tv Washington This Week CSPAN July 22, 2013 2:00am-6:01am EDT
that the egyptian government is a more moderate one that might otherwise arise. is there a danger we could get to the algerian scenario, with what happened in algeria in '91 where what happened in algeria went to 10 years of a civil war. of the muslim brotherhood and the more extreme forms which have become very violent and 200,000 people died. >> there is a danger. the actions of the egyptian authorities in the coming weeks will be important in determining that danger. it is crucial that they do what we were talking about a moment ago and release political leaders and journalists. make sure that their human rights are protected. that is crucial. if they do not do that, than the dangers of what you are describing become great.
>> let us move to iran. the chairman asked for clarification on the uk position of the so-called red lines that iran has crossed. not setapply, you did out any criteria related to weaponization. you referred to the stockpiling of uranium being high. is not the position of the iran'sent that's enriched uranium is proof that iran is seeking nuclear weapons? they have not explained it any other way. theirs the problem with nuclear program. it is impossible to explain, for
purely peaceful purposes -- you all right. -- you are right. kilogramsdred and 82 -- 182 kilograms. there nuclear program cannot be explained in civilian terms for civilian purposes. answeri take it from the -- can i take it, from the answer, that a large stockpile of in your reached uranium is not a red line? it only becomes a red line when , byapon ice the uranium which time it is too late. >> is not the government's approach to set red lines on
this issue. think that is helpful. >> you do not believe -- you do not agree with president obama? so, our policy is not different from the united states. we have to look at all of these things. it is difficult. ,o set a red line and to say that is the decisive thing, even if improvements are made, i don't think that will help us reach a negotiated outcome. that is what we are trying to do. let's talk of red lines is unhelpful. do not try to set red lodge. -- red lines. to thei take you european negotiation?
there has been a recent offer. the parameters of the offer seem to be different than previous positions that we have taken. the currentify negotiating position that we are supporting? i don't want to draw a distinction between different packages and offers that have been made at different times. they are all seeking to bring about a successful negotiating process. they're offering relief from sanctions in return for assurances about the 20% enrichment. it is similar to what has been discussed before. it has elements added to it. >> we have spent seven years in
offers andms of proposals to the irradiance. throughout that whole. -- throughout that whole time, i have -- they have increased their stockpiles. of the not an indication fact that this approach is failed question mark may be the idea of ratcheting up sanctions in definitely or marginally changing them isn't going to change the fundamentals. we need a new approach to this issue. , the strategy for alleviating all concerns has not succeeded yet. i wouldn't say it is failed. review on this. it is a legitimate question.
is there a different policy could succeed? i have not seen one with a better chance of success then the twin track approach that we that have beenns intensified and realistic offers in negotiations. we demand transparency about iran's nuclear program. of the britishw three.ment and the e- that is our collective you. -- view. we are open to suggestions, as always, if you have any. >> that is not my responsibility. >> speaking of suggestions --
president, upon his election, has been seen as a moderate. you've said that actions speak louder than words. i suggest there is an opportunity to unlock the that there the sense have been mistakes on both sides. , does would ask you is the selection present us with an opportunity to introduce a measure of goodwill, an act of goodwill, to try and build positive momentum that he may bring to the process? would that be naïve?
is it an opportunity for the ,est, as a gesture of goodwill to unlock a pretty static process? >> -- >> there could be some opportunities. we will respond in good faith to positive action by iran. note, wea cautionary do have to have an eye on the complex power structure in iran. the president might sound like someone who is responsible for all aspects of policy. it is not the case in iran. there is the role of the supreme leader. it remains to be seen how much authority a new president of are -- ofl have or develop
iran will have or develop. there week institutionally. -- they are weak, institutionally. we are ready to improve our relationship on a step-by-step basis. we will prevent nuclear proliferation. a red line, including three international sanction. -- through international sanctions. today, i'm taking that advice. the risk to british nationals have been reduced. iranian-- several
officials have expressed regret for attacking our embassy. we will change our travel advice. we will advise against all but essential travel. rather than all travel. we know that there are multiple centers of authority. the presidential election notwithstanding, somebody once said -- >> that was made -- me. >> might it be worthwhile for us to instigate some positive action in order to reinforce the in what is a compete --
complex competitive -- political system we have competing factions. >> we are open to taking positive steps. that may be positive steps we will take. we will watch carefully for iran's ability to reciprocate the steps. reluctant to characterize moderates versus hardliners. iran mightdliners in notice and it would be counterproductive. they would be on the alert for that. ran,er is in power and however -- whoever is in power in iran, whatever labels we give
them, we are open to improvements in relations and we will look for ways to improve. embassye key in the question mark -- embassy? excuse.no having said that, there has been positive noises out of iran. wouldn't one approach be to look at the opening of the embassy and trying to establish a more normal relationship? aware, the uk has diplomatic relations with iran. >> it was not we sought.
as you appreciated in your -- given thatink the new president has not taken office yet, given all the cautionary points, it is too decision toe to a send the british diplomatic staff back into iran. we have no problem, in principle, doing that. there are many arguments in andr of diplomatic exchange discussion being made easier between our countries. confidentave to be that it was safe for our staff to operate. what happened before was a flagrant breach of the vienna convention. we have to think of that
incident in november 2011. the mistreatment of our staff before that. imprisonmentl and of a member of our staff. take the decision lightly. we have to be confident that the situation has changed. robust assurances would have to be given. thate back to the fact iran has constant power struggles. we're are trying to influence those. we're trying not to make it obvious that we are reinforcing the position of the moderates against the hardliners. indicatione us any of what gesture of goodwill we
could implement to foster progress in a long-running standoff? this,hink why the develop if appropriate, over time. indicated an openness to improve relations. that iran hased made one small announcement. i've made that clear now. over time, we may be able to develop improving relations. we will be looking for a response.te i do not have announcements to make. >> mark henry. much i relations onroved, they are hell-bent
nuclear capabilities. this is been going on for seven years. it looks like a rerun of north korea. case where to be a we get to a point where, like have whatkoreans, we denies nuclear systems. point, either the israelis decide to take measures into their own hands or they get away with it. saudi's,see egypt, the and others in the region develop their own nuclear weapons. >> you stated the problem. reaching that fork in the road. that is why we're committed to this policy of negotiations and sanctions.
if they do not succeed in the face that thoughts. --h if they do not succeed if they do not succeed, then we face that thoughts. we have not ruled out any options. the house,cussed, in that situation. we're not calling for advocating military action. we believe it is in poor doing continue on the process of negotiations and sanctions. that is the strongest policy that we can assemble. our sanctions are having a big effect. our negotiating is reasonable. that is the approach that we must persist. it is an approach that must be tried out on the nude administration. -- the new administration.
the new uranium ministers -- ministers and how they react will be important in determining the world's reaction. >> i have some questions for you. i wonder if you will indulge me. recall our exchange. interest in the impact in jordan of the crisis caused by refugees. we are the highest contributor to the humanitarian effort. eddie had any conversations, a
discussions, any contact with jordanian officials about consequences, economically, and , regarding this enormous strain caused by refugees? number of thethe population of jordan. >> we've had a number of those discussions. i discussed a chamber of times. i discussed it with king on bill abdallah of jordan. this is one of the principal concerns. there a leading nation in world, in contributing to the humanitarian effort. we havecular to jordan, contributed 27 million pounds. weight earmarked 15 million
pounds to assist jordan specifically. sent theon, we equipment that they have asked for. ofitary equipment and things that kind to assist the jordanian armed forces. they are getting further of equipment. weeks, ist couple of have asked for them to let us know if they would like us to give them things. they are concerned about impacts in that country. we should pay tribute to the people of jordan and of other neighboring countries to syria for their hospitality. there are over half a million registered refugees. there are hundreds of thousands living with families. the possible real total is one million.
the historical association of jordan has added a dimension that is important. jordan entered a peace treaty with israel. side of thept its bargain, as well. anything that has the effect of destabilizing could have an well regulated relationship, as a result of the peace treaties. >> there is an important internal reform process which we should welcome. the commitments of the king to bring about a constitutional multiparty mocker see in jordan is sincere. welcomed, it missed
-- amidst all of the crises that we discuss, is important to recognize governments and monarchs that have said about enlightenment reform. there are further discussions. economic reforms. we will provide advice whenever it is requested. the stability and future prosperity of jordan is a major factor in british foreign- policy. >> thank you for that. you provided me with some comfort. how would you assess the prospect of political settlement in afghanistan? are they better off this year than last year? >> i'm not sure that we put any
percentage on them last year or this year. are possible. we've been up security forces and the administration of afghanistan in a way that it will be resilient in the absence of a political settlement. its future-term, for stability, afghanistan needs and local solution. in a been promoting that trilateral process of dialogue. supported the establishment of a taliban political office. the recent events surrounding that, particularly the taliban presentation of that office which is led to negotiations
being stalled are an a political of system. >> what about pakistan? are you convinced that hasstan's collaboration parceled and ever towards clinical settlements question mark >> with reference to your earlier question,, this is something that has changed positively over the last couple of years. we hope will be sustained. general, leaders, in have understood that they need to act more. pakistan needs stability. it should be prepared to do do
what is necessary to bring that about. the prime minister, two weeks ago, was the first foreign leader to visit pakistan. i'll be visiting, in the near future. although discussions are seeking corporation of the entire dagestan he states. supporting a political process. >> the prime minister taught me how to do the whole house and his visit. i'll be happy to discuss the issue of the historic travel areas. factor in always a our discussions. is one of the reasons that we have good relations between pakistan and afghanistan. i i'm not expect numbers --
do not expect numbers, by can you tell me what factors will be taken into account regarding our military presence in afghanistan? >> this will depend on discussions in nato and with other countries. concluded weto be get -- those have the those have yet to be concluded. number of british troops involved are relatively small. to add 70mitted million pounds to finance afghan national security forces. the odd that, we have not made a decisions. that, we have not made any decisions.
we have not made those decisions yet. ofsubject to the question giving classified information, we make an answer? yes. we will announce, as we have or the drawdown. >> any idea of what that would be? >> not yet. >> the bull say as soon as the , as soon asy possible. >> in due course. >> we were discussing the rocky road of democracy when we're talking about egypt. would you think are the key
lessons to learn from our involvement in afghanistan? consider that the seeds of democracies are sputtering to life, quite a contrast in a rack in iraq and-- afghanistan. >> i'm sure that they would be very grateful. it is an important lesson. sometimes a military intervention is necessary. that has been achieved in afghanistan with al qaeda. leadership and core about qaeda -- of al qaeda has
been damaged. broadly,e issue more sometimes it will be necessary. there'll be other situations where we can work in different ways. what we're are doing in somalia li arelly -- ma representative of an alternative approach. i'm not saying this could be done in afghanistan. we are emphasizing the need for legitimate government. we are financing and training troops from that region to do the job. they're giving developmental support. can makehat when we that model work. rather than putting western boots on the ground, we should
be seeking to do so. lily, the united states -- clearly, the united states is in negotiations. that, for the sake of argument, american presence will be reduced. we have a different interest in pakistan. aaving million -- we have million reduce pakistanis -- british pakistanis. do you believe that the afghanistan will difficultsier or more , because of a resurgence of the
taliban in afghanistan. ? >> i think it will depend on the course of events. , and thee succeeded afghans did secede -- in the afghans can maintain their constitution, i think you're right. pakistan must be a constant factor in our foreign-policy. whatever the situation. that relationship will become easier. it is easy to focus on the commercial potential for both countries. hopeful that, in the coming
decades, the british relationship in pakistan will focus on the commercial relationships. on securityfocusing concerns. >> you focus on traditional skills and knowledge. you clearly have gone through a first-place process from language schools to --. be the second phase of this? what would you introduce? >> we are set a lot of the going, as you say. not have the language language
open yet. it will open in september. , since simon has not had a chance to speak, i think he did say a few sentences about this. one of the things that we need to add to this is the necessary skills for the future. skills. is among those there are other diplomatic skills required. thought about how those skills are required and how we make the best use of them. i'm glad to say that the front office is been applauded in the guardian, no less, at being the best at his talent. he's the best of the talent management. i think that we need to make that the front office is
making the most of them and we sure that we have the necessary grading of the scales. these are the sort of things, in general terms, about where we might go. >> i do not have a great deal to add. diplomaticthat the excellence program that we have been running is trying to bring together these skills and language skills. we're are trying to shape the workforce and where the workforce it's to be. we'reer to make sure that are focusing our resources and countries which are more important to us. all listings come together. i believe that we are making progress in this. i believe that some of the
commentary has been positive. i think that as we explore forward, make one step we discover for the things that i think that and ther we have language fourth at that the foreign secretary said, we can maintain. -- that the foreign secretary said, we can maintain. tomaintain and develop continue to not be assessed. before, i said believe that having a core set of competencies, against which on aeople are assessed
level playing field, is a good thing. it should not be an absolute judgment. tohave been taking steps make sure that we're looking at their competencies as well as skills. appointments are not made on the basis of abstract confidence. they look at tubal possibility to do a particular job in excellent way. one point on this, we have recently introduced a new appraisal. whilst it maintains some differences. it explicitly places some emphasis on skills and experiences. we are moving to balance this in a way which i hope you would appreciate. >> key competencies and skills. interest a registered
in the career. i recently attended an annual meeting funded by the uk career form and by the foundation. you are where the british government -- you are aware that the british government has responded to the korean and it's a lot. reagan -- korean peninsula. membershe four established the commission at the end of the korean war. south. from the the other members are the united states and the u.n..
euphemistically in this context and extends to the deliberate torpedoing of the other side's vessel. it extends the term to the old -- artillery shots on to populated islands. there were military and civilian deaths. ,y question to you is this following those so-called provocations, i would suggest that the british government was absence in by its dischargingway from its responsibilities as a member
of the armistice commission. i asked you should there be a further central provocation which would lead to the guaranteed response of the south koreans. on such an occasion, the british itssion will take responsibility to settle the negotiations. at first you can assure us that i trust you can insurers that you have a contingency plan. i'm sure you would except the importance and make
sure this does not lead to a collapse in the 38th parallel. but this is important. -- >> this is important. responsibilities seriously. your question is about an armistice commission. as a member of the security council, we are involved. where one of the biggest supporters of the republic of of korea's case. we are one of the biggest supporter of the republic of korea's case. if there are further discussions, we will that with the security council and work counseling -- closely
with the united states and south korea. i think it would be premature to comment further before such an instance or such consultations have begun. you can be assured that we will take that seriously. >> thank you very much. you have been forthcoming. i trust that you will get some time in the coming recess. -- witho much going on so much your non-, we wish you well. >> thank you very much. >> a hearing on the state department 2014 budget. by the joint chiefs of staff. then, q&a. with author john tolliver. washington journal,
bob cusack looks at the washington agenda. followed by the political healthcare editor on shopping for health insurance under the federal healthcare law. american waterhe works association. he discusses the water system and infrastructure. washington journal at 7:00 eastern. >> congress returns this week with two weeks until the august recess. 2014 spending bill for defense spending programs. two separate environmental bills on the agenda. one on coal regulations. the senate returns on tuesday at 10 a.m. -- at 10:00 a.m. eastern . they will discuss housing and urban development programs. you can watch coverage of the house on c-span.
a house appropriations subcommittee passed a bill on friday. it includes $34 billion and nonmandatory spending. 6.5 billion for counterterrorism and humanitarian responses. this hearing is under 25 minutes. >> good morning. welcome to the subcommittee markup of fiscal year 2014. i want to thank ranking members for their dedication to the subcommittee and she and i have a strong working relationship. we are invested in the work on the subway. i respect her very much. i want to thank all the members of the subcommittee. from both sides of the aisle.
they've offered thoughtful contributions to this bill. issues like mbc security in anda and global health illegal wildlife tracking. thank you all for your continued engagement. as you know, the bill before us reduces spending and reflects the real economic and financial problems we have at home. challenge, the bill protects the critical priorities first. spending related to national security we are not able to fund everything at the levels that we have every previous years. this includes programs that i support. there are many security priorities. first and foremost, we need to keep american diplomatic staffs safe.
at outposts last fall were tragic and we hope they never happen again. this bill recognizes the security risks that are diplomatic outposts face and at $4.8e request billion. we recognize the instability and unpredictability of the environment in the middle east. we continue strong support for our key allies in the region. israel and jordan. at the same time, security challenges continued home. our partners in latin america are strengthening law enforcement in fighting drug trafficking. the bill focuses on the mock receive promotion and promotes american values abroad. programs areds also privatized. the bill addresses efforts to address wildlife crises. this is more than a conservation
issue. .his is a conservation issue it threatens the stability of african countries and supports criminal and terrorist networks. of thefect the security united states. we provide funding to strengthen antipoaching law enforcement and repeat deuce consumer demand. we're trying to meet these urgent needs. in order to do that, we put on pause many lower priority programs. this bill contains many important policy provisions around the world. we cannot protect out things will turn out. we provide the administration the ability to respond but, we strengthen respond -- we strengthen conditions. everyone is closely watching the situation in egypt. the relationship between united states in egypt has never been
more critical. for that reason, this bill continues funding if certain conditions are met. first and foremost, we see the egyptian military uphold security arrangements. including the peace treaty with israel. military the relationship that egypt has with israel and united states to continue continue. make it clear that we want egypt to embrace democracy and not just electronic elections. we remain hopeful for the egyptian people as they go through this transition. efforts to restart negotiations between israel and the palestinian authority's. possible through unilateral statehood efforts. this bill tightens conditions on aid for the palestinian authority. assistance will
stop if the palestinian authority achieves statehood at the palestinian authority. result, the bill is not provided funding that is consistent with the law. the bill continues to support our key strategic partner, israel. this committee understands how critical it is to support israel . whether it is iran or the instability in the region. israel security faces serious threats. the support from congress never been stronger. the subcommittee understands the risk and what is at stake for israel and the united states. the bill supports are critical includes money for
economic and security assistance. jordan's economy is under tremendous staying -- strain. they are dealing with conflict in syria. george needs our support and we include additional funding for the cost associated with the hundreds of thousands of refugees that they have welcomed into the country. our partners in latin america remain a priority. security as an impact. want to work with the new government to address our shared concerns and build a lasting security that benefits both of our countries. we command the government of -- we commence the government of colombia. this bill includes funding and overseas contingency operations.
it allows critical programs to be funded in iraq and afghanistan. as well as laces where terrorism threatens u.s. interest. asnding goes down 42% missions are scaled back. forces are drawing down in afghanistan and we ensure that , those werepartment assistance,ering are secure. a portionwould hold of the funding until we get a transition plan and more details on how we're going to keep keep our people safe on the ground. in addition, this bill focuses on oversight, accountability, and the rights of african women and girls. -- the bill continues
provisions for pakistan. moving to multilateral assistance, this bill supports contributions to the international financial institutions that benefit the poorest countries. it imposes conditions on multilateral developments. the bill increases accountability for the money that we provide the united nations and other international organizations. thanks for language that we started, we change how we do moreess with the u.n. and u.n. agencies are putting their audits online for american taxpayers to see. the bill includes language to make sure that funds do not mrs. lovelytions and i have differences on these issues.
we have agreed to disagree. these little as we have made and had to make in this budget in a rapidly changing will is set awesome -- often, but i want to express my gratitude to the staff. they were given a difficult task and did it excellent job. i want to thank the clerk. susan adams. jamie quinn. joe wang. they were to very hard and well together. mike co. --urn to
go touses refused to conference to forge a bipartisan agreement on the budget resolution and has placed chairman rogers and the members of this committee a difficult situation, . spending in the ryan budget is on realistic starting point. -- on realistic realisticpoint -- un starting point. this bill represents a 20% reduction from pre-sequestration levels. percent of thee federal budget. again,e noted time and these are essential for our national security and economic security. reduce ourill not
deficit or pay down our debt. they couldn't leave us vulnerable to the spread of extremists and we get our making itn the world, more difficult to achieve our goals on a global stage. i appreciate the chairwoman's efforts to include some of my top right -- top priorities. the ongoing brutal war in syria is threatening its neighbors. in egypt leaves questions that country's stability. violence is increasing in iraq. for ancreases its quest nuclear weapon. our assistance to israel is warm for the ever -- is more
important than ever. i support jordan. funding for basic education is essential to our success in all other development efforts. we cannot build strong and stable societies if children do not have the basic tools to succeed. global health assistance saves thousands of lives every year. addition, the woefully funds given to these accounts. proposes a dramatic retreat from multilateral organizations. withholding u.s. contributions to these organizations compromises our overall objectives.
harder ships with these organizations are vital to diplomatic imperatives. efforts are strengthened by multilateral investments. fund fornational agricultural development. it went unfunded in this bill. the one office of humanitarian affairs coordinates the work of the u.s. to make sure that there are no gaps in services for people in extreme need. did the future provide security. -- food the future. these organizations leverage our
investments and the to greater impacts that we can achieve -- and lead to greater impacts than we can achieve on our own. , these investment support the u.s. economy. for every dollar that we , the u.s. economy -- ines 1.60 and return return. this has got to personnel at the state department. well i support the funding for embassy security, one has to ask whether there will be anything to protect. diplomats are cheap. they are a key element of our national security strategy. they protect our interest by
understanding the -- the difference between the enormity of the challenges and our military and what they are looking at in israel, 26 and 2009. 20 in 2010. 14 in 2011. 20 seven and 2012. there is an 80% increase when they changed this, between 11 and 12, but i only got back to the numbers they had a few years previously before the change was made. are you aware in the research you have done that changing your system has resulted in an increase in reporting anywhere in the world? >> there is no analytical evidence nor anecdotal evidence that it has increased reporting. what's my count reports tell me it has the system down. you mentioned that you all of taken a look at prosecutors
decisions in isolation. i have some knowledge of this. this -- discipline in my office needed when i found out prosecutors at our intake desk were getting lobbied by some of the trial prosecutors on their decision. they did not want any losers. takedid not want them to cases that would reflect poorly on their won loss record. when you are a prosecutor, there is a win-loss record. when you take a case to trial, you either win or lose. peers ands among your in some instances your upward mobility in your job could depend on your conviction rate. isolate them with this decision, then there certainly could be instances where you would have a prosecutor that did not want to take a close one. that did not want the he said,
she said. do you have additional information that you can share with this committee in terms of numbers of the number of times that civilian prosecutors have said no, military prosecutors have said no, but there are victims out there today that have had justice because the commander said yes? >> i do. a couple ofyou examples. the marine corps has had 28 cases. 28 cases were civilian prosecutors declined to take the case. those, 16 of them the marine corps was able to obtain a conviction with court-martial. 57%. those are 16 perpetrators that are no longer walking the streets and 16 victims who received justice who would not have received it otherwise. the more startling numbers are from the army. at 49 cases looked in the last two years. -- 14 of them are
still in process. we do not know what is going to happen. they're in the trial system. 35 of them have been completed. .1% resulted in a conviction two additional ones for plea bargained down to a punitive discharge. that takes the number up to 77% of these cases that civilian prosecutors would not take that resulted in some serious action taken against a perpetrator. there are some that were acquitted understandably. most of the once who were found guilty have done hard time, are doing hard time, and have been given a punitive discharge from the military. -- some of these are heinous cases. one of them was a 10-year-old autistic girl who was sexually assaulted. we took the case. the commander insisted on it. a conviction was obtained. this is hard. we all have the same goal.
want to say, as i close this questioning, that anybody who characterizes me as someone who is protecting the pentagon, that somehow i am in cahoots with the pentagon trying to hurt sexual assault victims -- with all due respect you guys, i think you are terrific, but there is nobody who will be further further in front of the line to kick you until you are senseless if we do not get this problem under control. victims versus the pentagon. anybody who is characterizing it as that is doing a disservice to victims and is doing a disservice to the military and doing a disservice to the members of this committee who have spent hours trying to find the right way to make sure that we prosecute more cases effectively within the military. i think you both much. >> if i could take 10 seconds great i would like to reinforce what general dempsey said.
we actually are very grateful for the attention that the entire committee has given to this. it has been very helpful to us. i want to say that i look forward to our next chance to have you and other people with prosecutorial experience over to the pentagon as we have done before and get your thoughts and show you what we are doing, get your expertise. i think that >> is a productive opportunity. >>you do not need to worry about me being invited. -- i think that is a productive opportunity. >> you do not need to worry about me being invited. you guys are calling plays on this. i was just infuriated at the article that was written that this is somehow you guys pulling strings over here, telling us what to do. fromng could be further the truth. i appreciate both of you and your commitment to this. believe me, we are not going anywhere. thank you very much. secondsmay take 30 before senator champus speaks, there was an implication in an article in politico that the
amendment that was adopted by this committee was somehow or the other cleared or shared with the pentagon. that is not true. are you aware of that? >> not that i am aware of. >> no. >> a two-page article suggesting that somehow or other the pentagon screened or impacted the language, which we offered in a public session in this led to theand adoption of a bipartisan amendment. part of an article suggested that somehow the pentagon wrote something or screen something -- screened something. what they did is ask the subcommittee who adopted language for its reaction. we do that every time the bill is marked up. the subcommittee wrote its language under senator joe legrand's leadership, wrote it's nd'suage -- gillibra
leadership, wrote it's language and counsel to the pentagon. but the amendment adopted by this committee on a bipartisan vote was not shared with the pentagon. do not know that the folks at politico who wrote that two-page article were implying to the contrary, i don't know if they want to correct their article, but in fairness, i believe they should. senator? up point of on personal privilege, on behalf of senator mccaskill, the implication that she is bought hasby the pentagon -- she been the spark plug in this whole thing from day one. i want her to know how much i appreciate that. >> her prosecutorial experience is invaluable to this committee, not just on the subject, but on a lot of other subjects including this contracting
problem that she has delved into with such tenacity and effect. senator chambliss? thank you for your leadership and your impassioned leadership on this issue of sexual assaults. i'm not going to go into questioning that i think has been thoroughly vetted. we know where you are. you are trying to rectify a very serious situation. i think you've got a thorough understanding that this committee as a total committee is upset with what is going on in that realm in every branch of our military. we've got to fix it. the system is broken. the chairman's leadership on this, and as he said in a bipartisan way, i think it addresses this fairly, that we look forward to that debate on the floor. general dempsey, in your answers to advanced questions from the committee, you said, we are at risk of strategy insolvency.
the sequestration is implemented as currently presented by law, -- word strategy consultancy insolvency sounds like sending unprepared troops into combat and not being able to take action against threats to national security and not being able to assist allies and partners in unstable regions. is that what you meant? >> yes sir. more simply, it is the mismatch of aspirations and abilities. i want to go back, general dempsey, to syria. has been thoroughly talked about, but i'm a little bit confused when i heard your response to senator mccain's questioning. here is the way i see where we are with respect to syria right now and your participation in the process.
you have been in place about two years, as we all know. during that two years, the conflict in syria has been going on the entire time. there has been virtually an uncontrolled slaughter going on inside of syria. i note that even the president's to be ambassador to the united nations said yesterday in her hearing that the failure of the un security council to respond to the slaughter in syria is a disgrace that history will judge harshly. i agree with that. it is also a fact that the united states has sat by and watched what is happening over had our handsly behind our back. you have been in place for two years. you have been the principal military advisor to the president on this issue and others. has the president followed your advice on the involvement of the united states in syria? >> the president has asked for
, and i have provided them -- we have provided them. on the issues, has he followed whethere, the issue is -- two issues at work -- could we and should we? i have advised him on, could we? we haven'tody else, gotten into a conversation about, should we, except as it relates to the current path, which is one focus primarily on building a moderate opposition. -- focused primarily on building a moderate opposition. >> i'm thinking that you mean that the president has listen to you options but apparently have not picked aside or been forceful in what you think the president ought ought to do. am i correct? >> let me talk about the role of
the chairman. it keeps coming back to that. tois my responsibility provide options about the use of force and how they would contribute to a broader strategy. not in isolation. i am unwilling to discuss my advice to the president on whether we should use force while that deliberation is ongoing. what is myt about, responsibility to this committee, my responsibility to this committee is to have the same kind of conversations with andas we have on options what the military instrument of power could do in the context of a broader strategy. but the decision on whether to use force is fundamentally a political decision, and one that is being deliberated frequently with regards to syria. for me to advocate it would actually put me in what i would deem to be an inappropriate position with both the president and this committee. did you advocate for a no-fly
zone or against it? the point, i haven't advocated or oppose any options britt i have explained what they would do to the situation. >> here's is my dilemma, general. you are the top military adviser to the president. significant most internal military conflict going on today. ofhas the capability providing future unrest to that that may beworld permanent. there has been no change in u.s. policy from a military standpoint in syria during your two years. if we approve you for another two years, confirm you for another two years, then is there going to be a change in policy in syria over the next two years, or are we going to keep doing what we are doing, which is watching innocent people slaughtered? burdennnot take that
entirely on myself to determine whether the situation in syria will change over the next two years. you can be sure that as we develop options to be considered in the military instrument power, that i will articulate whether i think they will be effective, what -- what the risks are involved to u.s. forces, what are the opportunity costs. let me tell you what has changed -- we are far more involved on the korean peninsula at higher states of readiness. we are far more involved in the gulf, a higher states of. we continue to manage the conflict in afghanistan. there are some significant risks we are accruing while we also are engaged in trying to , matchne how to meet ways and means face of sequestration. closing, let me say that secretary hegel in a recent announcement directed a 20% cut
in the number of top ranking officers and senior civilians at the pentagon by 2019. i applaud that move. i think that that is something that's got to be done. forward as a committee to working with you, assuming you are confirmed, to carrying out that directive by the secretary. it is not going to be easy or pleasant, but everybody's got to share in this pain. including >> >> our top ranking folks. >> -- including our top ranking folks. -- thereould respond are a couple of things we should do whether sequestration was hanging over our heads or not. one is to make ourselves more efficient at the institutional level. we will need your help on compensation and health care. >> i do not want to leave the committee with the impression that has been in the press that it is only the top brass that are being reduced by 20%. it is the entire staff that are being reduced by 20%. this is a significant cut, and
we offered it. we believe that we have to become more efficient, never waste a crisis. , thenly the joint staff combatant commander staff, we are going to trim it by 20 over the next five years. itif i heard you correctly, is not just that you support it, but you offered it? >> yes sir. >> senator hagan? general dempsey and admiral when i felt, thank you for your service to our country and for being here today. on this past monday, i had the great pleasure to be at the frc stationmarine corps air to welcome the arrival of the first 35 b that was scheduled for modification. f 35 isow important the to the marine corps, to our national security, and to the local north carolina communities that support it. this was certainly reiterated to me during my visit on monday.
like you like the the members of this committee, i am very worried about the damage that sequestration is already doing to the department and to our national security. most of the members of the civilian workforce that i met with on monday had just had their first furlough day the friday before, which i think is a harsh reminder of the inability to find a solution here. we actually have 19,000 civilians working for dod that are on furlough in north carolina. please know that i remain dedicated to finding the balance , the solution to sequestration, and what i really worry about are those in washington who underestimate the damage that sequestration will have if this is allowed to continue. my question is, i think it is important that congress and the hear frome directly senior leaders like yourself about the impact this will have if it is allowed to continue. of you give a few examples
the impact that it might have on the f-35 and other modernization programs, as well as on local communities? >> let me give you a generalized answer. the vice chairman sits at most of the meetings where the trade -- trade-offs are made in terms of modernization. it is too far into fast. at the beginning of this time, we will suffer most prominently in readiness and in modernization. we have to take money where we can get it. later on, as the force shrinks, we will be more ready, but we will be less modernized than we think we need to be, and in my view, we will have forces inadequate to achieve the .trategy as currently conceived . our firstf-35,
priority is to finish the development of that program. we requested some money in the reprogramming authority to get that done. because of the importance of this program, we are doing everything we can to protect the as a department finalizes. -- undereally other the secretary of defense for atl. we are committed to this program. ramp upy want to production lessons we can to get the economies of scale we need in order to order to make this a productive program. is an important program to us. no question about it. >> is my my understanding on sequestration that the dod civilian supervisors, they received notice recently that if they have knowledge that the employees that report to them work more than the allotted hours during their furloughs, even when it is voluntary, that tose supervisors are subject
fines up to $5,000 and potential jail time. when i realized there are legal , we do not want to have furloughed employees involuntarily work without pay, but to me, this seems to go too far. i'm troubled that the supervisors could face these unbelievable penalties because they have motivated workers who are dedicated to the national security at our. despite the furloughs. we cannot fault them when they want to continue their mission. because congress has not acted. what are your thoughts on this matter? how does one find the right balance here? >> i would make a shout out to our civilian employees who are fantastic. these are people who under ordinary conditions work extra hours because they believe so much in what they are doing. they are just tremendous.
i do not have the legal background for this. i believe the restrictions you are referring to our legal restrictions, and i think we are trying to stay within the letter of the law. i could not agree with you more on the overall principle and the sentiment that these -- these are patriots want to do the best they can for their country, cutting out a days pay, and they still want to work more. what more can you ask for? this,oner we can resolve the better. i know the department is working hard, if we can, to reduce the number of furlough days. there are no guarantees. the comptroller is working on that. it is a tragic situation for these great americans. >> even these legal ramifications, they are not supposed to even look at their blackberries? ok. review hass chief's mandated significant growth in our special operation forces
could admiral, in response to the committee's prehearing policy questions, you said, given the financial downturn that we faced, we must balance the need for soft capabilities with our need to address other capabilities and demand in light of increased budgetary pressures. do you believe that previously ofected growth in the size the special operations should be increased despite the budgetary pressures, and how should capabilities be prioritized compared to the other capabilities and demand dereferenced? >> i have to be honest in telling you that if we get into the full bca caps, the folds , -- the full sequester, then we will have to level off soft growth. is the philosophy, if you are level, you are doing pretty well. if you are growing, it is really unusual. the only thing i know of is the cyber forces. everything else will be coming down in size. i think keeping it in perspective that leveling off
softness is probably about as good as we can do if we get to the full bca cuts. >> even with the demands we see around the world? >> our soft forces are fantastic good they are doing important work around the world, no question. some in afghanistan doing counterinsurgency. that'll end at the end of 2014. we were hoping to take that capacity and bring it home and do a couple of important things. one is to wrest the force a little bit. these folks have been hard for the past decade. another would be to enhance our partnership efforts across the world. back on theto trim building partnership capacity. prettyg off, you are lucky if you are leveling off under the circumstances. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator shaheen? admiral,l dempsey and thank you for your service to this country and for your willingness to continue to serve under what are very difficult
times. i very muchsey, appreciate your coming to new hampshire. visiting both our national guard and the portsmouth naval shipyard and meeting with a number of the businesses in new hampshire that help make up the defense industrial base we have in this country. on the committee have expressed their concerns about sequestration. i know it is something that you both care very much about. one of the things that we heard from the businesses in the meetings that you had in new hampshire was their concern about the uncertainty and what that means in terms of the there ability to provide support that our military needs in order to do their job. toonder if you could speak whether this is something that you are hearing from other parts of the country, and how
concerned you are that continuing cuts from a veryration might have damaging impact on the defense industrial base in this country. senator.you, what i found most interesting and that roundtable was two things. the big corporations, i will not name names, they have enough flexibility that they can kind of weather the storm and are likely to still be there when we need them. it is the small businesses who do not have that, fox ability. suspect -- they will look increasingly overseas. the second thing they said was their ability to innovate is being reduced. we are losing in several ways. i think it could have a long- term negative effect. >> thank you. have boththing you talked about is the importance of the people who serve this
country. in theo serve actively armed forces as well as those people who support your mission in a civilian capacity. hadof the concerns i have is relative to the workers that inhave to have the degrees the stem fields, science, technology, engineering, and math. looking at the statistics for the people we will need to do andwork of our military support in the future, the statistics do not look very good. the average age of an aerospace worker is 44 in the industry grade 26% of the aerospace workforce became eligible for retirement in 2008. 58% of the navy's technology professionals will be retirement eligible by 2020. those statistics go on.
can either of you speak concerns sequestration how might be affecting our ability to recruit people who have the degrees and the skills that we will need in the future? if we are looking at sequestration, not just in 2013, but 2014, 2015, 2016, for the next nine years, what does that do to our civilian work that supports your mission? >> reflecting back to the trip ,o the portsmouth naval yard one of the other things i was unaware of was the apprenticeship program where they take some of the folks with the skill sets that you describe , 30 of them as i remember, some significant number, from incredible schools in the northeast, and they build into in support ofion
the united states navy and in support of the coast guard is love. it is going to be simply -- coast guard as well. it is simply a matter of mathematics. they will do less. i think we will lose some of those. >> the real challenge we have under the worst sequester theario is the steepness of cut. what we found over time, and we now understand very well this time around is that it is very hard to get structure out quickly. we cannot get people out fast enough. what that means is the only other leverage you have a readiness and modernization. readiness and modernization are very technical things. jettisoning a number of modernization programs or vastly trimming them down, and we will be reducing readiness, which includes depots, work, which is also technical. i worry about that. as we get smaller, the tendency under the rules we have is that
the last person in is the first person out. that is our seed corn. all these young technically adept folks that are seeking to comment or are already in, they are the first to go go. we will lose them. we will have the effects you talk about where we have a force that stays and retires and there is nothing to back it up. it is something we have to watch closely. i know frank kendall is worried about it. thank you. i share that concern. me ask you both, one of the things that senator mccain and i that hased on languished both in the immigration reform bill that passed the senate as well as in the defense authorization act of deal withttee, would the number of afghans and iraqis who have been helpful to the united states and the who areional force
concerned about their safety once we get past 2014 and the nato force withdrawal. i wonder if you could talk about how concerned you are about that and what kind of message it to other people in the future who might be willing to cooperate with us in these kinds of conflicts if we are not able to help provide safety for those people who have cooperated. with those men and women come i strongly support the effort could let me turn it over to the vice who has been tracking it closely. you a sense, yesterday we had the deputies committee meeting. i was unable to attend, but i sent somebody on this exact issue. special immigrant visas, to get these folks in who have risked their lives to enable our operations in iraq and afghanistan. it has the attention of the national security staff. it has our attention.
we will continue to push it in the right direction. i would say, if you hear anything that is making uncomfortable, do not hesitate to talk to us. we will be happy to answer any questions you have. mccain and iator stand ready to be of any help we can. i know it has the support of this committee. >> thank you senator shaheen. senator sessions? >> thank you for your leadership of this committee. i think that is a testament to bipartisanship, we put together in the defense of america. -- vote together in the defense of america. general dempsey, i want to ask youto reaffirm -- i know will do so -- but reaffirm your responsibility to share with this committee and congress your best military judgment about matters, and that you will internally when asked by the
commander-in-chief give your he will give your best, unvarnished military opinion and not be influenced by politics or pressures of any kind? >> i can assure you that that is what has been my intent and will remain my intent in the future. >> admiral, would you likewise? >> that is what we have been doing and will continue to do. >> that is really important. we have a lot of significant agenda items that are occurring that will set policy for years to come, whether it is the number of personnel, the involvement run the world, whether it is missile defense, and in particular, we are beginning to have hearings on nuclear capabilities, the proposal of the president that he would like to reduce by one third our already substantially reduced nuclear arsenal. it raises serious concern to me. we will be asking you as time goes by your best judgment on
that. it goes beyond the technical world to our role in the and the confidence our allies have in us. general dempsey, one of the more amazing things to me that i believe has caused a great deal of unnecessary problems with the sequester and the reduction in spending was the fact that this 2011, and in august the president said in a national debate that it wasn't going to happen. but it was the law of the united states. he signed it. i frankly wondered how it was going to be fixed. i have my doubts that we would get it fixed. the president has indicated that he wants more taxes and more spending. he will not find any other
reductions in spending to relieve the burdens on the military. i would like to get one thing straight -- with regard to the difficulties you face this year, my understanding is that you made no plans and no cuts in the first six months of this year, even though you were aware that as of 2011, and as a result, you had to make more dramatic cuts, more unwise reductions to try to finish this you within the budget law were told you would have to finish under. has that been a problem for you, and why did we not plan to reduce spending all year instead of making up all of that in the last six months? >> it has been a problem. we found ourselves with 80%
spent with half the year to go. the answer is, how did we get to that position? that was the budget guidance we received. >> you got that from the executive branch? orders frommarching the department, but i assume they got it from the office of the management and budget. abouto remain concerned the impact on the defense department. it is not just that i have, as a member of this committee and personal views, strong affinity for the men and women who serve because half, but of the reductions in spending that were included in the budget control act have fallen on 1/6 of the united states government spending, the defense department. this is a disproportionate reduction in spending, in my opinion, to our defense
department. it is at a level that is troubling to me. i am ranking on the budget committee. i have seen the numbers. other areasok for within our government to find some savings as well. example, medicaid has no cuts, social security has no cuts, medicare has a little, but it did not help the defense department. spendingused to reduce and other departments. food stamps has gone up fourfold in the last 10-12 years. zero cuts. we are at a point where we've to deal withut how this. i do believe you are being asked cut.ke a disproportionate congress should work with the president, the commander-in- to help ushe needs work for a way to spread out some of this belt-tightening so
that other departments and agencies in the government tightened their belts to. -- belts too. >> thank you for your comments. senator, do i have a card? i do not. is senator king here? senator nelson? >> gentlemen, thank you for your public service. let's talk first about upgrading the isr fleet. you moving from manned platforms to a combination of unmanned and manned platforms. the law directs the vice chairman and the undersecretary to certify annually that the navy remains in compliance in supporting the needs of the
combatant commanders. the navy has certified compliance. my interest in this is that in the president's budget, the navy plans to gradually draw down your manned platforms before ,oing over to the p-8 platform and then to field a fleet of tritons, tehe uavs. understanding that the secretary of the navy is supportive of this position. have you all spoken to the combatant commanders to confirm if these isr capabilities fulfill the requirements? >> i have not recently covered slice of thear combatant commander
requirements. they are going to have their integrated priority list due to -- do over the course of the fall. constant updates could i would have to take it up for the record on whether specifically in that area we are answering their needs. >> i would appreciate it. i think that there is some concern in the secretary's office about this transition, and to see that those manned platforms are utilized so that there is not a gap while we are transitioning over and getting the combined fleet between unmanned and manned. once we are withdrawing from afghanistan, there is going to be a lot of isr assets that will come back. and be distributed throughout the combatant commands.
i sure wish that you all would take a look at what sequestration is doing to us in the southern command and the huge success they have had an interdiction of drugs coming north. fact, just in the last year, columbia itself -- colombia itself interdicted 207 metric tons. as it started to come through central america towards the u.s. jaitf, the joint task force going after these interdicted 152 additional metric tons.
by the time it gets to the southern border of the u.s., then they were interdicting another 10 metric tons. partan see that the big has already been interdicted before it ever got there, thanks to a lot of u.s. southern command's' efforts in the joint task force. asould surely appreciate it these assets, isr assets, are going to be available that you will consider southern command as a part to use those isr assets. i know you will. but would you for the record state what are going to be the long-term effects of the sequester on the counter- narcotics mission? i will tell you that we will be able to do less
in the maritime transit zones for the immediate future because of some combination of sequestration and also maintenance that has been deferred over time. about it.rned in fact, i met over the past several months with both of my canadian and mexican counterparts to see if we can collaboratively find a way to mitigate the risks. >> we have had to make some difficult choices. declining and the navy unable to support as many ship deployments as they would like to, as you well know. we have had some considerable success with interdicting drugs coming from central and south america. using in the maritime environment and other environments. we are going to have to allocate resources, balancing ways and means, and we will have to keep our eye on it. absolutely. >> i will tell you where you are going to be additionally fortunates if we are to get an immigration reform
in thend if it stays present posture that it passed the senate where all this additional money is being used to enhance the effectiveness of the land border, what is going to happen to all of those drugs, and indeed human smuggling, it is going to go right around the maritime border. . think this was an oversight they would not accept senator wicker's and my amendment to enhance by $1 billion the coast dhs with unmanned platforms. the navy blimp is also an asset that can be used on that. i have ridden in that blimp. it can dwell for a long time. the amount of gas that it takes
for a 24-hour mission is the same amount of gas that it takes for an f-16 to crank up and just run out to the runway. it is a cost-effective platform for observation of something like the maritime border. pass the if we can immigration reform, we are going to be able to enhance that maritime border, but this is also going to bring into question the desperate need to avoid sequester in a place like southern command, not even to speak of the other commands. i spent some time with admiral raven, and he- mcc walked me through what will happen to special operations command if we have this sequester continued. it is absolutely ridiculous that we would be doing this to ourselves. not only shooting ourselves in the foot, but starting to shoot
ourselves up the torso. wish you would take a look at the isr assets as they come back and allocate some of them to southern command. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator nelson. we are going to have a very round,ound, a second about two minutes for those of us who are here. vote.got a i cannot see the clock, but it is getting close to 12:15. i think we have a vote at 12:15. i will have a two-minute second round. in general, i to find a way to work through the options issue -- i want to find a way to work through the options issue on syria, not in two minutes, but i
want to work through it. i think there is real uncertainty amongst some of us is in termsour role of telling us your personal opinion on things, what your role is in terms of giving advice to the president, in terms of the options that you the pluses and minuses, strengths and weaknesses of each of those options, whether they can be effective, what are the costs? what i am going to ask you to do for the record is to give us an options and list of your personal assessment of the options.cons of those consme of those pros and
come in your personal assessment, it will be obvious that you will not recommend something. i'm not going to ask you point blank which of these options you recommend. you said you are not going to tell us read cannot tell us. or you have not decided. for whatever reason, you will not tell us what your preferred option is, but what you are willing to do is to go through with us the pluses and minuses of each of the various options. that is what i'm going to ask you to do in a fairly thorough way for the record. if you need to give us a classified annex, that is fine. hard to tryrk very to work through this issue of the options in serious. you are aware of the fact -- in syria. you are aware of the fact that i have supported arming and training the opposition. i personally want to consider, and it even have gone beyond
that, talking about standoff airstrikes against certain facilities. that is my own personal opinion. you know where i'm coming from. you and i have talked about it. i'm not try to persuade you. that is my public position. my question to you is whether or not you are willing to give to ofan unclassified list options and the strengths and weaknesses, the cost effectiveness, and so forth of each of those options. >> absolutely, senator. as well as the framework of a strategy in which they might make sense, i'm happy to do it. >> anything else you want to add to it. i do not want to limit you in anyway. it may help >> us work work through this issue. -- it may help us work through this issue. >> the decision whether to use
force is one that i must communicate personally to the president. as you have seen me do in the past, if the president takes my advice and you ask me, i will tell you that he took my advice. if he does not, i am more than willing to tell you know, my recommendation was something else. he is certainly no -- under no obligation. >> you have indicated you are not going to share with us your opinions, if you have one, on whether or not to use force. >> while it is being deliberated. >> i'm not asking you to do that. able to doyou are what i have asked you to do, it may be clear that at least some of those options you think are not wise options just from the list of your pros and cons assessment. >> i think we got to that in some level in a classified briefing. >> we need it unclassified. >> you said you are willing to
show the pros and cons of options, whether they can be effective, what are the costs, and so forth. if you can do that, it may be a step that would be constructive,, positive step. if you can do that, within the next four or five days, that would be great. senator ayotte? >> inx, but i am going to defer -- i am next,ham but i'm going to defer to senator graham. >> if no troops were left behind for whatever reason in wehanistan in 2014, if pulled out and there was the zero option, very quickly, what is the likely outcome in afghanistan? the securityss of forces has been significant. they would not have the level of confidence to sustain themselves over time if it happens that precipitously.
what iould lead, to believe would be, a fractured state, a larger safe haven for al qaeda types, and over time would be a disaster. do you agree with that? >> those are all high risks. admiral, sequestration -- in terms of the air force, it sequestration -- let's start with the navy, over a ten-year time, how many ships will we have in the navy over 1010 years of sequestration? >> i do not have exact number. crazy?d it be >> it would impact our ability to respond to contingencies. >> one third of the fighter forces grounded today. they are beginning to fly again. the fact that sequestration grounded one third of our fighter force -- >> it has grounded nine fighter squadrons. there are other squadrons that are flying at a lower rate. >> what would it take for the
enemy to knock -- nine air force squadrons? wouldere the iranians, i send a thank you note to the congress for grounding more air force planes than they could on their own. issay i am upset about this an understatement. finally, what if general dempsey , if congress could not find a way to reach a deal on funding the government, come october the first, we cannot fund the government, and the politicians in washington cannot come up with a budget and the military, we had no money for our military -- what signal would that be sending to our troops and to our enemies? what kind of national security impact would that be in the times in which we live if there was no agreement to fund the government? what would it mean for our national security? >> i held up this slide showing that these kids that we sent into harms way trust us. , thatd have to assess
bond of trust would be broken. certainly be happy that our demise. -- at our demise. >> thank you, senator graham. senator ayotte? >> admiral, when you look at the security of this country, what would you prioritize first? >> i would prioritize first the survival of the nation. >> would that mean protecting the homeland? >> it would definitely. >> i know you were earlier asked about our mental defense -- missile defense system, and use of the first dollar we should to adds on the sensor discrimination power, correct? >> that is correct. >> i guess i am dumbfounded by it because as i understand it, that was not in the budget proposal put forth by the department. why was that if it was the number one? >> i would have to review the
budget documents to validate that. one thing to remember is we have a new commander of the missile defense agency, a new director. he is doing an exceptionally good job. with his technical experts, he has studied this, and they have come to the conclusion that you can get better shot doctrines if you get better discrimination. he would add that if the threat gets worse, we will need more missiles is located >> -- as well. >> you said you have to watch the threat developed from iran. in the recent interview that prime minister netanyahu gate, he said, i ran is building missiles to reach america. that is consistent with what we heard. 2015 is the potential date. is that right? >> that is an intelligence assessment grid 2015 is the current number. >> 2015 is the number grid with respect, i'm a little
dumbfounded why we keep saying there is no current military requirement for an east coast missile defense site in the priority of our nation is to protect the homeland. as i understand it, if we went in terms of an eis, it would take about six years, wouldn't it? >> i would have to get the exact numbers for you. eiss are done, we would have another threat assessment, continually going on. we would have to come to a decision fairly soon after that as to whether we would do another east coast missile field. >> when i look at the i think theof 2015, tail is wagging the dog in terms of how long it would take to put that up. i know you said first dollar -- what if you had the second dollar on missile defense, what would you do? >> the first thing we would want to do is to get the missiles working and to get them into the silos in alaska, to get the
additional missiles we have talked about. that will take some time in it of itself to that done. the first dollar is the sensors. you have to shoot fewer missiles at the inbound threats. if we can accomplish that, that would really help us. assuming that the threat continues on a trajectory where iran develops an icbm, we know we need -- we well may need an east coast missile defense shield. >> i think what you are saying is that the second dollar -- we could do both at once if we want to do in terms of protecting the homeland, could we not? >> physically we could. >> if we allocated the resources. >> is that the wisest use of the resources? it competes with everything else good as you pointed out at the beginning of this discussion, the highest priority is defense of the nation. >> thank you both for being here. i appreciate your service to the country. >> thank you senator ayotte. havee hopeful that we will
a speedy markup and confirmation , but that will be up to the full committee. that would be my hope. thank you. we think your spouses. your wives who are here. your families. again for their great support over the years. we will stand adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> on friday, senators carl levin and john mccain sent a letter to general dempsey with more questions about syria and afghanistan. they included the joint chiefs assessment of the costs, benefits, and risks of training the syrian opposition. the senators said in the statement that they expected answers "as soon as possible" in order to move promptly with the
confirmation proceedings. journalext "washington ," popkey sect looks at the congressional agenda ahead of the august recess. followed by political healthcare editor joanne keenan on shopping for health insurance under the fund -- the federal health care law. curtis of the american water works association. he discusses federal spending on the country's water system and infrastructure. journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c- span. the carnegie endowment for international peace discusses the israeli- palestinian conflict with a group of independent leaders founded by nelson mandela, known as the others. they include former u.s. president jimmy carter, former president of finland, and former foreign minister to algeria and special envoy to syria. this is the elders first public
event in washington, and you can watch it live starting at 5:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 2. jackie was raised as her mother was raised. she was the same kind of life and hostess. the home. the children. the entertaining with style and panache. that was her heritage and she did it again in the white house, right after her administration, during the johnson years, the whole world corrupted like volcanoes. we had the women who went to work and got divorces and demanded equal rights. we had a flower children and free love and free sex. boy oh boy, was it great for the young! i missed all of that. [laughter] the whole world changed. it became a whole new concept of women. i think mrs. clinton today represents the new woman. >> as we continue our conversation on first ladies,
baldridge and others closest to recent presidential wives talk about the role of the first lady and how it has changed along with the nation, tonight at 9:00 eastern on c- span. >> this week, john taliaferro discusses his newly released biography entitled "all the great prizes: the life of john hay, from lincoln to roosevelt." >> john taliaferro, when did you decide to spend a lot of time with john hay, and who was he? >> i decided he was a delicious subject for a biography when it dawned on me that he had been,
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on