our systems and institutions to the world we face? if there's one thing we know we need it's agility. even as we persist through long transitions and pursue a patient path to lasting progress, we must move swiftly to seize opportunities where they arise. whether to support elections in sri lanka and burma or to set up nonformal education centers for nigerian families displaced by boko haram. that means we need to adapt our systems and institutions for a rapidly changing world. this year we have at least two opportunities to do just that. first in may, the united states will participate in a world humanitarian summit in istanbul. as we work together to meet the needs of millions, we also have the opportunity to strike a new grand bargain that leverages more efficient donor action to spur lar pell changes in u.n. agencies so collectively we are more strategic, effective, more efficient and more nimble. to grapple head-on with the sharp decline and adherence to basic humanitarian doctrine and the fact that the greatest impediment to reaching people in need in chronic conflicts today is the willful denial of humanitarian access by all parties. second, in september, president obama will host a summit on refugees on the margins of the u.n. general assembly. there's no question that the global refugee crisis putting the host countries to the test and it is also putting people to the test. most refugees face futures without education or jobs or the hope of normalcy, often for a generation. unfortunately, the debate on the global refugee crisis has sparked -- has been more about rhetoric. some of it hateful than about solutions and the summit provides an opportunity to change that by challenging the world to commit to solutions to sustained humanitarian funding to resettlement and other legal channels and to enabling refugees to secure the protection, education and livelihoods they need for their families. finally, let me come back to usaid. i am proud of where the agency is today, and i know that what the united states needs regardless of administration or party, and it was an effective, agile and impactful usaid and one that's ready to handle whatever the future brings. so i end where i began and leave you with the hope perhaps more easily offered by an administrator near the beginning and the end of her term. it's kind of interesting, that we can strike our own grand bargain. we've shown a development is an endeavor backed by bipartisan commitment and we have shown that usaid can deliver. i have told members of congress with whom i have met that i will be transparent and accountable, a pledge made easier by the hard work and vigor that the men and women of usaid bring every day. i've also said that i will not be shy about coming to congress to ask for what we need. we met with the former usaid administrations who span four administrations and both political parties and each of whom maintains the same commitment to the agency that they held while? office. i'm looking at one of them as i say, i know they would agree, when i say that all of us across party lines and from one administration to the next must pledge to keep building a stronger usaid and one that delivers accountability and impact and earns flexibility and exchange. an agency with the agility and support it needs and the agency we need and the world deserves. if we meet these three challenges and we make the choice to invest in the future and not just the right now and we cannot show an air of progress. if we persist through the inevitable setbacks and shocks of the country's transformation in years to come we'll have capable and responsible partners. as we come together as a global community to say we can do better and do it and we'll have systems worthy of the complex and changing world. the men and women of usaid with whom i am proud to serve are proud to lead and with you by our side. thank you very much. [ applause ] >> can you hear me? three tech-savvy people. >> i will start off. gail, thank you very much for that address. >> thank you very much, george. >> i want to pick up on a theme that you started talking about before we all came out here. and that both senators talked about because the venue we're here in this audience, i really want to put an exclamation point on the issue of a bipartisan nature of foreign assistance, and you talked about it, and i think at this stark political period we're in. it's really striking how over the past 15 years there's been a common support and backing for the range of initiatives that have been undertaken and in addition to what you say i look at the signature aspects of the millennium challenge corporation and the transparency, the ownership and the evaluation, accountability, and this administration really largely under your leadership took those themes and concepts and took them from one agency and spread them across the whole foreign assistance program. you mention electrify africa which the republican congress enacted and you've got the foreign assistance accountability and transparency act which is past the house and is hopefully poised to pass the senate and tonight the senate foreign relations takes up the legislation that would enact into law this administration's feed the future program. and all of your consultations during your hearing, you say you never had to make the argument with foreign assistance. why do we have this strong support for foreign assistance and how can we tie that into what you call for which is a grand bargain of greater transparency and accountability in exchange for more flexibility and agility for the agency? >> well, i will say i find it really striking and it's one of the things about this job that is quite pleasurable that literally in no meeting did i say developments are really important and there's this agency called and i think there's room in pursuit of development for everybody regardless of what your point of entry is. some people are behind it given that it's an expression of our values. some because it makes economic good sense and some because it's a national security impairment. i think we have also been able to show mcc from the beginning. i think usaid is doing an extraordinary job at this now, and again agencies across the board that it works. you can show the actual results of good investments. i think it's greater awareness that it matters and we're seeing evidence of what happens when the world is not making the investments and development that you need to make. so i think there's a basis for the bipartisan support that is rooted in a lot of fact and a lot of evidence. any administration serving in washington needs a strong usaid and the administration needs a strong usaid. to have a strong usaid it is the steward of taxpayers' money. i'm aware of that every day. i think all of us are as we figure out who we are and how we do it. in order for it to be as nimble and agile as it needs to be in a world changing as quickly as this one is, i think earning the flexibility that will allow us to be nimble and agile is something we should all strive for and i think there is a willingness to do that and there is a willingness on the part of usaid to show results and one of the great things about evaluations, sometimes they show you can do things really well and they say keep doing it. sometimes they show that one of your assumptions was wrong and you need to take a mid-course correction and that's what happens, and sometimes they show that it sounded like a good idea, but maybe it didn't work. stop. that builds confidence. so it is my hope that we have the confidence and the recognition and the need to over time provide this agency the flexibility it needs to be the agency they think we need. >> thank you. that was a great talk. thank you all very much for being here. i want to tug on the threads of the things that you talked about in your address. you mentioned leveraging private capital and systemic public/private partnerships and rules of law. >> there's a lot. >> music to my ears. i think one of the things that is clear to anybody who cares about the transformation of the developing world is the understanding that and entrepreneurship are the things that, first of all, give people's lives meaning and secondly allow them to propel themselves and they're changing their lives themselves and that requires, that obviously requires the kind of systems in place that permit that, and i know that there's been a huge change in focus at a.i.d. from the old days and think about handing out money as a metric and the handing out food is a metric and you're so much more than that now, and perhaps you can talk a little bit about this transformation and think about whether a.i.d. is optimally configured and is it an organization that can propel the centrality of this public/private partnership and this emphasis on markets and on entrepreneurship into the next generation and really change the way that -- the way that business is done overseas? >> yes and no. yes in the sense that i think aid has proven over many years to adapt very well. and to do a lot of many different things. to work on increasing public capital flows which is basically what part of the mission is, whether it's entrepreneurs, whether it is larger businesses and whether it's domestic investment or foreign investment is now pretty much in the dna of the agency and i find, with all of the mission directors i meet in almost every regional bureau. it's something that missions do. it is something that the leaders do to provide initial capital to entrepreneurs and innovators and to get those things started and i think and some of it has to do with the partnerships themselves and when i said this notion of what is a systemic public-private partnership. there are extraordinary partnerships across the agency and all over the world that bring local partners and usaid. the question is in some of these can we look at the kind of scale that might come from looking systemically at water. systemically at some of the areas that we work where i think we have the potential to take it to the next level. the agency is doing it. the capacity is there. to optimize the ability of the agency and there are things that we could or should do over the coming years to give it greater capability to do that? absolutely yes. absolutely yes. >> can i just follow up and ask you, the one thing that i think is probably confusing more from the outside and less for us in a long time, washington people is how a.i.d. as it shifts into this area and m.c.c. and opec and all of the other organizations that are focused on not dissimilar things and how do you work together. >> let me make one point of clarification. this is not usaid abandoning everything else to pursue this mission. there is a lot of work that we do in global health, for example, that is helping provide the health services build the capacity for health services that is not predominantly a private capital exercise. you know, it's interesting and i was able to work on this a lot when i was at the nsc about how do we bring together the compliment that exists among multiple agencies and power africa is one of the best examples of that and what we have been able to do and aid is privileged to be the coordinator of this, but we've got every agency in the government that has a capability in this area. we all came together and what does each agency have to contribute and how do we bring those together rather than having multiple agencies doing a little bit on energy, poverty here and a little bit on regulatory policy there. i think we've found some ways to bring that complimentarity together and we work with mcc very often on a kind of bilateral basis when they are developing compacts in certain countries and empower africa, again, we've been able to bring mcc which may have a major compact and usaid which provides coordination and a great deal of assistance and transaction advisers and opec that has been able to provide risk insurance and other tools and the department of energy which has got expertise. it's about bringing the complimentarity together and i think there's one other thing. the presidential policy directive on global development that we did in the first term. on the surface it sounds like that's just a piece of paper and it sounds obvious. what it did through the course of a nine-month study that preceded it and the promulgation and the agencies acting on it was, i think, brought together agencies in a way that is non-competitive and complimentary and it's working and i'm getting head nods. >> gail, you talked about local ownership which has been a key initiative and focus to the administration of aid across the programs and you also reference domestic resource mobilization and both of them are aimed at building up the local capacity of government and non-governmental institutions and give us the rationale for local ownership and the role that domestic resource mobilization can play in that. >> you know development isn't something we do to people, it is something that happens and people do with our support. local ownership is a prerequisite for the entire enterprise. now you've got varying degrees of local ownership in the political sense and i think one of the great things we're seeing, i mentioned feed the future, for example. we were able to build that on a commitment that was made by african leaders to increase spending on agriculture and everybody, all countries having a plan. local ownership in another sense means working with local partners and in that, i think it's extremely important because we kind of get a twofer out of that. we are able to contribute and help the development process and work with partners that themselves are developing as our partners and building capacity. >> on the domestic resource mobilization side, it is my perm view this is one of the most exciting trends we're seeing. and it is in early days in a lot of cases and we have found, for example, that a subject that sounds like it would not be the most exciting for a major conference or event, how can we have effective tax administrations and it's one of the issues that comes up a great deal. it came up in negotiations in financial agreement. a lot of countries are saying we need to figure out ways to develop revenue streams that will enable us to fund our budgets including health and education that for a long time have been financed with foreign aid. it's not a major amount of assistance on the part of the united states to help build that capacity. it's often technical assistance and other means, but we're seeing in health increased expenditure by many, many governments on health. we're seeing a lot of government again and look at what they need to do to mobilize their own revenue streams. we're looking at a lot of local financing and the local banks and finance institutions to support entrepreneurs and i think -- the trend line we've seen over the years in assistance becoming a lesser share of the total. i think domestic resource, the domestic resource share will grow significantly and i think we would be wise to do as much as we can to do that and where a lot of the emphasis, and enhancing government revenues and the tax system to helping generate and mobilize private capital also. >> absolutely. absolutely. and we have been able to mobilize private capital and a percentage of that is domestic private capital which is the other piece of this which that's critically important and i think it's domestic companies and including small entrepreneurs and it's the small businesses that make them grow makes a huge difference. >> thank you. >> i wouldn't be doing my job if i didn't ask you a hard question. >> okay. >> but we are going to -- after i bogart the microphone for another minute, we are going to open things up to folks so in the time we have remaining, think of your very, very clever and penetrating questions and we'll turn to the audience. gail, i want to ask you, you mentioned something which gave me more fodder here. you mentioned attending the world humanitarian summit in istanbul and they had the biggest and most independent newspaper and they're vying with egypt and a couple of other countries to have the most journalists in prison than any other country and i know they're a nato partner and they are suffering from the inflow of refugees, but you talked about that and there's -- we talked about egypt and egypt is one of the largest amounts of assistance and we tried to use that in ways that are productive for us and the egyptians and they're more than 10,000 political prisoners in egypt and there are a lot of political backsliding as well as not a lot of economic reform that's happening that is really necessary to the current goverment's success and you can go on here. and i know this is a tough one and a lot of it rests on policy decision making and help us understand how you are able to operate in this environment and how you would address people who look at this and say what the hell are we doing giving money to people. >> you're right. all of those are cases that this is a matter of our foreign policy, but i'll tell you how i've thought about it and a lot of this has come from being able to spend time with the agencies in that it's different from some of the other environments and that's to think about -- i'm always thinking in buckets, but let me tell you about three buckets and one bucket is the work that usaid does and that's straight development and we're in cases where the conditions are aligned, where you've got a very, very good chance of achieving sustained gains across the board and that's a huge portion of what we do. a second bucket is the crisis prevention response and mitigation and those are the places where through things like resilience and other work that we do, we are trying to prevent, obviously, but then manage crises as they occur and do a great deal of response, but the third is those places where we work where as a matter of foreign policy and national security we have a presence and we have a need to impact the development agenda in some positive manner, but where, quite frankly, it is much harder and the conditions are not always aligned and it may not always be a priority it is in some other environments and the security conditions were often extremely tough for our people to move around and in those cases i would be dishonest if i said it isn't much harder to achieve progress and there i think we've got records in some cases where we have been able to achieve gains that are slowly and it is slower in those environments oftentimes to build up the progress and some cases where it's proven much more difficult. our job in aid in those environments is to do two things. one is to identify those areas where we can make the gains where regardless of the circumstances i think we would all agree there critically important, that in egypt or in pakistan or in any of these countries have stable economies and satisfied people and everything else that goes with it. the other is to take what we learn from those situations and share it with the rest of the government and i think we're able to provide insights that are often quite helpful, but i do think we've got to reckon with the fact that i don't think this is something that's going to change and it's something that will, and going on into the future and it's hard and i would say that i think people have a good job in identifying those areas where we could have some impact and doing the kind of evaluation looking at things that enables us to say quite frankly in internal policy discussions and other deliberations this is working and how this isn't and what does it mean when we move forward. it's hard. no question, but it is very difficult. >> thanks for being frank about it. goodness, you are ready. >> there is a microphone. go ahead, pick the first person. this young lady had her hand up first. >> introduce yourself and be very brief. >> rachel oswald, "congressional quarterly." you spoke about the need to build resiliency in a world where there are crises happening all of the time and oftentimes from unexpected places. how do you maintain that goal when the crises are demanding so much political attention and you also have limitations on the budget, for example, i know in the zika debates on capitol hill, there's been a big push from lawmakers to use some of the funding left over from ebola and allocate that to the zika crisis. >> you know, i think the trick is we've got to walk and chew gum at the same time. i mean, that's why i have the global health security agenda and that's what the president launched a year before we were dealing with an ebola epidemic and the simple premise of that is that we need to do the very long, hard, but doable work of building the capacity of countries to prevent, detect and respond to the kind of health outbreaks that we are seeing increasing number business of. it's every six months there's a new acronym or a new virus out there. on the resilience front, it means even as we respond, and i think there are two things, even as we respond, there are ways to respond in an emergency where you can keep a malnourished child alive or you can keep that child alive by building his or her nutritional base back stronger even as you help survive a crisis. this is something that the agency is doing phenomenal work on. this is something i want to give much more visibility to. and it's again, layering in what are the coping mechanisms for people in communities and countries so that when they face shocks like the shocks we're seeing around the world they are more ready to withstand them. some of it is done through nutrition and some of it is done through productive safety programs that enable poor farmers to work together, to harvest water and protect their livestock and have systems in place so that again, if there is a drought or a conflict they aren't forced into a situation where they have to sell and lose their livestock for the duration. again, it's not easy. everything would be easier with lots more money. i think the agency does a superb job as i say of walking and chewing gum at the same time, but part of the challenge i'm talking about is we can't just do one or the other, and i think we all know that we are going to respond to crises whenever they occur. so what the agency has taken onboard and i think will expand and i think we need to expand quite frankly, globally is the ability to keep building that base not only through our long-term development enterprise, but through building in these layers of resilience because we know we'll see shocks of the nature we're seeing now with greater regularity over the coming decade. >> thank you, gail. i'm john from the hunger project and i wanted to ask you about how you see as an administrator leveraging the expertise of the different sectoral groups' health, education, watch drg into more integrated strategies? >> i think it's a smart thing to do. and i think it's something we do pretty well and we're at a staff meeting this morning where some of the assistance administrators was talking about doing one of the regular meetings with many of the groups represented here today on a particular region and to get everybody's insight and thoughts and what's working and what's not. so i think that needs to be in most cases there is something of a regular order and i think it's something -- well, there you have it. >> gentlemen up front, mr. ambassador. the microphone is coming. just a moment. >> i'm ambassador of nepal. thank you very much for enlightening us in addressing the developmental challenges in our part of the world. i would like to really congratulate you for mentioning local ownership in development, but how about ensuring the use of the country system in providing it and at the same time i would like to learn about your idea of untying it. >> yeah. everybody wants it untied. the state department. okay. look, part of ownership is country ownership and one of the things we've learned around the world is when the country takes ownership, but the leadership, whether it's the uppermost level or the local level is willing to put a few things into the mix. political capital, and a commitment to transparency and fairness that we get gains that last for a very, very long time and so that is, i think that's one of the most important ingredients for long-term success. so that's key. user friendly systems, we are also trying to be more user friendly, and i will say that over the years, there's been a lot of layering of new systems and new ideas and new procedures and i will not put this on the career men and women of usaid. as much as i would put it on the rotating leadership and new teams come in and we've all got brilliant ideas, and so i think, you know, it's a constant struggle and a constant pursuit of the agency to try to figure out how we can manage our systems in such a way that we are able to satisfy the congress and the american taxpayers and also avoid burdening our partners with undue levels of systems. and that's a constant challenge and something we continue to work on. it's one of the reasons i mention this notion of flexibility because i think there's a lot that could be done over time to streamline the systems of a.i.d. and be totally responsible to taxpayers in the congress and also be much more user friendly and that's why i mentioned that one and remind me. >> tight aid. >> yes. there are all sorts of issues about -- yeah. [ laughter ] you know, it's very interesting when you become a public official as opposed to when i was think tank. >> danny and i don't have to be so careful what we say. >> no, no. look, i actually think conditions that are tied to aid or who aid is tied to, all of these kinds of things i think have a lot to do with transparency, accountability and evidence, and i think the more we do and the better we do and it's true for a.i.d. and true for every donor and it's true for people who receive assistance from any donor whether it's a government or ngo. the more transparent we are, the more accountable we are and the more evidence and data that we bring to the mix that shows is up or down what the impact is i think the greater chance over time that there will be greater flexibility with assistance. so i see an ngo colleague of mine nodding his head and i think that's true not just for bilateral donors and it's got to be that mix to ultimately unlock the ties. >> i wish we had more time. >> but we don't. >> but we don't. >> we don't. >> gail, we appreciate your taking the time to talk, and i think you've got a crowd of people here who understand development, understand the challenges that usaid are confronting and wish you well and danny, thank you for joining me today. [ applause ] >> thank you. >> you're welcome. [ applause ] >> and i'm going to say one thank you again. you clapped prematurely, but you can clap again, if you want. i also want to thank all of our staff. this kind of an important conversation doesn't come together easily even though it looks easy. so for all of your people at aid and your folks at brookings and mine and the senator's staffs thank you very much, and to all of our guests. i wanted to make sure we said a warm thank you and i know you want to say a word. >> i just want to say this is a great job and it's great to come to work every morning and to try to make the world a better place and it's a better job because of the number of people who care not only about development, but about this institution and whether you've got critical things to say and things we could do better and things that we're doing well, it makes a huge difference to the work that we do every day and the work that i do is that there are so many people who care about the mission and for the agency and for that caring, it really makes a big difference. [ applause ] look at some of our live programming coming up today join us later for a discussion on isis and genocide, coming a day after secretary of state kerry officially accused the islamic state of perpetuating crimes against humanity. it will be live at noon eastern on our companion network c-span. also coming up today a look amount israel's influence here in the u.s. the american educational trust and institute for research middle east policy hosts the day long conference. can you watch that live right now on our companion network c-span 2. book tv has 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors every weekend. here are some programs to watch for. saturday night at 8:15 eastern a book discussion with city university of new york professor douglas rushkoff author of "throwing rocks at the google bus." he talks about how americans can build on the digital economy by changing how they grow businesses to benefit employees and employers. then at 10:00 p.m. after words with law professor john yoo co-author of "liberty's nemesis." mr. yo is interviewed by victoria tungsen much >> it seems obvious that the government can't regulate the money that you use to participate in a constitutional right. citizens united says since you have a right to free speech, particularly as you said in politics during campaigns is when the framers really want freezing drizzle text the right of free speech then how did the government say but you can't spend money on using your constitutional right. >> on sun night at 8:00 eastern former first lady laura bush chronicles the lives of afghan women since the u.s. invasion in the book quarter point we are afghan women." mrs. bush wrote the introduction to the book which was put out by the george w. bush institute. go c-span.org for the complete weekend schedule. every weekend, on american history tv on c-span 3, featured programs that tell the american story. some of the highlights for this weekend include saturday evening at 8:00 p.m. eastern on lectures in history. dickinson college professor discussing presidential less fwa isis and the factors that contribute to a successful presidential term. then at 10:00 p.m. on real america in september of 1963 two months prior to his death, president kennedy traveled across the united states to promote conservation of natural resources for future generations. sunday morning at 10:00 on road to the white house rewind, a 1984 democratic debate in atlanta includes former vice president walter mondale and george mcgovern and reverend jesse jackson. for the complete american history tv weekend schedule go c-span.org. now defense secretary ashton carter joins chief of staff general joseph dunford testifying about fortunate's 2007 defense budget request. among the topics the senate arms services committee heard about were russia, china, iran avg and isis and syria and iraq. this is about two hours and 45 minutes. >> good morning. good morning, all. senator the armed services committee meets this morning. the associated future years defense program and the pose tour of u.s. armed forces. we welcome our witnesses. we thank each of you for your service to our nation and to the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines serving here at home and around the world. before i proceed with my statement, let me just say that yesterday, disturbing statements made by senior executive of the united launch alliance reported in the media. these statements raised troubling questions about the nature of the relationship between the department of defense and ula. this committee treats with at any time most seriousness any implication that the department showed favoritism to a major defense contractor or that efforts have been made to silence members of congress. mr. secretary, i expect that you will make a full investigation into these statements and take action wherever appropriate. last month, the director of national intelligence provided this committee a candid and unsettling picture of our worldwide threats. just consider what has occurred over the past five years while al qaeda remains a real and potent threat the vanguard of global terrorism is increasingly led by isil which has grown across the middle east, southeast asia and launched attacks into the heart of europe and inspired an attack here in the united states. russia has invade ukraine and crimea me nsaed our nato allies, intervened militarily in syria and regarded by chairman dunford and many military leaders say as our nation's greatest threat. china has continued its rapid military modernization, steadily militaryizes the south china sea and uses coercion to bully our ashane partners. north korea has launched brazen cyber attacks against the united states. continued to advance and test its nuclear weapons program and conducted provocative missile tests including a potential icbm capability. rather than moderating its maligned activities in the middle east its advocates of the nuclear agreement predicted iran has instead increased its support for its terrorist proxies from syria to yemen, conducted advanced missile test in violation of u.n. security council resolutions and fired rockets near u.s. aircraft carrier. more recently, iran seized two u.s. navy vessel, detained ten u.s. sailors and propagandaized the entire incident in violation of international law and centuries of maritime tradition. these are the growing threats we face in the world and yet the department of defense remains guided by a strategy that predates all of these developments. it is based on assumptions about the world that no longer apply. what's worse the same is true about our nation's defense spending. while the requirements for our military have grown, the budget control act arbitrarily capped defense spending back in 2011 despite periodic relief from these caps each of our military services remain undersized, unready and under-funded to meet the current and future threats. this translates in to real things that our military which is remarkable and determined is cannot do for our nation. our aircraft carriers no longer provide constant presence in the middle east or western pacific. just one-third of army brigade combat teams are ready to deploy and operate decisively. the air force is the smallest it's ever been and more than half of its squadrons are not combat mission ready. marine corps aviation is in crisis. and it was testified this week forces cannot execute our nation's defense strategy. the effects on the present force are bad enough. the effects on the future force are worse. years and years of deferred maintenance and delayed modernization are creating a mountain of bills that will soon come due. from 2018 to 2021 alone the department of defense needs $100 billion above the bca caps just to meet current requirements. in reality those requirements are adequate additional resource will be need and the longer we delay that bill the worse it gets and the more we run the risk to sequestration. this is our own making. and i'm speaking of the congress. that's why we're so concerned about the president's budget request for fiscal year 2017. there's a lot to like about this request. many of the investments especially related to the so-called third offset strategy are critical and long overdue. that said, though our nation is asking our military to do more over the next fiscal year the president's defense budget request in real dollars is actually less than it is this year. as a result the department was forced to cut $17 billion, i want said it needed last year purely for budget reasons. to be sure the temporary effects of more positive economic assumptions and lower fuel prices soften the blow. nevertheless the department cut over $10 billion in real military capability to mitigate this short fall. nothing in the bipartisan budget act prevented the president from requesting more than he did. he did not have to fund our growing operation requirements by cutting modernization and procurement. he chose to do so. and these are just some of the consequences. the army had to cut 24 uh 60 black hawk helicopters. the air force had to cut five f-35 as this year and 45 over the next four years. the navy plans to lay up additional cruisers. the marine corps cut 77 joint light tactical vehicles, $1.3 billion in military construction and family housing has been cut. certain critical nuclear modernization efforts including an icbm replacement and b 61 nuclear bomb tail kit have been further delayed. the unfunded requirements of the military services now total nearly $18 billion. that represents the additional ships, airplanes, helicopters, fighting vehicles, training and other programs that our military leaders say they needle isly to carry out our increasingly antiquated defense strategy and acceptable level of risk. last year, the former chairman of the joint chief, general dempsey described the future years defense plan as quote the lower ragged edge of manageable risk in our ability to execute a defense strategy. and now here we are one year later, $17 billion less than what our military needed and planned for. i do not know what lies beneath the quote lower ragged edge of manageable risk. but this is what i fear it means. that our military is becoming less and less able to deter conflict and if god forbid deterrence does fail somewhere and we end up in conflict our nation will deploy young americans no to battle without sufficient training or equipment to fight a war that will take longer, be larger, cost more and ultimately claim more american lives than it otherwise would have. this is the growing risk we face. and we can't change course soon enough. we should not threaten stability provide by the bipartisan budget act. we should build on it. therefore we make a virtue out of stability. this budget agreement ends this year and defense spending over the next four years is capped by a law at $100 billion less than what our witnesses will testify our military needs. that kind of stability is not tans. it is the problem. and if we cut into our military muscle again this year our looming budget problems just get worse. finally, another priority of this committee will remain the defense reform effort that we began last year. including a review of the goldwater-nichols legislation that's now marking its 30th anniversary. over the past year, senator reid and his staff and i and my staff have held hearings and conducted interviews with dozens of former and currently serving military and civilian defense leaders including discussions with our distinguished witness today. the result is that i believe we have a rather clear definition of the challenge that we all must address. the focus of goldwater-nichols was operational effectiveness in proving our military's ability to fight as a joint force. the challenge today is strategic integration. by that i mean improving the ability of the department of defense to develop strategies and integrate military power globally to confront a series of threats both states and nonstate actors, all of which span multiple regions of the world and numerous military functions. put simply, our competitors are catching up and our defense organization must be far more agile and innovative than it is. as the committee considers what steps may be necessary to improve our defense organization, we are committed to work closely with both of you and we would welcome any thoughts and recommendations you are prepared to share today. senator reid. >> mr. chairman let me join you in welcoming our witnesses. the president's fy 2017 budget includes $583 billion in discretionary spending and complies with funding levels included in the bipartisan budget act of 2015. this amount $523.9 billion is included in the base budget and $58.8 billion is designated for the overseas account. as the committee considers the funding request we must be mindful of the risks facing our country and national security challenges. russia's increasingly aggressive posture in eastern europe and middle east must be monitored, contained and when necessary countered. china invests in its military particularly capabilities that allow them to project power and deny access to others. north korea recently conducted a rocket launch in violation of multiple united nations security council resolutions and continues to be an immediate and present danger to global security. finally iran is a significant concern to the committee, particularly its recent missile tests and ongoing support to nonstate actors across the middle east. our nation's counterterrorism fight continues to be a top priority. it's a year of security and political transition in afghanistan and we must don't evaluate how we can best enable efforts by the government of afghanistan to protect and in iraq, isis has lost territory but difficult tasks remain including evicting isis from population centers. the danger pose fwid mosul dam must be addressed. if isil loses grounds in some areas it gains foot holds in new nations like libya. in light of these ongoing challenges we face around the world, we must closely scrutinize the budget request to ensure priorities have such enfunding. and where possible allocate known those areas that need additional funds. with regard to our military forces after nearly a decade and a half of jounts military operations we must take a hard look at the levels across all service. this committee has repeatedly heard testimony from senior military leaders that rebuilding readiness levels is their highest priority. the fy-'17 budget request makes investment in readiness of accounts that will help the services but it will take time to rebuild readiness. it's important that accounts be protect from cuts. i would welcome any comments from our witnesses on the importance of rebuilding readiness and if they believe the services are on track to meet their full spectrum readiness goals. another challenge is the modernization of platforms and equipment. while the readiness of our troops is paramount we can't neglect investment in modernization. our forces need to have access to equipment that's properly sustained and upgraded. however in order to meet the funding levels the department's budget request modified base budget funding for some procuremen and modernization efforts. while difficult choice must be made we must ensure this budget doesn't jeopardize ship building as well as targeted investments in development. i would like know if our witnesses feel confident the reductions in the current accounts will not adversely impact these programs by adding substantial costs to the overall program or extensively delaying the fielding of any platform. the well being and quality of life of our men and women in uniform remain a priority concern. we are mindful we must support and maintain a high quality of life but also a high quality of service. the administration's request includes 1.6% pay raise for both the military and civilian employees and a robust array of benefits. these funds are critical to ensuring military and civilian pay remains competitive in order to attract and retain the very best of military and government service. the government also understands military and civilian personnel compromise one half of the department's budget and we're committed to implementing reforms that will slow that growth. finally we need to address the long term budget situation we find ourselves in. last year the senate had a healthy debate. at the time i argued meeting our national security challenges required relief from the dod as well as other agencies that contribute to defense and prosperity of the homeland. it's a dauntsing task to allocate resources for a myriad of choices. i believe the senate in a bipartisan fashion should repeal the bca and blache more reasonable limit on discretionary spending in an equitable manner. i look forward this morning's testimony. thank you again, mr. chairman. >> welcome, mr. secretary and we look forward to hearing from you and general dunford. thank you for appearing. >> thank you, chairman. senator reed, all the members of the committee, thank you very much so much for the opportunity to be here, for me, the chairman and undersecretary. and above all, for your steadfast support to our dod men and women. all over the world. military and civilian alike who serve and defend us. i'm very pleased to be here. i'm pleased to be here with general dunford and we'll discuss the president's 2017 defense budget and other matters. a budget which marks a major inflection point for the department of defense. in this budget, we're taking the long view. we have to. because even as we fight today's fights, we must also be prepared for what might come 10 and 20 and 30 years down the road. last fall's bipartisan budget act gave us some much needed stability. after years of gridlock and turbulence and i want to thank you and your colleagues for coming together to help pass it. that budget set the size of our budget and with this degree of certainty we focused on its shape. changing that shape in fundamental but carefully considered ways to adjust to a new strategic era and to seize opportunities for the future. let me describe the strategic assessment that drove our budget decisions. first of all, it's evident that america is still today the world's foremost leader, partner and underwriter of stability and security in every region of the world as we have been since the end of world war ii. that's thank in large part to the unequivocal strength of the united states military. and as we continue to fulfill this enduring role it's also evident that we're entering a new strategic era as has been noted. today's security environment is dramatically different from the last 25 years. acquiring new ways ever investing and operating. five evolving strategic challenges namely russia, china, north korea, iran and terrorism. are now driving dod's planning and budgeting as reflected in this budget. i want to focus first on our ongoing fight against terrorism and especially isil which we must and will deal a lasting defeat. most immediately in it's apparent tumor in iraq and syria but also where it's me as sizing. we're doing it in afghanistan where we continue to stand with the afghan government and people. all the while we're continuing to help to protect our homeland. and as we're accelerating our overall counter isil campaign we're backing it up with increased funding this year. we're requesting 50% more than last year. we've gained momentum against isil since the chairman and i last appeared before you. notably the iraqis retook ramadi. are now reclaiming further ground in anbar province. in syria, capable and motivated local forces support by the united states and our global coalition have retain east syrian town. severing the last major northern artery between raqqah and mosul and, therefore, between isil in syria and isil in iraq. meanwhile 90% of our military coalition partners have committed to increase their contributions to help defeat isil. we've increased strikes on isil held cache depots and oil revenue, targeted strikes against isil in libya. we recently killed isil's minister of war the chechen fighter. now before i continue, i want to say a few words about russia's role. russia said it was coming in to syria to fight isil but that's not what did it. instead, their military has only prolonged the civil war. propped up assad. as of now we haven't seen whether russia retained the leverage to find a diplomatic way forward which is what the syrian people need. one thing is clear, though. russia's entry into syria didn't impact our campaign against isil. along with our coalition partners we're intensifying our campaign against isil in both iraq and syria and we'll continue to do so until isil is dealt a lasting defeat. two of the other four challenges reflect a return in some ways to great power competition. one is in europe. where we're taking a strong and balanced approach to deter russian aggression. we haven't had to devote a significant portion of our defense investment to this possibility for a quarter century but now we do. the other challenge is in the asia-pacific where china is rising, which is fine. but behaving aggressively which is not. there we're continuing our rebalance to the region to maintain the stability we've underwritten for the past 70 years allowing so many nations to rise and prosper in this the single most consequential region for america's future. meanwhile, two other long standing challenges pose threats in specific regions. north korea is one. that's why our forces on the korean peninsula remain ready as they say to tonight. the other is iran. because while the nuclear chord is a good deal to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon in other respects our concern with iran persist. and while i'm on the subject of iran and given this committee's particular interest in this matter i want to say a few words of iran for treatment of our sail juniors on farsi island back in january. iron's actions were outrageous, unprofessional and inconsistent with international law and nothing we've learned about the circumstances of this incident since then changes that fact. it's because of iran's recklessness and destabilizing behavior in that part of the world the dod remains full speed ahead in our planning, and our o ensure we deter iran's aggression, counter its malign influence, and uphold our ironclad commitments to our regional friend and allies, especially israel, to whom we maintain an unwavering and unbreakable commitment. now, addressing all of these five challenges requires new investments on our part. new posture in some regions and new and enhanced capabilities. for example, we know we must deal with all these five challenges across all domains, not just the usual air, land, and sea, but especially in cyber, electronic warfare, and space, where reliance on technology has given us great strength and great opportunities but also developed vulnerabilities that adversaries are eager to exmoit. key to our approach is being able to deter our most advanced competitors. we must have and be seen to have the ability to ensure that anyone who starts a conflict with us will regret doing so. in our budget, our capabilities are readiness, and our actions, we must and we will be prepared for a high-end enemy, what we call full spectrum. in this context, russia and china are our most stressing competitors as they've both developed and continued to advance military systems that seek to threaten our advantages in specific areas. we see it in the south china sea and crimea and syria as well. in some cases, they're developing weapapons and ways o war that seek to achieve their octobers rapidly before they think we can respond. because of this, d.o.d. has developed the importance in our planning and budgeting. in my written testimony, i've addressed better these five evolving challenging. we're strengthening our deterrence posture in europe by investing $3.4 billion for european reassurance initiative, croup what will we requested last year. we're prioritizing training, readiness of our ground forces as has been noted and reinvigorating the modernization of our fighter air craft flight. microdrones. the arsenal plane as well as advanced munitions of all sorts. in our navy we're emphasizing not just increasing the number of ships, which we're doing, but especially their lethality with new weapons and high-end ships and extending our commanding lead in undersea warfare with new investments in submersible vehicles to triple strike capacity from 12 tomahawks to 40. we're investing in cyber, space, investing $34 billion in 2017 to among other things help build our cyber mission force, develop next generation electronic jammers, and prepare for the possibility of a conflict that extend into space. in short, d.o.d. will keep ensuring our dominance in all domains. our budget also seizes opportunities iffer the future. that's a responsibility i have to all my successors to ensure the military and the defense department they inherit is just as strong if not stronger than the one i had the privilege of leading today. that's why we're making increased investments in science and technology, building new bridges to the amazing american innovative system as we always have to stay ahead of future threats. that's why we're building what i've called the force of the future, because as good as our technology is it's nothing compared to our people. and in the future, we need to continue to recruit and retain the very best talent. competing for good people for all-volunteer force is a critical part of our military edge, and everyone should understand this need and my commitment to it. and because we owe it to america's taxpayers to spend our defense dollars as wisely and responsible a possible we're also pushing for needed reform across the d.o.d. enterprise from continuously continuing acquisitions to further reducing overhead to proposing new changes to the act that defines much of our institutional organization. i know goldwater nicholls reform is a focus of this committee and chairman, i appreciate that. goldwater/nicholls was important, had positive results, but after 30 years as you've said it needs updates. there are some areas the pendulum may have swung too far like not involving the service chiefs enough in acquisition, decisionmaking and accountability. and there are areas as you've noted where subsequent world events suggest nudging the pendulum further hike taking more steps to strengthen the capability of the chairman and the joint chiefs of staff to help address transregional threats, threats in multiple domains and multiple threat within overlapping time frames. as you know, last fall we began a comprehensive department-wide review of organizational issues like these to identify any potential redundancies, inefficiencies, or other areas of improvement to help formulate d.o.d.'s recommendations to you. i expect its internal findings by the end of march. this work is important, though much is within our existing authority to do so, we look forward to working closely with congress to implement needed reforms. as we discussed over breakfast last week, chairman, and senator reed, i look forward to working with you on this important matter. let me close on the broader shift reflected in this budget. the defense department doesn't have as i've said the luxury of just one opponent or the choice between current fights and future fights. we have to do both. that's what this budget is designed to do and we need your help to succeed. i thank this committee again for supporting the bipartisan budget act that set the size of our budget. our submission focuses on the budget's shape, making changes that are necessary and consequential. we hope you approve it. i know some may be looking at the difference between what we proposed last year and what the budget deal gave us. a netoal of about $11 billion less is provided by the bipartisan budget act out of a total of almost $600 billion. but i want to reiterate that we've mitigated that difference and we'll be prepared to explain now, and that this bum et meets our needs. the budget deal was a good deal. it gave us stability. we're grateful for that. d.o.d.'s greatest risk is losing that stability this year. and having uncertainty and sequester return in future years. that's why going forward the biggest budget priority for us strategically is congress averting the return of sequestration. to prevent $100 billion in automatic cuts that are looming so we can maintain stability and sustain all these critical investments over time. we've dope this before, and that same support is essential today to address the security challenges we face and to seize the opportunities within our grasp. as long as we work together to do so, i know our national security will be on the right path. and america's military will continue to defend our country and help make a better world for generations to come. thank you. >> thank you, general dunford. >> chairman mccain, ranking member reid, distinguished members of the committee, thanks for the opportunity to join secretary carter and secretary mccord appearing before you. i'm honored to represent the extraordinary men and women of the joint force, our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, civil servants remain our single most competitive advantage. thanks to your support the united states military is the most capable fighting force in the world. with your continued support the joint force will continue to adapt, fight, and win in current operations while smumtly innovating and investing to meet future challenges. i don't believe we should send americans into a fair fight. rather, we should maintain a joint force that has the capability and credibility to assure our allies and partners deter aggression and overmatch any potential adversary. this requires us to continuously improve our joint war fighting capabilities, restore full spectrum readiness and develop the leaders who will serve as the foundation for the future. the united states is now continue fronted with challenges from both traditional state actors and nonstate actors. department has identified five strategic challenges and secretary carter has already addressed those. russia, china, iran, and north korea continue to invest in military capabilities that reduce our competitive advantage. they're also advancing their interest through competition with a military dimension that falls short of traditional armed conflict in the threshold for traditional military response. examples include russian actions in ukraine, chinese activities in the south china sea, and iran's maligned activities across the middle east. at the same time, nonstate actors such as isil and al qaeda pose a threat to the homeland, the american people, our partners and our allies. given the opportunity, such extremist groups would fundamentally change our way of life. as we contend with the department's five strategic challenges, we recognize that successful execution of our defense strategy requires that we maintain credible nuclear and conventional capabilities. our strategic nuclear deterrent remains effective but it's aging and requires modernization. therefore, we're prioritizing investments needed for a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent. we're also making investments to maintain a competitive advantage in our conventional capabilities, and we must further develop capabilities in the vital and increasingly contested domains of cyber and space. as the joint force acts to mitigate and respond to challenges we do so in the context of a fiscal environment that has hampered our ability to plan and allocate resources most effectively. despite partial relief by congress from sequester level funding, the department has absorbed $800 billion in cuts and faces an additional $100 billion of sequestration-induced risk through fiscal year 21. absorbing significant cuts over the past five years has resulted in our underinvesting in critical capabilities. and unless we reverse eq

Related Keywords

Myanmar , Istanbul , Turkey , China , Kosovo , Syria , Croatia , Russia , Washington , District Of Columbia , United States , South China Sea , Brunei General , Brunei , Serbia , Sri Lanka , Ukraine , South Sudan , Nigeria , Egypt , Nepal , Ghana , Libya , South Korea , Singapore , Greece , New York , Malaysia , Philippines , Iran , Afghanistan , Georgia , Colombia , Indonesia , Perm , Permskiy Kray , Ramadi , Al Anbar , Iraq , Pakistan , Bangladesh , Israel , Colorado , North Korea , Ohio , Anbar , Balkh , Capitol Hill , Yemen , Colombian , Nigerian , Americans , America , Egyptians , Burma , Chinese , Russian , Iraqis , Korea , Afghan , Soviet , Syrian , American , Goldwater Nicholls , Samuel Nelson , Joseph Dunford , Rachel Oswald , Gayle Smith , Jesse Jackson , John Yoo , Walter Mondale , David Purdue , George Mcgovern , David Perdue , Ashton Carter , Ashraf Ghani , George Ingram , Al Qaeda , John Lynn , El Nino , Jeanne Shaheen , Jean Shaheen , Taylor Johnson , Laura Bush , Gary Hart ,