    [Senate Hearing 114-687]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 114-687

       U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY CHALLENGES AND ONGOING MILITARY OPERATIONS

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                                     of the

                          COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                               SEPTEMBER 22, 2016

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/
                                     ______

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    26-841 PDF                     WASHINGTON : 2017
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
      Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
             DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
                              Washington, DC 20402-0001

                          COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

      JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman     JACK REED, Rhode Island
    JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma            BILL NELSON, Florida
    JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama               CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
    ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi         JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
    KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire          JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
    DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York
    TOM COTTON, Arkansas                 RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
    MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota            JOE DONNELLY, Indiana
    JONI ERNST, Iowa                     MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
    THOM TILLIS, North Carolina          TIM KAINE, Virginia
    DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
    MIKE LEE, Utah                       MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
    LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
    TED CRUZ, Texas

                       Christian D. Brose, Staff Director
                  Elizabeth L. King, Minority Staff Director

                                      (ii)

                                    C O N T E N T S

                                     ____________

                               September 22, 2016

                                                                       Page

    U.S. National Security Challenges and Ongoing Military Operations     1

    Carter, Honorable Ashton B., Secretary of Defense................     5
    Dunford, General Joseph F., Jr., USMC, Chairman of the Joint         17
      Chiefs of Staff.

                                     (iii)

       U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY CHALLENGES AND ONGOING MILITARY OPERATIONS

                                  ----------

                          THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2016

                                           U.S. Senate,
                                   Committee on Armed Services,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:32 a.m. in Room
    SD-G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator John McCain
    (chairman) presiding.
        Committee members present: Senators McCain, Inhofe,
    Sessions, Wicker, Ayotte, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst,
    Tillis, Sullivan, Lee, Graham, Cruz, Reed, Nelson, McCaskill,
    Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Donnelly, King, and
    Heinrich.

           OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN McCAIN, CHAIRMAN

        Chairman McCain. Good morning.
        Since a quorum is now present, I ask the committee to
    consider a list of 40 pending military nominations. Including
    in this list is the nomination of General John E. Hyten, U.S.
    Air Force, for Reappointment to the grade of General and to be
    Commander, United States Strategic Command. All of these
    nominations have been before the committee the required length
    of time.
        Is there a motion to favorably report these 40 million--40
    military nominations to the Senate?
        Senator Reed. So move.
        Chairman McCain. Is there a second?
        Senator Sessions. Second.
        Chairman McCain. All in favor, say aye.
        [A chorus of ayes.]
        Chairman McCain. The motion carries.
        The Senate Armed Services Committee meets this morning to
    receive testimony on U.S. national security challenges and
    ongoing military operations.
        I'd like to welcome our witnesses, Secretary Carter and
    Secretary Dunford. Thank you for your service, and thank you to
    the men and women you lead and their families for their service
    and sacrifice during these challenging times.
        This committee has conducted regular hearings on U.S.
    national security strategy and ongoing military operations, and
    we have devoted special attention to the chaos engulfing the
    Middle East and the United States military campaign against
    ISIL [Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant]. It will be up to
    future historians to render a final judgment on this
    administration's stewardship of United States interests in the
    broader Middle East. But, in the opinion of this one Senator,
    it's been an unmitigated disaster. President Obama sought to
    pivot away from one of the most strategically vital regions of
    the world out of a misplaced hope that, ``the tide of war'' was
    receding and that we should focus on, ``nation-building at
    home.'' That withdrawal of United States power created a vacuum
    that was filled by all of the worst actors in the region: Sunni
    terrorist groups such as al Qaeda and ISIL, the Iranian regime
    and its proxies, and now Putin's Russia.
        Just consider, over the past eight years, this
    administration has overseen the collapse of regional order in
    the Middle East into a state of chaos where every country is
    either a battlefield for regional conflict, a party to that
    conflict, or both. The rise of ISIL and the threat it poses has
    made al Qaeda appear modest by comparison. But, both terrorist
    networks have expanded their influence from West Africa to
    South Asia and everything in between.
        The administration may have postponed Iran's nuclear
    programs, but this has come at the cost of unshackling Iranian
    power and ambition, both of which will grow in the coming years
    as billions of dollars in sanctions relief is transformed into
    advanced military capability and support for terrorism. Then
    there is Putin's Russia, which has reclaimed a position of
    influence in Middle East it has not enjoyed in four decades.
        The best that can be said about this devastating legacy is,
    over the past year, in part thanks to our witnesses today,
    President Obama has at least begun to unleash America's
    fighting men and women against ISIL. They are fighting with
    skill and encourage, despite enormous risks, as reports of
    ISIL's use of mustard agent against United States and Iraqi
    troops remind us. As a result, we are gradually eroding ISIL's
    territorial control in removing key personnel from the
    battlefield. This military campaign has too often been slow,
    reactive, and excessively micromanaged by the White House.
    Indeed, we read this morning of plans for yet another
    incremental increase of 500 troops in Iraq, one more step down
    the road of gradual escalation. But, thanks to the tremendous
    talent and dedication of our men and women in uniform, we are
    making progress.
        I have no doubt that ISIL will eventually be expelled from
    its strongholds in Mosul and Raqqa. The day of liberation will
    come later than it should have, but it will come. This will be
    a tactical success, but it is unlikely to lead to strategic
    gains, because the administration has failed to address, and at
    times exacerbated, the underlying conflict. The struggles for
    power and sectarian identity now raging across the Middle East,
    ISIL is merely a symptom of this deeper problem.
        In Iraq, Mosul may be retaken eventually, but that will
    only likely reignite the battle for the future of Iraq, a
    battle in which we have an important stake. The biggest
    problems still lie ahead: combating the malign influence of
    Iran and its militias, addressing the future of the Kurds and
    their place in Iraq, and attenuating the disenfranchisement of
    the Sunni Iraqis that gave rise to ISIL in the first place.
        Libya, we've had success in degrading ISIL's stronghold in
    Sirte, but what remains is a divided nation littered with
    independent militias, flooded with arms, and searching in vain
    for legitimate governance and political unity, conditions that
    will remain fertile grounds for extremism and anti-Western
    terrorism.
        We've also begun targeting ISIL in Afghanistan, but a
    resurgent Taliban, backed by Afghanistan's neighbors, continue
    to destabilize and terrorize the country while Afghan National
    Army casualties remain unsustainably high. It was in this
    environment that President Obama chose to withdraw another
    1,400 troops.
        Nowhere, however, is America's strategic drift clearer than
    in Syria. After more than 400,000 dead and half the population
    driven from their homes, after the worst refugee crisis in a
    century which now threatens the project of European unity, the
    administration still has no plausible vision of an end state
    for Syria. Instead, while Russian and Syrian regime aircraft
    bombed hospitals, markets, and aid warehouses, and other
    civilian targets, President Obama sent his intrepid, but
    delusional, Secretary of State to tilt yet again at the
    windmill of cooperating with Vladimir Putin, even committing to
    share intelligence with Russia for coordinated military
    operations. This agreement would be deeply problematic even if
    it were implemented. It would mean that the United States
    Military would effectively own future Russian airstrikes in the
    eyes of the world. It would also strengthen Assad's military
    position in the country, thereby undermining our own strategic
    objective of a political transition.
        It appears that none of this will ultimately matter,
    because, once again, Assad and Putin are not holding up their
    end of the deal, as nearly everyone predicted. Assad has
    declared an end to the cease-fire. Barrel bombs are falling
    again on civilians in Aleppo. An airstrike reportedly carried
    out by Russia has killed 12 members of a U.N. [United Nations]
    humanitarian convoy. Nonetheless, administration officials are
    desperately trying to salvage this agreement, likely because
    they realize that, without this diplomatic fig leaf, the abject
    failure of their Syria policy will be evident, and because they
    know, as does everyone else, that there is no Plan B.
        This should be yet another lesson, as if we needed it, that
    diplomacy in the absence of leverage is a recipe for failure.
    Our adversaries will not do what we ask of them out of the
    goodness of their hearts or of--out of concern for our
    interests or the suffering of others. They must be compelled,
    and that requires power. Until the United States is willing to
    take steps to change the conditions on the ground in Syria, the
    war, the terror, the refugees, and the instability will
    continue.
        Such will be the unfortunate inheritance of our next
    President, a Middle East aflame, where American influence has
    been squandered. America's adversaries neither respect nor fear
    us. America's friends are increasingly hedging their bets.
    America's policy options have been significantly narrowed and
    worsens. What's worse, America's military will confront these
    daunting challenges with constrained budgets, aging equipment,
    depleted readiness, and a growing set of operational
    requirements driven by other escalating challenges in Europe
    and Asia. We are simultaneously asking our military to wage a
    generational fight against Islamist terrorism while rebuilding
    a ready and modernized force to deter and, if necessary, defeat
    great-power or rogue-state competitors in full-spectrum combat.
        I would be the first to admit that Congress is failing in--
    to match resources to requirements, but the failure of the
    President is worse. After all, it is the duty of the Commander
    in Chief to be the strongest advocate for the needs of our
    military. But, President Obama has been more interested in
    using the defense budget as a hostage to extract political
    concessions for greater nondefense spending.
        Secretary Carter, this may be one of your last appearances
    before this committee. I hope you will use the opportunity to
    offer some clear answers to these troubling questions.
        Senator Reed.

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED

        Senator Reed. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I would like to join you in welcoming Secretary Carter and
    General Dunford.
        Giving the security challenges that face the United States,
    your appearances before the committee are always deeply
    appreciated and very timely, particularly this moment.
        While significant work remains to defeat ISIL, the United
    States and coalition military operations have resulted in
    important gains in both Iraq and Syria. Most notably, ISIL has
    been driven out of a significant amount of the territory the
    group once held. In just the last few weeks alone, ISIL lost
    its hold on the city of Manbij, a number of key border
    crossings in Syria in several key towns in advance of the Mosul
    offensive in Iraq.
        The cumulative effect of these operations has been to cut
    off key lines of communication for ISIL, thereby restricting
    their ability to bring in additional fighters and move
    equipment and personnel across the battlefield. As a result, it
    appears that ISIL is under more pressure now than at any other
    time in the campaign.
        Unfortunately, in Syria it appears that the cessation of
    hostilities is not going to hold. We look forward to your
    assessment of the progress and the military aspects of this
    campaign and whether there is a possibility of a renewed
    cessation of hostilities in the future.
        Our military commanders are also rightly focused on
    ensuring our military operations support the efforts of our
    diplomats and other policymakers to address the continuing
    political challenges in Iraq and Syria. Even after the
    coalition retakes Mosul and Raqqa, the work of our diplomats,
    military, and intelligence community will not be over. Ensuring
    ISIL is dealt a lasting defeat will require not only continued
    military support, but also assistance in achieving the
    political reforms necessary to address the underlying causes of
    ISIL's rise. This will require that the civilian agencies of
    our Government are provided the critical resources necessary to
    perform this work.
        With regard to Afghanistan, I support the President's
    position to maintain approximately 8400 troops in the country
    into next year. This decision sent an important message to the
    Afghans, our allies, the Taliban, and others in the region,
    that the United States remains committed to ensuring a stable
    Afghanistan. We look forward to your assessment of this year's
    fighting season and what more we can do to support the
    development of the Afghan national defense and security forces.
        Despite a challenging security and political environment,
    the Afghan National Unity Government continues to be a reliable
    partner for the United States and our allies. However, I remain
    concerned about continuing reports of corruption in Afghanistan
    and the slow political progress on the broader reform agenda.
    Both these issues present a strategic threat to continued
    international support of Afghanistan. In light of these
    challenges, I hope you will also discuss the efforts of the
    United States and our allies to build institutional capacity
    and enable necessary reforms in Afghanistan.
        In Eastern Europe, Russia continues its pattern of
    confrontation and antagonistic behavior. They persist in the
    use of hybrid tactics to foment discord and political gridlock
    throughout the region. Their aviators have harassed U.S. ships
    and aircraft deployed to the region. They continue to provide
    support and training to Separatists in Eastern Ukraine, in
    violation of the Minsk cease-fire agreements. EUCOM [European
    Command] and NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] have
    undertaken robust efforts to deter such behavior. I look
    forward to hearing your thoughts on the progress of, and future
    plans for, such efforts.
        North Korea remains one of the most dangerous and difficult
    national security challenges that this country faces. Earlier
    this month, North Korea conducted its fifth nuclear test,
    demonstrating that the North Korean regime has little interest
    in resuming Six-Party Talks. While we have made significant
    efforts to put strong and effective sanctions in place to curb
    North Korea's nuclear development, China's unwillingness to
    enforce those sanctions to the full extent of its ability has
    undermined United States and international efforts to bring
    North Korea in line.
        Finally, our long-term military strategy depends on a
    budget that focuses at least five years into the future. Last
    year, Congress passed a 2015 Bipartisan Budget Act, which
    provided the Department with budget stability in the near term.
    However, there is no budget agreement for fiscal year 2018 and
    beyond. Without another bipartisan agreement that provides
    relief from sequestration, the Department will be forced to
    submit a fiscal year 2018 budget that adheres to the
    sequestration-level budget caps and could, and indeed would,
    undermine our defense strategy, including the investments made
    to rebuild readiness and modernize platforms and equipment. We
    must not let that happen.
        Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen.
        Chairman McCain. Welcome, Mr. Secretary. This is the last
    time for this year. We appreciate your--you and General
    Dunford's appearances before the Armed Services Committee. We
    look forward to your and General Dunford's testimony. Thank you
    for--both of you, for your service to our Nation.
        Secretary Carter.

     STATEMENT OF HONORABLE ASHTON B. CARTER, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

        Secretary Carter. Thank you very much. Chairman, Ranking
    Member Reed, all the members of this committee, thank you for
    having us here.
        Chairman and Senator Reed, thanks for taking the time to
    talk with me before this hearing--I much appreciate it, as
    always--and for hosting General Dunford by my side, where he is
    all the time. I'm very pleased, and our country is very
    fortunate to have him.
        Similarly, I want to thank you for hosting the Service
    Chiefs last week. I appreciated your comments to them about the
    inefficiencies and the dangers of continued budget instability
    and gridlock, as well as the risk of sequestration's looming
    return. I look forward to addressing those topics more today
    with you.
        I also appreciate your support for our men and women
    serving around the world, military and civilian alike. You
    always provide it. They are the finest fighting force the world
    has ever known. They're the--no one else in the world is
    stronger, no one is more capable, more innovative, more
    experienced, and has better friends and allies than they.
    That's a fact, and a fact that Americans ought to be proud of.
        As you know, DOD [Department of Defense] is currently
    addressing each of the five challenges that Chairman Dunford
    and I described to you in our budget testimony this spring and
    that the Chairman and Senator Reed have already touched on,
    namely Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and terrorism. On the
    last, in the wake of this week's attacks in New York, New
    Jersey, and Minnesota, we remain as determined as ever to
    continue countering terrorists around the world who seek to do
    harm to our country and our personnel. More on that shortly.
        As Chairman Dunford and I testified this spring, we've been
    planning for our activities to be paid for by the 2017 budget
    that we have submitted and that we developed. That budget
    adhered to last fall's bipartisan budget deal in overall size.
    While in shape, it marked a strategic turning point for DOD,
    making breakthrough investments in new operational concepts, in
    pioneering technological frontiers, in reforming the DOD
    enterprise, and in building the force of the future. It also
    put a high premium on continuing to rebuild the readiness of
    our forces, requiring not only stable resources, but also time.
    Nothing is more important than readiness to me or to the
    Service Chiefs.
        Yet today, just eight days away from the end of this fiscal
    year, that budget has yet to be funded by Congress. I want to
    discuss that with you today. But, because this hearing is
    partly about ongoing military operations, let me begin with an
    operational update on our campaign to deliver ISIL a lasting
    defeat.
        Now, each time Chairman Dunford and I have appeared before
    this committee since back last October, I've described to you
    our coalition military campaign plan, which is focused on three
    objectives. The first is to destroy ISIL's--the ISIL cancer's
    parent tumor in Iraq and Syria, because the sooner we end
    ISIL's occupation of territory in those countries, that is the
    sooner we destroy both the fact and the idea of an Islamic
    State based on ISIL's barbaric ideology, the safer all of the
    world will be. That's necessary, absolutely necessary. It's not
    sufficient. Our second objective is to combat ISIL's metastises
    everywhere they emerge around the world--in Afghanistan, Libya,
    and elsewhere. Our third objective is to help protect the
    Homeland. This is mainly the responsibility of our partners in
    the FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation], the Justice
    Department, Homeland Security, the intelligence community, and
    State and local law enforcement, but DOD strongly supports
    them. I'll address how, momentarily.
        Since last fall, we've taken many steps to continually
    accelerate this campaign, all consistent with our strategic
    approach of enabling capable, motivated local forces, for
    that's the only way to ensure ISIL's lasting defeat. While we
    have much more work to do, the results of our effort are
    showing.
        In Iraq, we've been enabling Iraqi Security Forces and the
    Kurdish Peshmerga. After retaking Ramadi and establishing a
    staging base at Makhmour, the ISF went on to retake Hit,
    Rutbah, Fallujah, and the important airfield and town of
    Qayyarah, setting the stage to complete the envelopment of
    Mosul and the collapse of ISIL's control over it. In the last
    few days, the ISF became--began operations to retake Sharqat
    and other towns surrounding Mosul. The final assault on Mosul
    will commence, as with previous operations, when Prime Minister
    Abadi gives the order.
        In Syria, our coalition has also enabled considerable
    results by our local partners. They retook Shaddadi, severing a
    key link between Raqqa and Mosul, and then Manbij city,
    clearing a key transit point for ISIL's external operations and
    plotters, and providing key intelligence insights.
    Additionally, our ally Turkey is helping local Syrian partners
    clear their border region with ISIL. We're working shoulder-to-
    shoulder with the Turks, supporting these efforts from the air,
    on the ground, and with intelligence. As we do so, we're
    managing regional tensions, tensions that we've foreseen, and
    keeping everyone focused on our common enemy: ISIL.
        Meanwhile, we're systematically eliminating ISIL's
    leadership, with the coalition having taken out seven members
    of the ISIL senior Shura, including its chief of external
    operations, Al-Adnani. He was one of more than 20 ISIL external
    operators and plotters we removed from the battlefield.
        We're also continuing to go after ISIL's attempts to
    develop chemical weapons as we continue to ensure that United
    States, coalition, and Iraqi troops are vigilantly protected
    from that threat. Just last week, in one of the single largest
    airstrikes of our campaign, we destroyed a pharmaceutical
    facility near Mosul that ISIL tried to use as a chemical
    weapons plant.
        We also continue to aggressively attack ISIL's economic
    infrastructure--oil wells, tanker trucks, cash storage, and
    more--and we continue to take the fight to ISIL across every
    domain, including cyber.
        With all this, we're putting ISIL on the path to a lasting
    defeat in Iraq and Syria, particularly as we embark on a
    decisive phase of our campaign, to collapse ISIL's control of
    Mosul and Raqqa.
        With respect to the Syrian civil war, I want to commend
    Secretary Kerry for working so tirelessly to seek an
    arrangement which, if implemented, would ease the suffering of
    the Syrian people and get Russia pushing at last for a
    political transition, which is the only way to end the Syrian
    civil war. There remains a way to go to see if the terms of
    that arrangement can be implemented. Unfortunately, the
    behavior we've seen from Russia and Syria over the last few
    days has been deeply problematic.
        Let me turn to our second objective, combating ISIL's
    metastases.
        In Libya, thanks to United States precision airstrikes
    undertaken at the request of the Government of National Accord,
    ISIL's territory in Sirte has now been reduced to a single
    square kilometer, and I'm confident ISIL will be ejected from
    there.
        Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, we worked with our Afghan
    partners to conduct a large operation against ISIL over the
    last two months, dealing the organization severe blows, killing
    its top leader, and degrading its infrastructure, logistics
    base, and recruiting. There'll be more coming.
        Next, to help protect our Homeland and our people, DOD
    continues to provide strong support to our law enforcement,
    Homeland security, and intelligence partners. This is the
    number-one mission of our Northern Command. The U.S. military
    is supporting our partners in three critical ways. First, we're
    ensuring the protection of our personnel and the DOD facilities
    where they work and reside. Second, we're disrupting ISIL's
    external operations. More on that shortly. Third, we're also
    disrupting the flow of foreign fighters both to and from Iraq
    and Syria. This is part of a broader effort within our
    coalition to not only stem the flow of foreign fighters, but
    also counter ISIL's online messaging, recruitment, and spread
    of its loathsome ideology.
        Going forward, the collapse of ISIL's control over Raqqa
    and Mosul, which we're confident our coalition will achieve,
    will indeed put ISIL on an irreversible path to lasting defeat.
    But, after that, to take up a point that both the Chairman and
    Ranking Member Reed made, there will still be much more to do.
    Political challenges will remain. For that reason, the
    international coalition's stabilization efforts cannot be
    allowed to lag behind our military progress. That's critical to
    making sure that ISIL, once defeated, stays defeated. Truly
    delivering ISIL a lasting defeat requires both strategic
    patience and persistence. We can't predict what will come after
    our coalition defeats ISIL, so we must be ready for anything,
    including any attempts by ISIL to remain relevant even if only
    in the darkest corners of the Internet.
        Let me now address issues DOD faces in institution, and how
    you can help. We have three grave concerns related to processes
    here in Congress. One, budget gridlock and instability. Two,
    micromanagement and over-regulation. Three, denial of needed
    reforms. As you've heard consistently from me and DOD senior
    leaders, all three are serious concerns. But, here today,
    because of how close we are to the end of the fiscal year, I
    want to focus just on the first.
        We need Congress to come together around providing normal,
    stable, responsible budgets, because the lack of stability
    represents one of the single biggest strategic risks to our
    enterprise at DOD. That's why I've been talking about the major
    risk posed by budget instability for over a year and a half.
    You heard the same from the Service Chiefs last week. Such
    budget instability undercuts stable planning and efficient use
    of taxpayer dollars, often in ways taxpayers can't even see. It
    baffles our friends, emboldens our foes. It's managerially and
    strategically unsound. It's unfairly dispiriting to our troops,
    to their families and our workforce. It's inefficient for our
    defense industry partners, too.
        We're now 8 days away from the end of the fiscal year. But,
    instead of stability, we're going into fiscal year 2017 with
    yet another Continuing Resolution [CR]. This, for the eighth
    fiscal year in a row. That's a deplorable state of affairs.
    Chairman McCain, I appreciate your comments to our Service
    Chiefs about the damage the CR can do to our institution.
        As you know, the longer a Continuing Resolution lasts, the
    more damaging it is. It's not just a matter of money, but where
    the dollars are. For example, a CR that goes past December
    would undermine our plan to quadruple our European Reassurance
    Initiative at a time, as the Chairman already noted, when we
    need to be standing with our NATO [North Atlantic Treaty
    Organization] allies, and standing up to deter Russian
    aggression. I know you will return here in November to pass
    defense appropriations and a National Defense Authorization
    Act. I look forward to working with you then.
        However, I cannot support any approach to the defense
    budget that moves us towards sequestration or away from
    bipartisanship and not at the expense of stability that comes
    with it, not if it shortchanges the needs of our warfighters,
    not if it means funding lower priorities instead of higher
    priorities, not if it undermines confidence in the ability to
    pass bipartisan budget deals which could lead to the imposition
    of sequestration's $100 billion in looming automatic cuts to
    us, and not if it adds extra force structure that we can't
    afford to keep ready in the long term, which would only lead to
    a hollow force. I'm confident and hopeful that we can come back
    together again.
        Today, America is fortunate to have the world's greatest
    military. I know it. You know it. Our friends and allies know
    it. Critical--critically, our potential adversaries know it,
    too. Only with your help can we ensure that my successors can
    say the same and that what is today the finest fighting force
    the world has ever known remains that way for years to come.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Secretary Carter follows:]

             Prepared Statement by Secretary of Defense Ash Carter
        Chairman McCain, Ranking Member Reed, Members of the Committee:
        Thank you for hosting me and Chairman Dunford today, and also for
    hosting the Chiefs of the military services last week. I particularly
    appreciated your comments to them about the inefficiencies and dangers
    of continued budget instability and gridlock, as well as the risk of
    sequestration's looming return. I look forward to addressing those
    topics and more during today's hearing.
        I also appreciate your support for our men and women serving around
    the world, civilian and military alike, who are the finest fighting
    force the world has ever known. There's no other military that's
    stronger, or more capable, or more innovative, or more experienced, or
    with better friends and allies. That's a fact--one that every American
    ought to be proud of.
        As you know, the Department of Defense is currently addressing each
    of the five major, immediate, evolving challenges we face, which
    Chairman Dunford and I discussed with you during our budget testimony
    this past spring--challenges from Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and
    terrorism. On that note, in the wake of this week's attacks in New
    York, New Jersey, and Minnesota, we remain absolutely determined, as
    ever, to continue countering terrorists around the world who would seek
    to do harm to our country and our people.
        We don't have the luxury of choosing between these challenges,
    which is why American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines are
    working with partners from our worldwide coalition in more ways and
    with more power every day to accelerate the lasting defeat of ISIL,
    which we will surely do and want to do soon. They're also training and
    operating with our NATO allies in Europe to deter Russian aggression.
    They're sailing the waters of the Asia-Pacific as part of a principled
    and inclusive network of nations--ensuring that the most consequential
    region for America's future remains stable, secure, and prosperous for
    all nations. They're standing guard 24/7 on the Korean Peninsula,
    helping strengthen our deterrent and defenses in the face of North
    Korea's nuclear and missile provocations. They're countering Iran's
    destabilizing influence against our friends and allies in the Middle
    East. All the while, they're helping protect our people here at home
    and helping to make a better world for our children. They're preparing
    to contend with an uncertain future--ensuring we continue to stay the
    best and stay ahead in a changing and competitive world.
        As Chairman Dunford and I testified not only to this committee, but
    to all four of our defense oversight committees in the spring, we've
    been planning for these operations to be paid for by the fiscal year
    (FY) 2017 defense budget we developed. This budget not only adhered to
    last fall's bipartisan budget deal in overall size; in shape, it marked
    a strategic turning point for DOD--making and sharpening breakthrough
    investments in supporting new operational concepts, in pioneering and
    dominating technological frontiers, in reforming the DOD enterprise,
    and in building the force of the future. That budget also put an
    extremely high premium on continued funding to rebuild the readiness of
    our forces--requiring not only stable resources, but also time--the
    importance of which you heard about from the Chiefs last week. Nothing
    is more important than readiness to me or them. Yet today, just eight
    days away from the end of this fiscal year and the beginning of the
    next, that budget has yet to be funded by Congress--another topic, and
    a challenge, that I'll address in greater detail shortly.
        Because this hearing is focused in part on ongoing military
    operations, let me begin with an operational update focusing
    specifically on our campaign to deliver ISIL a lasting defeat.
                        counter-isil operational update
        In each of the four times that Chairman Dunford and I have appeared
    before this committee since last October, I walked you through how we
    were continually accelerating this campaign--starting with outlining
    our coalition military campaign plan, which is focused on three
    objectives that I've stressed consistently.
        The first objective is to destroy the ISIL cancer's parent tumor in
    Iraq and Syria. ISIL's occupation of territory in those countries
    threatens not only the lives of the Iraqi and Syrian peoples and the
    stability of that vitally important region, but also the security of
    our own citizens and those of our friends and allies. That means the
    sooner we defeat ISIL in Iraq and Syria--the sooner we destroy both the
    fact and the idea of an Islamic state based on ISIL's barbaric
    ideology--the safer all of us will be. That's why we're applying
    simultaneous pressure on ISIL from multiple directions and across
    domains--on the ground, from the air, and in cyberspace. We're doing
    all this consistent with our strategic approach, which is to enable
    capable, motivated, local forces--for that is the only way to defeat
    ISIL and keep them defeated, ensuring a lasting defeat.
        Now, while defeating ISIL in Iraq and Syria is necessary, it's not
    sufficient.
        Indeed, we know this cancer can metastasize, and in some cases it
    already has. This brings me to the second objective of our coalition
    military campaign plan, which is to combat ISIL's metastases around
    world. That's why U.S. and coalition forces are engaged in supporting
    capable, motivated local forces in operations against ISIL in
    Afghanistan, in Libya, and elsewhere, and in countering ISIL across the
    intangible geography and terrain of the Internet.
        Our third objective is to help protect the homeland. Here, recent
    events continue to emphasize the importance of this mission. This is
    mainly the responsibility of our partners in the FBI, the Justice
    Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the Intelligence
    Community, and state and local law enforcement. But DOD strongly
    supports them in a number of important ways that I'll describe in more
    detail later in this testimony.
        Now, as I noted, Chairman Dunford and I have seen you several times
    since last October, when we first described to you our plan to
    accelerate the campaign against ISIL. Since then, we've taken a great
    many steps to do just that. As we take advantage of new opportunities
    generated by new intelligence, newly trained partners, and strikes
    against ISIL leaders, infrastructure, and finances, we're generating
    more new opportunities, and then seizing those opportunities to repeat
    this cycle--reinforcing success. I should note that every time Chairman
    Dunford and I have recommended additional accelerating actions to
    President Obama, he has approved them.
        Let me briefly remind you of the initial steps we took beginning
    last fall to start accelerating the campaign. First, we deployed
    additional strike aircraft to Incirlik to support an expanded air
    campaign against new targets and new categories of targets illuminated
    by refined intelligence. We deployed an initial contingent of special
    operations forces to Syria. We expanded efforts to equip Syrian Arab
    Coalition forces engaged in the fight against ISIL. We began enabling
    capable, motivated local forces in southern Syria as well, and
    enhancing Jordan's own border control and defenses. We leveraged air
    power and advisors to help the Peshmerga take Sinjar, cutting the Iraqi
    side of the main line of communication between ISIL's power centers in
    Raqqa and Mosul. We introduced an expeditionary targeting force to go
    after ISIL leaders wherever they may be attempting to hide. We worked
    to improve our ability to target ISIL's leadership and presence beyond
    Iraq and Syria. We started to expand the military campaign against ISIL
    to every domain, including cyber. We stepped up our homeland defense
    and force protection measures to counter any additional threats to our
    facilities and our personnel at home and abroad. We began precision
    strikes against ISIL senior leaders and training camps in Libya--
    removing ISIL's leader there, Abu Nabil, for instance. We went after
    ISIL in Afghanistan.
        These were followed this past spring and summer with even more
    accelerants. In Iraq, in close coordination with the Iraqi government,
    I announced we would be adding additional personnel there to enable the
    Iraqis to make faster progress in Anbar and Ninewa Provinces. I also
    announced that we would be placing advisors with the Iraqi Security
    Forces (ISF) down to the brigade and battalion level; leveraging Apache
    attack helicopters to support the ISF's efforts to envelop and then
    retake Mosul; sending additional High-Mobility Artillery Rocket System
    (HIMARS) batteries to support the Iraqi ground offensive there; and,
    providing financial assistance to the Peshmerga, up to $415 million, to
    bolster one of the most effective fighting forces against ISIL.
    Meanwhile, in Syria, we announced a six-fold increase of U.S. forces
    there, from 50 to 300, to help expand ongoing efforts to identify,
    train, and equip capable, motivated local anti-ISIL forces inside
    Syria, especially among the Sunni Arab community. In addition to
    initiating training inside Syria, we've also continued to refine our
    train-and-equip efforts of other vetted Syrian forces outside of Syria,
    using the important authorities and funding provided to us by Congress
    under the Section 1209 program--and here, as I've described to you
    before, we're keeping our focus on battle-hardened, proven anti-ISIL
    leaders whom we could make more capable as enablers and amplifiers of
    our effects.
        At the same time, in addition to accelerating the campaign with
    more U.S. capabilities, we renewed our outreach to coalition members,
    including in Europe, in the Middle East, and in Asia. Over the last
    nine months, I've convened my counterparts several times--in Paris,
    Brussels, Riyadh, Stuttgart, and here in Washington this past July--not
    only to rally them behind the campaign plan and the next steps in its
    execution, but above all to urge them to contribute more, and in more
    meaningful ways. As we've done more, so have our partners. That
    collaboration will continue.
        In sum, we steadily executed the campaign plan and first set of
    plays we devised and I described to this committee many months ago. Now
    we're on to the next plays in our campaign, which you'll recall
    Chairman Dunford and I previewed for you in April, and are now
    underway--more on that in a moment.
        Because the acceleration of our campaign has continued since then,
    I'd like to now update you on the latest results of the coalition's
    military campaign, as well as what we will need to do going forward.
    Destroying ISIL's Parent Tumor
        Let me begin with our first objective, destroying ISIL's parent
    tumor in Iraq and Syria. Here, since last fall--town after town, from
    every direction, and in every domain--our campaign and operations have
    accelerated, pressuring and squeezing ISIL, and rolling it back towards
    Mosul in Iraq and Raqqa in Syria. While we have much more work to do--
    including to collapse ISIL's control over Mosul and Raqqa--the results
    of our efforts are showing.
        In Iraq, we've been enabling the Iraqi Security Forces led by Prime
    Minister Abadi and the Kurdish Peshmerga commanded by Iraqi Kurdistan
    Regional President Barzani. After retaking Ramadi and establishing a
    staging base at Makhmour, the ISF went on to retake Hit, Rutbah,
    Fallujah, and the important airfield and town of Qayyarah--setting the
    stage to complete the envelopment and isolation of Mosul and collapse
    ISIL's control over it. In the last few days, the ISF began operations
    to retake Sharqat and other towns surrounding Mosul. The final assault
    on Mosul will commence--as with previous operations--when Prime
    Minister Abadi gives the order. In the meantime, the coalition has been
    actively laying the groundwork with the generation of necessary Iraqi
    Security Forces and Kurdish Peshmerga, preparation of staging areas,
    and positioning of our strike assets to cover the assaulting Iraqi and
    Kurdish forces. In close coordination with the Iraqi government, these
    efforts are being bolstered by the addition of 560 U.S. troops I
    announced in July. We stand ready to contribute even more, in
    consultation with our Iraqi partners.
        In Syria, our coalition has also enabled considerable results by
    our local partners. There, local forces retook Shaddadi--severing a key
    link between Raqqa and Mosul, and thereby ISIL in Iraq and ISIL in
    Syria--and then Manbij City--clearing a key transit point for ISIL's
    external operators and plotters, and letting us gain intelligence
    insights that have helped us map ISIL's network of foreign fighters.
    Additionally, our ally Turkey is helping local Syrian partners clear
    the Turkish-Syrian border region of ISIL. We're working shoulder-to-
    shoulder with the Turks, supporting those efforts from the air, on the
    ground, and with intelligence, and we will continue to coordinate with
    them as we have with all of our partners so far. In that regard, I
    welcome the Turkish government's comments about the importance of
    working with local partners.
        As we do all this, we are managing challenges that we've foreseen,
    including friction between some of our partners and also political
    instability. That's why our forces and commanders on the ground and in
    the region remain laser-focused on overcoming these challenges, so we
    can continue to accelerate our campaign.
        Indeed, even with the considerable results achieved so far, we are
    not letting up. Across both Iraq and Syria, our coalition continues to
    pressure ISIL in several key ways.
        We're systematically eliminating ISIL's leadership: the coalition
    has taken out seven members of the ISIL Senior Shura--including ISIL's
    Minister of War, Omar al Shishani; ISIL's Finance Minister, Hajji Iman;
    ISIL's Minister of Information, Dr. Wa'il; and ISIL's Chief of External
    Operations, Abu Muhamad al Adnani, who was one of ISIL's most lethal
    leaders and was actively plotting to kill civilians abroad. We also
    removed key ISIL leaders in both Libya and Afghanistan. Wherever our
    local partners have advanced, we've taken out ISIL field commanders.
    We've removed from the battlefield more than 20 of ISIL's external
    operators and plotters, including Jihadi John and Junaid Hussein, among
    others.
        Beyond key ISIL personnel, we're continuing to go after key ISIL
    capabilities, including its attempts to develop chemical weapons. As
    you know, we previously captured one of the principals of ISIL's
    chemical warfare enterprise, and just last week, in one of the single
    largest airstrikes of our campaign, we destroyed a former
    pharmaceutical facility near Mosul that ISIL tried to use as a chemical
    weapons plant. Meanwhile, we're also continuing to aggressively attack
    the economic infrastructure that ISIL uses to fund its operations--from
    oil wells and tanker trucks to cash storage sites and key financial
    centers. We continue to take the fight to ISIL across every domain,
    including cyber.
        All of this together underscores how we are putting ISIL on the
    path to a lasting defeat in Iraq and Syria. We are now launching a
    decisive phase of our campaign, as the plays we're currently executing
    culminate in the isolation and collapse of ISIL's control over Raqqa
    and Mosul.
        Now, we aren't yet releasing the full operational details of these
    plays in public. That's because--as I told troops from the XVIII
    Airborne Corps at Fort Bragg in July before they deployed to lead our
    operations in Iraq and Syria under the command of Lieutenant General
    Steve Townsend--we don't want the enemy to know too much about what
    we're doing, what we're thinking, and where we're going and when. But I
    do want to broadly describe the basic elements to you, as I did with
    our troops in July.
        In Syria, operations are focused on shutting down the last
    remaining paths for ISIL fighters to move into and out of that
    country--particularly when it comes to their external operators--and
    then on generating forces and preparing them for the envelopment of
    Raqqa. We're seeking to expand on recent gains of our local, capable
    partners in Manbij City, along the Mar'a Line, and elsewhere in
    Northern Syria to help them ensure ISIL cannot control that key
    terrain. In addition, we will aggressively pursue opportunities to
    build pressure on ISIL in Syria from the south, complementing our
    existing robust efforts from northeastern Syria.
        In Iraq, our actions in the western part of the country are focused
    on enabling the ISF to pursue mopping-up operations along the Euphrates
    River Valley--in order to clear the remaining pockets of ISIL presence,
    push the ISIL threat farther away from Baghdad, and help the government
    of Iraq reassert not only full control over its borders, but also
    control over some of its main lines of communications. In the north,
    we're continuing to help the ISF clear the remaining pockets of ISIL
    control along the Tigris River Valley leading up to Mosul. We've been
    helping the ISF and Kurdish Peshmerga to refit and generate the forces
    and logistical footprint necessary for their joint efforts to isolate
    and pressure Mosul, approaching from both the north and the south.
        Meanwhile, as this isolation and pressure on Raqqa and Mosul
    continues to build from the outside in, our partners will continue to
    reach deep inside those cities to pressure ISIL from the inside out.
        It's already becoming clear that with the simultaneity of
    operations and pressure coalition forces are applying across Iraq and
    Syria, ISIL will simply no longer be able to resist. While ISIL is
    still a dangerous adversary and its lasting defeat will take time, we
    will continue to gather momentum until ISIL is defeated.
        Finally, with respect to the Syrian civil war, I commend Secretary
    Kerry for working so tirelessly to seek an arrangement which, if
    implemented, would ease the suffering of the Syrian people and get
    Russia pushing for a political transition, which is the only way to end
    the Syrian civil war. There remains a ways to go to see if the terms of
    that arrangement will be implemented--unfortunately the behavior we've
    seen from Russia and Syria over the last few days is deeply
    problematic.
    Combatting ISIL's Metastases
        This brings me to the results in our campaign's second objective,
    combatting ISIL's metastases everywhere they appear around the world--
    particularly in Libya and Afghanistan. I will address these in turn.
        A few months ago, Chairman Dunford and I expressed concern that if
    left untended, Libya could be the next ISIL headquarters, as ISIL's
    control over the city of Sirte was seen as their contingency plan for
    where they would go when they lost Raqqa and Mosul. But because the
    President authorized us to act, ISIL is now under tremendous pressure
    there, with its territory in Sirte reduced to a single square
    kilometer. Indeed, after some 50 days of supporting capable, motivated
    local forces fighting ISIL in its safe haven of Sirte, coalition
    operations--including with airstrikes at the request of Libyan
    Government of National Accord Prime Minister Sarraj--have shrunk ISIL's
    territory to a single neighborhood. I'm confident ISIL will be ejected
    from Sirte, and that we will keep looking for opportunities to combat
    ISIL in Libya; however, it is important to note that these are the
    military results. As we've known from the beginning, political progress
    will have to follow, including reconciliation, to deliver ISIL a
    lasting defeat in Libya.
        Let me now turn to Afghanistan, where we continue to counter
    terrorists--both ISIL and al Qaeda--as well as help support and
    strengthen the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF),
    which has the lead in fighting the Taliban and other terrorists within
    Afghanistan's borders.
        Working with our Afghan partners, we conducted a large operation
    against ISIL in Afghanistan over the last two months--dealing it severe
    blows, including killing its top leader, Hafiz Sayed Khan, and 11 other
    ISIL leaders, as well as degrading the organization's infrastructure,
    logistics base, and recruiting. There will be more to come in short
    order.
        Meanwhile, more broadly, the U.S. military continues to execute its
    two missions in Afghanistan--countering terrorism, and helping train,
    advise, and assist the ANDSF as part of NATO's Resolute Support
    Mission. As you know, President Obama approved our requests earlier
    this year to retain a more substantial U.S. force presence into 2017,
    to enhance the authorities of our ground commanders, and to maintain
    our financial commitment to the ANDSF through 2020. This will lead to
    positive effects. Indeed, while challenges remain--including political
    challenges--we're increasingly seeing the ANDSF undertake unilateral
    missions against ISIL and other targets on their own accord, with U.S.-
    provided equipment.
    Helping Protect our Homeland and our People
        Meanwhile, DOD continues to provide strong support to our partners
    in the FBI, the Justice Department, the Department of Homeland
    Security, the Intelligence Community, and state and local law
    enforcement to help protect our homeland and our people. This is the
    number-one mission of our Northern Command. Here the U.S. military is
    supporting our partners in three critical ways.
        First, we're ensuring the force protection for our troops and the
    DOD facilities where they work and reside--both on base, and the
    thousands of off-base installations we operate. Last summer's tragedy
    in Chattanooga underscored how ISIL seeks to target U.S. troops and DOD
    civilians, which is why we're putting in place stronger physical
    security systems, including stronger entry controls, better alarm
    systems, reinforced doors, additional ways to safely exit our
    facilities, and more. We continue to look for more ways to improve and
    strengthen our force protection.
        Second, we're disrupting ISIL's external operations and its ability
    to conduct such operations. As I discussed earlier, our operations to
    destroy ISIL's parent tumor directly support this effort, where we've
    removed dozens of ISIL external operators from the battlefield--
    including, as I mentioned earlier in this testimony, ISIL's Chief of
    External Operations, Abu Muhamad Al-Adnani. We have entrusted this
    aspect of our campaign to one of DOD's most lethal, capable, and
    experienced commands, our Joint Special Operations Command, which
    helped deliver justice not only to Osama Bin Laden, but also to the man
    who founded the organization that became ISIL, Abu-Musab al Zarqawi.
        Third, we're also disrupting the flow of foreign fighters both to
    and from Iraq and Syria. Here, as I discussed earlier, we've not only
    been supporting capable, motivated local forces in Syria that have
    retaken cities that were key transit hubs for foreign fighters in
    northern Syria, but we've also been supporting Turkish military
    operations intended to seal the border with Syria and prevent foreign
    fighters from exploiting that border to conduct attacks against our
    European allies and our homeland. In recent months especially, our
    support of these operations has allowed us to gain new intelligence
    insights into ISIL's networks of foreign fighters--networks we are
    determined to destroy. In addition, we've worked with our coalition
    partners in a standing task force located in the region that looks at
    publically-available information and crosschecks it against our
    government's various databases to identify potential ISIL cells and
    foreign fighter facilitation networks. This is part of a broader effort
    within our coalition to not only stem the flow of foreign fighters, but
    also to counter ISIL's online messaging, recruitment, and the spread of
    its loathsome ideology.
    Going Forward in the Counter-ISIL Campaign
        Looking to the future, the collapse of ISIL's control over Raqqa
    and Mosul--which we're confident our coalition will achieve--will put
    ISIL on an irreversible path to a lasting defeat. But, even when the
    coalition wins this fight--and let there be no doubt that we will--
    there will still be much more to do. There will be towns to rebuild,
    services to reestablish, and communities to restore. Political
    challenges will remain. So when that time comes, the international
    community must ensure that the Iraqi and Syrian people have what they
    need to hold, stabilize, and govern their own territory. For that
    reason, the international coalition's humanitarian, stabilization, and
    governance efforts cannot be allowed to lag behind our military
    progress.
        Additionally, we must ensure that ISIL isn't able to take root in
    other parts of Iraq, and that the ISF and the Peshmerga are able to
    sustain the gains we've made with them. Such progress is critical to
    making our partners' gains enduring, and ensuring that ISIL, once
    defeated, stays defeated.
        Truly delivering ISIL a lasting defeat requires both strategic
    patience and strategic persistence. Even when ISIL is defeated
    militarily, our coalition will still have work to do. We can't predict
    what will come afterward, so we must be ready for anything--including
    for any attempts by ISIL to remain relevant, even if only on the
    darkest corners of the Internet. We will continue to support our law
    enforcement, homeland security, and intelligence partners in helping
    protect our homeland and our people.
       how congress can help--avoiding the biggest strategic dangers to
                                    defense
        Let me now turn to some issues that we in DOD face as an
    institution--not only in addressing the challenge posed by ISIL, but in
    addressing all of the five challenges I mentioned earlier, and ensuring
    our military's continued unrivaled breadth and strength into the
    future--and how you can help.
        These issues are grave concerns to us that we see manifested in
    processes here in Congress, and they are threefold: the first is budget
    gridlock and instability; the second, micromanagement and over-
    regulation; and the third concern is the continued denial of needed
    reforms. Instead of these, we need budget stability achieved through
    bipartisanship. We need relief from over-regulation and
    micromanagement. We need more regard and respect for the considered
    judgment of DOD's most senior military and civilian leaders.
        As you've heard from me and DOD senior leaders in meetings,
    messages, and conversations, these are serious concerns. I could spend
    a lot of time focusing on each one, and I look forward to doing so when
    you return in November to work on passing an NDAA--hopefully one the
    President can sign. But here, at this hearing, I want to focus on the
    first concern, since the fiscal year ends in eight days.
    Avoiding Budget Instability and Gridlock
        We need Congress to come together around providing normal, stable,
    responsible budgets--that is, appropriations--because lack of stability
    represents one of the single biggest strategic risks to our DOD
    enterprise. I've been talking to you for over a year and a half about
    the major risks posed by budget instability. That was why I supported
    last fall's bipartisan budget deal, and why DOD's budget for fiscal
    year 2017 reflected that deal. Now the time has come to begin that
    fiscal year, and I can only tell you the same thing: that budget
    instability is the greatest risk we face. You heard the same from our
    Service Chiefs last week.
        Such instability is exactly the kind of dysfunction that undercuts
    stable planning and efficient use of taxpayer dollars--often in ways
    taxpayers can't even see. It makes planning for the fight extremely
    difficult for our warfighters and commanders, including in our campaign
    to deliver ISIL a lasting defeat. It baffles our friends, and emboldens
    foes. It's managerially and strategically unsound, not to mention
    unfairly dispiriting to our troops and their families, and our
    workforce--all of whom deserve better, and deserve more predictability,
    to say the least. Not only our people; our defense industry partners,
    too, need stability and longer-term plans to be as efficient and
    cutting-edge as we need them to be. Even with the modicum of stability
    we got in last fall's budget deal, we still face the greatest risk of
    all to DOD in the eyes of all of us in the leadership--a return to
    sequestration funding levels, with $100 billion in looming, automatic
    cuts beginning next year if this isn't fixed. Those cuts, as you heard
    last week, are a major concern for our Service Chiefs, and for me as
    well. I am concerned that the gimmickry we are seeing around defense
    funding this year will invite the return of sequestration rather than
    make it less likely--because it signals that bipartisan compromises are
    not respected.
        We're now eight days away from the end of the fiscal year, but
    instead of stability, we're going into fiscal year 2017 with yet
    another continuing resolution (CR). This will be the eighth fiscal year
    in a row that's started with a continuing resolution. That's a
    deplorable state of affairs in itself, as this committee has made
    clear--and Chairman McCain, I appreciate your comments to our Service
    Chiefs about the damage a CR does to our institution, as I appreciate
    that this committee has been among the leaders in advocating for both
    the resources needed for defense and the timely appropriations we need
    to execute our mission.
        As you know and as you heard from the Chiefs last week, the longer
    a continuing resolution lasts, the more damaging it is--it makes the
    obvious mistake of having us do this year exactly what we did last
    year, despite the fact that we're trying to evolve and innovate to stay
    ahead in a changing world. It's not just a matter of money, but where
    the dollars are. For example, even a short-term CR slows our
    shipbuilding program, which is line appropriated, thereby preventing
    the Navy from moving forward on key programs and capabilities. It gets
    worse after three months--for example, the fiscal year 2017 defense
    budget quadrupled funding for our European Reassurance Initiative in
    order to help deter Russian aggression, but a continuing resolution
    extending past December would undermine our ability to build up
    prepositioned stocks of equipment and warfighting gear in the countries
    of our NATO allies. That would have great strategic consequences.
        If that weren't enough, the risk of instability is only half my
    concern for DOD's budget--the other is that our budget stability is
    also being subjected to risk through diversions of funds.
        As you know, last fall's bipartisan budget deal set the size of our
    budget for fiscal year 2017. While there was a difference between what
    we got in the budget deal and what we had proposed in the year prior,
    we determined we could mitigate that difference and still meet our
    needs, so we accordingly submitted our defense budget to reflect the
    bipartisan budget deal. Within a matter of months, however, some in
    Congress reintroduced instability by departing from the bipartisan
    budget deal and trying to come up with ways to go around it. I cannot
    support these approaches, and I'd like to tell you why.
        In the first approach, the House is diverting $18 billion from our
    overseas operations funds at a time when we have troops deployed in
    Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and using the money for things DOD didn't
    ask for and in many cases cannot afford to maintain and keep ready over
    time. To do this--diverting warfighting funds at a time of war--is
    highly objectionable. It harms the readiness of our troops in order to
    buy more force structure that we can't afford to keep ready in the
    first place. It could overtax DOD by up to $30 billion over the next
    five years, at the same time that we may be facing $100 billion in
    sequestration cuts. It risks exacerbating our readiness challenges and
    creating hollow force structure. It threatens to unravel last fall's
    bipartisan budget deal, again raising the specter of sequestration.
        If this is allowed to happen, there is no way I can tell a soldier,
    sailor, airman, or Marine who's accelerating ISIL's lasting defeat or
    deterring Russian aggression that we're doing all we can for them here
    in Washington. Not when Congress can't pass timely appropriations.
    Certainly not when Congress diverts defense dollars from what should be
    inviolable: American troops deployed in harm's way. Those troops need
    to know that they're getting every resource they need to accomplish
    their mission. To take away from them goes too far--especially when
    emerging operational demands may soon require more resources than DOD
    initially budgeted for, not less.
        The backers of the House approach say they're doing it to help our
    readiness, but it would actually have the opposite effect on readiness.
    As you heard from the Service Chiefs last week and as you heard from me
    earlier in this testimony, nothing is more important to us than
    readiness, which is why it was the highest priority we had in preparing
    the 2017 defense budget--partly to rebuild full-spectrum readiness
    after 15 years of counterinsurgency operations, and partly to restore
    damage done to readiness over the last several years that was caused by
    the effects of sequestration cuts. As the Chiefs made clear to you, the
    problems we're fixing are different in each service--the Army needs
    time to put soldiers through full-spectrum brigade-level training
    rotations at its Combat Training Centers; for the Marine Corps, the
    issue is principally restoring readiness in aviation; for the Navy,
    it's ship depot maintenance; and for the Air Force, it's about
    maintaining readiness while remaining at a high operational tempo. Each
    of these shows how restoring readiness is not just about money; it also
    requires time, which the Chiefs told you as well. All of this
    underscores why what the House seeks to do would actually hurt
    readiness: because it risks the stability provided by last fall's
    bipartisan budget deal, and it would actually give us higher end-
    strength for one year--that is, more people--whom we cannot afford to
    keep ready in the long-term.
        Others in Congress took a different approach, but I cannot support
    theirs either. In this case, one of the defense appropriations
    committees cut high-priority investments that we should be making in
    high-end capabilities, and then spent more money on lower-priority
    things we didn't ask for and already have enough of.
        While these cuts are less than $18 billion and do not take away
    from our warfighting funds, they still add up in ways that could
    seriously imperil our future strength. For example, this committee
    chose to gut funding for undersea drones--crippling our efforts to
    leverage unmanned technology to ensure our forces' global freedom of
    action and delivery of new payloads despite other nations' attempts to
    deny access to certain operating areas. They cut proven programs like
    the submarine-hunting P-8, a maritime patrol aircraft that prevents
    adversaries from using modern undersea technologies against us. They
    made significant cuts to some of our highest-priority electronic
    warfare systems, the Next-Generation Jammer and the Surface Electronic
    Warfare Improvement Program--handicapping our planes' future airborne
    electronic attack capabilities, and leaving our surface ships more
    vulnerable to advanced missile threats. They cut the critical core out
    of advanced munitions programs needed to increase our Navy's
    lethality--both the maritime-strike version of the Tomahawk cruise
    missile, and the new, highly-lethal anti-ship mode for one of our most
    modern and capable munitions, the SM-6 missile. On top of that,
    committees in both the House and Senate made cuts to critical defense
    innovation spearheads that we need to maintain our military's
    technological edge and counter some of the most vexing threats we
    face--taking away funding from our Strategic Capabilities Office, our
    partnership with In-Q-Tel, and our tech startup, the Defense Innovation
    Unit-Experimental (DIUx).
        Now, I don't believe there was ill-will here, but these were cuts
    to investments highly prioritized by DOD's senior military and civilian
    leaders, substituting lower-priority spending we didn't ask for. We
    oppose each of them, because they undermine our preparations to counter
    and stay ahead of our competitors' technological advances. I've seen
    the constant temptation over the years to starve new and future-
    oriented defense investments in favor of more established and therefore
    well-entrenched programs. In a rapidly changing and competitive world,
    we must resist this temptation.
        Rather than funding these investments in lethality and innovation
    that were among our highest priorities for sharpening our military edge
    and staying ahead of our adversaries, Congress wants instead to buy
    things like an extra Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), which we didn't
    request. These ships have important uses, but we already bought 26,
    with 14 more on the way, and we do not need more. We have much greater
    needs: we need the undersea drones, advanced munitions, electronic
    warfare capabilities, P-8s, and innovation initiatives these measures
    would cut.
        Of course, there are other proposals which again do not comport
    with last fall's bipartisan budget deal. Having rejected the two
    approaches I just discussed, I also have to say--as you've heard me
    emphasize for the last year and a half--that I cannot support any third
    approach that moves us toward sequestration, or that moves us away from
    bipartisanship. Not at the expense of budget stability. Not if it
    shortchanges the needs of our warfighters. Not if it means funding
    lower priorities instead of higher priorities. Not if it undermines
    confidence in the ability to pass bipartisan budget deals, which could
    lead to the imposition of sequestration's $100 billion in looming,
    automatic cuts. Not if it adds extra force structure that we cannot
    afford to keep ready in the long-term and that would only lead to a
    hollow force.
              conclusion--the need for bipartisan budget stability
        I appreciate that this committee didn't follow either of those two
    approaches, but as conference negotiations continue, I must emphasize
    that what we need most is stability--it's critical in order for DOD and
    our people to address all the national security challenges we face.
        I am confident, and hopeful, that we can come back together again.
    Today, America is fortunate to have the world's strongest, most
    capable, most innovative military. I know it, you know it, our friends
    and allies know it, and critically, our potential adversaries know it
    too. Only with your help can we ensure that my successors can say the
    same, and that what is today the finest fighting force the world has
    ever known remains that way for years and generations to come.
        Thank you.

        Chairman McCain. General Dunford.

    STATEMENT OF GENERAL JOSEPH F. DUNFORD, JR., USMC, CHAIRMAN OF
                       THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF

        General Dunford. Chairman McCain, Ranking Member Reed,
    members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to join
    Secretary Carter this morning.
        Before offering a brief assessment of ongoing operations,
    I'd like to associate myself with the comments made by the
    Service Chiefs who testified before this committee last week.
    As you'd expect, they offered their candid assessment about the
    readiness and the modernization challenges that affect each of
    the services. I fully concur with their assessment of the
    operational tempo and the budget challenges faced by each of
    the services and across the Department.
        But, due in large part to this committee's support, the
    joint force remains the most capable and professional military
    in the world. We can defend the Nation, we can meet our
    alliance responsibilities, and today we have a competitive
    advantage over any adversary. I think that's an important point
    that should not be lost on our allies, it should not be lost on
    our enemies, and it should not be lost on the men and women of
    the joint force, our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and
    coastguardsmen.
        I say all that, mindful that we remain confronted with
    challenges from traditional state actors and violent extremism.
    Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea continue to invest in
    military capabilities that reduce that competitive advantage.
    They are also advancing their interests through adversarial
    competition that has a military dimension that falls short of
    armed conflict. Examples include Russian actions in the
    Ukraine, North Korea's nuclear saber-rattling, Chinese
    activities in the South China Sea, and Iran's malign activities
    across the Middle East. In different ways, each of these
    nations leverage economic coercion, information operations,
    cyber capabilities, unconventional warfare and force posture
    deliberately seeking to avoid a U.S. military response.
        Meanwhile, nonstate actors, such as ISIL and al Qaeda,
    remain a threat to our Homeland, the American people, our
    partners, and our allies. As evidenced by this past weekend's
    attacks, such extremist groups seek to inspire and radicalize
    others, and, in doing so, they're attempting to fundamentally
    change our way of life.
        The joint force is engaged in responding to each of these
    strategic challenges. We're focused on deterring potential
    adversaries, and we're prepared to respond, should deterrence
    fail.
        We also remain firmly committed to defeating ISIL and its
    affiliates wherever they may emerge. Since my last appearance
    before the committee, I've made additional trips to the Middle
    East, and I'm encouraged by the coalition's progress in Iraq
    and Syria. We've also degraded the Islamic State's capabilities
    in Libya, West Africa, and Afghanistan. Coalition operations
    supporting indigenous ground forces--and the Chairman mentioned
    this, Ranking Member Reed mentioned, the Secretary did--have
    disrupted core ISIL's ability to mount external attacks, reduce
    its territory of control, limit its freedom of movement,
    eliminate many of their leaders, and reduce the resources that
    they have available. Most importantly, the coalition has begun
    to discredit ISIL's narrative and its aura of invincibility.
    While more work remains to be done, and we're by no means--by
    no means are we complacent--it's clear we have the momentum in
    the military campaign.
        As the joint force addresses each of our strategic
    challenges, we also recognize the need to invest in the future.
    As the Secretary said, we don't have the luxury of choosing
    between the challenges that we face today or the challenges
    that we most assuredly will face tomorrow.
        To meet tomorrow's requirements, we must take action today.
    Our nuclear deterrent remains effective, but it is aging and
    requires modernization. At the same time, we must develop and
    enhance the capabilities that--in the increasingly contested
    domains of space and cyber. We must also do all that while we
    preserve the edge in our conventional capabilities. In the end,
    we must maintain a balanced inventory of joint capabilities and
    capacities to meet the full range of challenges that we will
    confront.
        In closing, I am concerned about readiness today, but I'm
    more concerned about maintaining a competitive advantage in the
    future. If we fail to modernize the joint force, we will be at
    a disadvantage in the future. I know the committee shares my
    belief that we should never send our soldiers, sailors, airmen,
    marines, or coastguardsmen into a fair fight.
        Thank you, Chairman, members of the committee.
        [The prepared statement of General Dunford follows:]

                     prepared statement by general dunford
        Chairman McCain, Ranking Member Reed, distinguished members of the
    committee, thank you for the opportunity to join Secretary Carter in
    appearing before you.
        Our thoughts are with those affected by this weekend's terrorist
    incidents in New York, New Jersey and Minnesota. We also remember the
    sacrifice of Lt. Col. Steven Eadie, who was killed in a U-2 mishap on
    Tuesday. our prayers are with the Eadie family and we wish his fellow
    airman a speedy recovery.
        Before offering a brief assessment of on-going operations, I would
    like to associate myself with the comments made by the Service Chiefs
    who testified before you last week. As you would expect, they offered
    their candid assessments about the readiness and modernization
    challenges confronting each Service. I continue to appreciate the
    operational tempo and budgetary challenges faced by each Service and
    across the Department.
        Due in large part to this committee's support, the Joint Force
    remains the most capable and professional military in the world. We can
    defend the nation, we can meet our alliance responsibilities, and today
    we have a competitive advantage over any potential adversary. That's an
    important point that should be understood by our allies, our enemies
    and by those most responsible for our competitive advantage, our
    soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and coast guardsmen.
        I say all of that mindful that we remain confronted with challenges
    from traditional state actors and violent extremist organizations.
    Russia, China, Iran and North Korea continue to invest in military
    capabilities that reduce our competitive advantage. They are also
    advancing their interests through competition with a military dimension
    that falls short of traditional armed conflict and the threshold for
    traditional military response. Examples include Russian actions in
    Ukraine, North Korea's nuclear saber rattling, Chinese activities in
    the South China Sea and Iran's malign activities across the Middle
    East.
        In different ways, each of these nations leverage economic
    coercion, information operations, cyber capabilities, unconventional
    operations and force posture while deliberately seeking to avoid a
    direct U.S. Military response.
        Meanwhile, non-state actors such as ISIL and al Qaeda remain a
    threat to the Homeland, the American people, our partners and our
    allies. As evidenced by this past weekend's attacks, such extremist
    groups seek to inspire and radicalize others, and in doing so, they are
    attempting to fundamentally change our way of life.
        The Joint Force is engaged in responding to each of these strategic
    challenges. We are focused on deterring potential adversaries and are
    prepared to respond should deterrence fail. We also remain firmly
    committed to defeating ISIL and its affiliates wherever they may
    emerge. Since my last appearance before this committee, I have made
    additional trips to the Middle East. I am encouraged by the coalition's
    progress in Iraq and Syria. We have also degraded the Islamic State's
    capabilities in Libya, West Africa and Afghanistan.
        Coalition operations supporting indigenous ground forces have
    disrupted core ISIL's ability to mount external attacks, reduced its
    territorial control, limited its freedom of movement, eliminated many
    of its key leaders, and reduced its sources of revenue. Most
    importantly, the coalition has begun to discredit ISIL's narrative and
    its aurora of invincibility. While more work remains to be done, and we
    are by no means complacent, it is clear that we have the momentum.
        As the Joint Force addresses each of the strategic challenges I
    just described, we also recognize the need to invest for the future. As
    the Secretary said, we do not have the luxury of choosing between the
    challenges we face today or the challenges we will face in the future.
    To meet tomorrow's requirements, we must take action today. Our nuclear
    deterrent remains effective, but it is aging and requires
    modernization. At the same time, we must develop and enhance our
    capabilities in the increasingly contested domains of cyber and space .
    . . and we must do so while preserving our edge in conventional
    capabilities.
        In the end, we must maintain a balanced inventory of joint
    capabilities and capacities to meet the full array of challenges that
    we will confront in the future. In closing, while I am concerned about
    readiness today, we have a competitive advantage over any adversary.
    However, if we fail to modernize the Joint Force, we will be at a
    disadvantage in the future. I know that the committee shares my belief
    that we should never send our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and
    coast guardsmen into a fair fight.
        Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this morning and
    I look forward to your questions.

        Chairman McCain. Thank you very much, General.
        Thank you for your comments about the testimony of the
    Service Chiefs. We appreciated it, too. We were shocked to--or
    at least surprised to learn that none of the Service Chiefs
    have had a conversation with the President of the United
    States. That's the first time I've ever heard of it in my years
    of service and membership of this committee.
        General Dunford, in your professional military opinion, is
    Russia in a quagmire in Syria?
        General Dunford. It's not clear to me that Russia is in a
    quagmire in Syria at this time, Chairman.
        Chairman McCain. In your professional military opinion, is
    the cessation-of-hostilities agreement being effectively
    implemented on the ground in Syria?
        General Dunford. That would not appear to be the case over
    the last 48 hours, Chairman.
        Chairman McCain. This is not the first time we've had one
    of these agreements. In fact, it's beginning to fit the
    definition of insanity, of doing the same thing over and over
    again. Suppose this fails again, General Dunford. What do we do
    then? Try another cease-fire? What do we do then? We just saw,
    as you know, evidence that a chemical weapon--and we knew that
    a chemical weapons factory was functioning in Raqqa. What's
    Plan B? Is there a Plan B, here, or do we just keep going back
    to the five-star hotels in Geneva and have meetings with our--
    with Mr. Lavrov, and come out with various declarations? What
    do we do if this one fails?
        General Dunford. Chairman, we have a wide range of military
    options----
        Chairman McCain. Give us one.
        General Dunford. Chairman, if I could finish. We have a
    wide range of military options that we would provide to the
    President, should our policy change in the wake of this recent
    cessation----
        Chairman McCain. Is the present policy working?
        General Dunford. Against ISIL, the present policy is
    working.
        Chairman McCain. In Syria, with 400,000 people killed, 6
    million refugees, is our strategy in Syria working--succeeding?
        General Dunford. With regard to political transition in
    Syria, at this time, I would----
        Chairman McCain. In regards to the whole situation in
    Syria, is our policy working?
        General Dunford. Chairman, I'd let others address the
    policy. Our focus, from a military perspective, is----
        Chairman McCain. I'm asking----
        General Dunford.--our counter-ISIL campaign.
        Chairman McCain.--Is the military strategy succeeding in
    Syria?
        General Dunford. Our military strategy is focused on a
    counter-ISIL campaign. In my judgment, we are succeeding in
    that campaign.
        Chairman McCain. As far as you're concerned, we ignore the
    400,000 dead and the 6 million refugees. That's caused by
    Bashar Assad. Do you believe that, right now, it's very likely
    that Bashar Assad will leave power?
        General Dunford. I can't really judge that right now. It
    doesn't appear that he will in the near term, Chairman.
        Chairman McCain. You can't judge that.
        General Dunford. I can't judge the long-term prospects for
    Assad, was my point, Chairman. I'm----
        Chairman McCain. In the----
        General Dunford.--sure he's not----
        Chairman McCain.--short term?
        General Dunford.--leaving in the short term.
        Chairman McCain. In your professional military opinion, is
    it a good idea to set up an intelligence-sharing operation with
    the Russians?
        General Dunford. Chairman, we don't have any intention of
    having an intelligence-sharing arrangement with the Russians.
        Chairman McCain. That is part of Secretary Kerry's
    proposal, that we set up an intelligence-sharing operation in
    Syria with the Russians.
        General Dunford. Chairman, the United States military role
    will not include intelligence-sharing with the Russians.
        Chairman McCain. Do you support such an idea, that they
    should share intelligence--military intelligence information
    with Russia and Syria?
        General Dunford. Chairman, what the President has directed
    us to do is establish a joint implementation----
        Chairman McCain. I asked for your professional military
    opinion, not what the President has told you to do. I'm asking,
    as in your confirmation hearings, if you would give your
    professional military opinion to this committee in response to
    questions. I expect you to hold to that.
        Is it your professional military opinion that it would be a
    good idea to have an intelligence-sharing operation with Russia
    in Syria?
        General Dunford. Chairman, I do not believe it would be a
    good idea to share intelligence with the Russians.
        Chairman McCain. I thank you, General.
        On the issue of sequestration, could--I just mentioned--I
    hope it got the attention of all of my colleagues--that every
    one of the Service Chiefs said that, presently, sequestration
    puts our men and women who are serving in military in greater
    risk. At the same time, the President of the United States is
    demanding--is putting the risk to American servicemen and women
    on the same level as funding for the EPA. It is just remarkable
    to a lot of us that we don't take care of the compelling
    argument of caring--of reducing the risk to the men and women
    who are serving in the military, demanding that there be
    nondefense increases in spending at the same time.
        All I can say is, I thank you, Secretary Carter and General
    Dunford, but this latest information concerning a chemical
    shell obviously shows that, in Raqqa, they're doing a lot of
    things, including a chemical weapons factory, which adds a new
    dimension to the threat to the lives of the men and women who
    are serving in the military.
        I still look forward to hearing from Secretary Carter and
    General Dunford, What is the strategy if the present strategy
    continues to utterly fail? Frankly, I haven't heard that.
        Senator Reed.
        Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary and General Dunford, one of the factors that
    appears to be--influence the timing of the Mosul operation is
    to--how do you govern Mosul after you militarily succeed--Iraq
    Security Forces succeed, with American and coalition
    assistance? That triggers the issue of, not only the role of
    agencies outside Defense, like the State Department, USAID
    [United States Agency for International Development], and
    others, but the resources they have. It would be--is it
    necessary, in your view, that these agencies be robustly
    funded, in addition, because without them, you can have a
    military victory and essentially just wait around, because
    they'll come back because you haven't put the politics and the
    capacity together?
        Secretary Carter. It is necessary. I had the Defense
    Ministers of the key coalition contributors here to Andrews a
    little while ago, and we went through, as we always do, the
    campaign, their role, including the moves to envelope Mosul,
    which we've now taken. Their biggest concern with the campaign,
    at this point, in Iraq is exactly the one you note. Namely, is
    the political and the economic lagging so far behind the
    military that there's going to be an issue, once Mosul is--once
    ISIL is ejected from Mosul?
        I'm just very specifically--if I may, Senator, I'll take
    the political part and then the stabilization/reconstruction
    part.
        On the political part, this is a question that recurs,
    actually, everywhere we go. Everywhere we enable forces to
    defeat ISIL, the people who live there say, ``Well, what's
    going to happen afterwards?'' That's something we have dealt
    with in Hit, Fallujah, Rutbah, and some of--they're all
    complicated, all different. Mosul's going to be different, too.
        My understanding--and that's just not mine, but the
    Chairman's and the--our commanders there, and also the
    President's--with Prime Minister Abadi, President Barzani, who
    are contributing forces--the Peshmerga from the north, a couple
    of brigades, and the ISF [Iraqi Security Forces] from the
    south, for the envelopment and collapse of control on--of
    ISIL's control on Mosul. Our understanding with them, which
    they are both adhering to, is that neither of the forces that
    will participate in taking Mosul should be the hold-and-govern
    force there. They should be local police--Sunni, in many cases,
    but it's actually a mixed-ethnicity city. The governor of
    Ninawah Province is the one that they are working with and
    we're working with. That's a daily exercise for General
    Townsend, General Votel, and for us, is to keep everybody
    aligned and focused on the job at hand, which is defeating
    ISIL.
        With respect to stabilization and reconstruction, we don't
    know what the collapse of ISIL's control over Mosul will look
    like. We've had a different experience in different cities.
    Obviously, no one wants to see street-to-street fighting in
    Mosul, but you don't know. There could be a large number of
    refugees, and we're preparing for that. Not USAID. You
    mentioned U.S. Government funding. That's essential. But, also
    the U.N.----
        Senator Reed. Right.
        Secretary Carter.--and other international aid agencies.
        I should say, by the way, that's one of the things I ask
    our coalition partners. I say, ``If you don't want to make a
    military contribution, or you don't have a strong military
    contribution to make, or it's problematic, for some historical
    or political reason, for you to make a contribution, a check is
    good to''----
        Senator Reed. But----
        Secretary Carter.--"the local people to help them
    reconstruct.''
        Senator Reed. But, essentially, you cannot--you can conduct
    kinetic operations, but the real, long-term effort is
    political/economic relief, refugee support, et cetera. Those
    are funds outside Department of Defense. A comprehensive
    approach to all these problems requires relief, not just from
    Department of Defense spending, but for other Federal agencies.
        Secretary Carter. It----
        Senator Reed. Is that correct?
        Secretary Carter. It is. The whole counter-ISIL thing is
    whole-of-government and----
        Senator Reed. Okay. Let me--going back also to your
    question about Northern Command. Northern Command is critical
    to defense of the United States, but, without a robust
    Department of Homeland Security, without adequate resources--
    the FBI and for other domestic agencies--then you could be
    performing at peak efficiency, but the job would not get done.
    Is----
        Secretary Carter. We----
        Senator Reed.--that correct?
        Secretary Carter. It--that is true. We count on their
    support. We support them, as well. It's a whole-of-government
    effort, defeat of ISIL and----
        Senator Reed. General Dunford, do you concur, from your
    perspective?
        General Dunford. I do, Senator.
        Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman McCain. Senator Inhofe.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Let me start off by saying that we have rules in this
    committee that, when we have witnesses coming in, we're to get
    their written statement 48 hours in advance. We didn't get both
    of yours until 8:30 this morning. Now, we did a lot better with
    the chiefs last week. In fact, General Hayden was in, 72 hours
    in advance. I just think it's a good idea to pass on to others,
    before they come in, that we really do need to have that to
    conduct the--a hearing that's meaningful.
        When General Goldfein was here, he described what's needed
    for defense funding, and he talked about sufficient, stable,
    predictable funding. In your statement, Secretary Carter, you
    left the word ``sufficient'' out. I am concerned about this.
        Back during the Clinton administration, when they were
    actually trying to cut 400 out of the budget, we, in this
    committee, sitting in this--in these--in this dais here--were
    able to put 100 back in. You remember the famous bathtub chart
    that we used at that time. General Milley said, last week--and
    I think that he said it best--he said, ``The only thing more
    expensive than deterrence is actually fighting a war. The only
    thing more expensive than fighting a war is losing a war. We're
    expensive. We recognize that. But, the bottom line is, it's an
    investment that's worth every nickel.''
        I guess the question, just for a short answer of each one
    of you, is, Have our defense funding levels kept pace with the
    realities of the--our environment out there?
        General Dunford?
        General Dunford. Senator, I don't believe they have. That's
    why we've articulated an increased requirement in fiscal year
    2017, and we'll continue to reinforce those areas that we
    identified in 2017 for 2018. Of course, those--well, turn it
    over to Secretary----
        Senator Inhofe. I appreciate that.
        Do you agree?
        Secretary Carter. Yeah. I wanted to say----
        Senator Inhofe. All right.
        Secretary Carter.--that I agree with General Dunford, and
    what the Chief said, as well, and I'm--insufficiency belongs
    with instability. I'm sorry if we left that word out. Nothing
    intended there. The point that they were making, and that I
    would strongly echo, is, the effects of eight straight years of
    ending a fiscal year without an appropriation----
        Senator Inhofe. Yeah. You----
        Secretary Carter.--for the next--that is--has had a serious
    effect. We've tried to manage through it.
        Senator Inhofe. Right.
        Secretary Carter. We've done our best. But, it--that's just
    not----
        Senator Inhofe. I understand, Secretary.
        Secretary Carter.--the way to run an----
        Senator Inhofe. Now, you've been--let me compliment you--
    you've been a real stalwart on your--in support of each leg of
    the nuclear triad. Had stated that the nuclear mission is the
    bedrock of our security. Today, we're spending about 3 to 4
    percent of our budget. However, the long-term plan shows that
    we're going to move up, within the decade, or sometime in the
    decade, to 6 to 7 percent. The question I would ask is--you
    know, General Dunford, with Russia and China actively
    modernizing their nuclear weapons and delivery system, we know
    what's happening in North Korea--do you think we should
    accelerate this so that we would reach the 6 to 7 percent much
    earlier, like now?
        General Dunford. Senator, I think, as you know, many of
    those programs, it's not just the function of accelerating the
    funding, it's how much time it takes for development. I'm
    confident, having looked at this very closely, that the path
    that we're on and the timing for the introduction of our new
    programs is about right. It balances both the budget, but it,
    more importantly, balances the operational readiness of those
    systems to be introduced at the----
        Senator Inhofe. Well, I think what you're saying is, even
    if you had more now, you could not spend it wisely. You need
    the--the course that we're on is adequate, in your opinion.
        General Dunford. Senator, that's exactly my----
        Senator Inhofe. All right.
        General Dunford.--assessment.
        Senator Inhofe. That's fine.
        The--I was in Ukraine right after their parliamentary
    elections, and I was--I've never seen Poroshenko or any of them
    as happy as they were at that time, how proud they were, for
    the time in 96 years, not having one Communist on the--in
    Parliament. As soon as that happened, Putin started killing the
    Ukraines and the--I would ask you this, Secretary Carter. If--
    is deterrence of Russia in Europe a policy priority?
        Secretary Carter. It absolutely is. That's why we
    quadrupled the European Reassurance Initiative.
        Senator Inhofe. But, what would that--I would ask the
    question, then, Why are we not providing defensive lethal
    assistance to the Ukraine?
        Secretary Carter. Well, that is still on the table. It's
    been on the table for quite some time. And----
        Senator Inhofe. Well, it's more than on the table----
        Secretary Carter.--I want to emphasize, we do----
        Senator Inhofe.--with us, because it's in our----
        Secretary Carter. Well, it's going to depend upon what the
    Russians do with respect to Minsk. I just met with my Ukrainian
    counterpart a couple of weeks ago. A great guy, by the way.
    He's been doing this for a long time and is very dedicated, a
    good guy to work with. We talked about everything that are
    doing with them. We have training now. We've moved from their
    national----
        Senator Inhofe. Okay. And----
        Secretary Carter.--guard to their regular----
        Senator Inhofe. I don't want to be rude, Mr. Secretary, but
    my time is just about expired.
        Secretary Carter. Okay.
        Senator Inhofe. I just want to know if this--well, let me
    ask you, General Dunford. If we were to change our policy, what
    type of weaponry would be the--appropriate right now? You know,
    we have the Javelin anti-armor weapons. What would be the right
    weapon? You're both fully aware that, in our defense
    authorization bill, we address this issue, because we support
    lethal defense weapons. General Dunford?
        General Dunford. The critical capability areas the
    Ukrainians have identified include fire support, their
    artillery capability, as well as their anti-armor capability.
        Senator Inhofe. Yeah, and do you agree with that?
        General Dunford. That's a capability gap, I agree with
    that.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman McCain. Senator Blumenthal.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to join in thanking both of you for your
    extraordinary service and for your very forthright answers to
    our questions here.
        General Dunford, is there any question in your mind, any
    doubt, that Russian planes were responsible for attacking the
    United States--the U.N. convoy that was trying to deliver aid
    to Aleppo?
        General Dunford. Senator, I don't have the facts. What we
    know are, two Russian aircraft were in that area at that time.
    My judgment would be that they did. There were also some other
    aircraft in the area, that belonged to the regime, at or about
    the same time; so, I can't conclusively say that it was the
    Russians, but it was either the Russians or the regime.
        Senator Blumenthal. Well, it sounds to me like you're
    saying that their responsibility was demonstrated beyond a
    reasonable doubt.
        General Dunford. Senator, there's no doubt in my mind that
    the Russians are responsible. I just don't know whose aircraft
    actually dropped the bomb. I would certainly associate myself
    with the comment that you made earlier, that, yes, it is the
    Russians that were responsible.
        Senator Blumenthal. Which is a war crime. I'm not asking
    for your legal judgment, knowing that you would probably
    disclaim your expertise as a lawyer, but you would agree with
    me, as a layman, as a military person, that that act
    constituted a war crime.
        General Dunford. It was an unacceptable atrocity, Senator.
        Senator Blumenthal. Would you agree with Secretary Kerry in
    contending that what ought to be done is a grounding of all
    aircraft in certain areas of Syria, including that one?
        General Dunford. I would not agree that coalition aircraft
    ought to be grounded. I do agree that Syrian regime aircraft
    and Russian aircraft should be grounded.
        Senator Blumenthal. Would you agree with--apparently, the
    growing strain of thought in the administration, that the
    Syrian Kurds should be armed?
        General Dunford. Senator, we're in deliberation about
    exactly what to do with the Syrian Democratic Forces right now.
    We have--providing them support. They are our more--most
    effective partner on the ground. It's very difficult, as you
    know, managing the relationship between our support for the
    Syrian Democratic Forces and our Turkish allies. We're working
    very closely with our Turkish allies to come up with the right
    approach to make sure that we can conduct effective and
    decisive operations in Raqqa with the Syrian Democratic Forces
    and still allay the Kurdish--the Turkish concerns about the
    Kurds' long-term political prospects.
        Senator Blumenthal. If those concerns can be allayed, and
    even if they can't be allayed, would you agree that arming the
    Syrian Kurds presents an opportunity for us, as a military
    option, to be more effective in that area?
        General Dunford. Senator, I would agree with that. If we
    would reinforce the Syrian Democratic Forces' current
    capabilities, that will increase the prospects of our success
    in Raqqa.
        Senator Blumenthal. In terms of the Russian responsibility
    for what you have absolutely correctly termed ``an atrocity,''
    a war crime in that area, what can the United States do? What
    are some of those military options that the Chairman asked
    about?
        General Dunford. Senator, I'd prefer to talk to you in
    private about military options that might be being discussed as
    future options the President may have. I think right now
    managing the Russian problem is largely a political/diplomatic
    problem, and that's what Secretary Kerry and the President are
    dealing with.
        Senator Blumenthal. Let me turn--Mr. Secretary, you
    mentioned that there are three areas--the fiscal, the over-
    regulation or micromanaging, and much needed reforms, as you
    characterized them. Could you give us your priorities as to
    what those reforms would be?
        Secretary Carter. I have spelled--I have a number of
    concerns, which I spelled out at great length in a letter to
    the committee. I really look forward to working with you to
    resolve them. There are a number of them. They're serious
    concerns that I have for provisions in the bill. I'd like to
    work all of these--I think where we have common intentions,
    work them to a place where I can support an NDAA that the
    President would sign. That's where I'd like to get with you all
    by the time you return, in November.
        Senator Blumenthal. I would welcome that opportunity. I'm
    just about out of time. This topic is immensely important,
    because it involves effective use of resources. We talk a lot
    about what the levels of resource should be, but managing them
    effectively is very important.
        As to the Syrian conflict, to both of you, I don't need to
    emphasize how desperately serious the humanitarian catastrophe
    is in Syria. The Chairman has rightly referred to the numbers
    killed and displaced. It is, as Secretary Kerry right termed
    it, probably the biggest humanitarianism catastrophe since
    World War II, and the United States bears a responsibility to
    use its military forces to stop the bloodshed and the needless
    and senseless killing of innocent civilians there.
        Thank you very much for your testimony today.
        Chairman McCain. Senator Sessions.
        Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I would share that thought. The situation in Syria is a
    colossal disaster. I do not believe it had to happen. I believe
    a wise statesman could have foreseen some of the difficulties
    we're facing today. We should have been more cautious and
    careful in our declarations of how we expect Syria to develop
    over the years. It hasn't developed like President Obama
    projected. Disaster has been the situation.
        With regard to the sequestration issue, Mr. Secretary, I'm
    trying to contain spending on all our accounts. I've come to
    believe that we have to have more defense spending. We've
    exceeded sequestration, I guess, for the last two years. But, I
    guess my question to you is--Senator McCain has proposed an
    increase in defense spending. All the items that he proposed
    are things the Defense Department have said they need. Is it
    your position that the--and is it the President's position--
    that we will not spend that additional money for the Defense
    Department unless at least an equal amount of money is spent on
    the Commerce Department, the EPA, and other Government
    agencies?
        Secretary Carter. Well, what--I'll speak for myself--what I
    can't support, and won't support, is anything that moves
    towards instability. That means towards sequestration. That
    means away from bipartisanship. We submitted a budget that was
    consonant with the bipartisan budget agreement. That's what we
    did.
        Senator Sessions. Well----
        Secretary Carter. Eight months----
        Senator Sessions. Okay. I understand.
        Secretary Carter. We did that----
        Senator Sessions. It----
        Secretary Carter.--a few months into the bipartisan
    budget----
        Senator Sessions. All right.
        Secretary Carter.--agreement. I--the--I can't--I don't
    control this. I simply approve it.
        Senator Sessions. It's the President's decision,
    ultimately. I understand that. What he's saying, in leading the
    Democrats, and they're saying, not only do we have to bust the
    budget for the Defense Department, we have to bust it an equal
    amount for nondefense spending. That's the problem we have
    today. That's why we don't have a bipartisan agreement.
        If we can go on to the next subject----
        Secretary Carter. Well, there is a bipartisan--if I may say
    so, there is a bipartisan budget agreement, and that is what
    we----
        Senator Sessions. Well----
        Secretary Carter.--submitted our budget in accordance with,
    whatever, eight months ago. Now----
        Senator Sessions. Well----
        Secretary Carter.--the fiscal year ends, and there's no----
        Senator Sessions. Well, we'll have to----
        Secretary Carter.--there's no budget on that basis.
        Senator Sessions.--to avoid a Government shutdown. The
    leadership of the President and his determination to compromise
    has bitterly been reached. I wish we could have supported
    Defense without going further.
        Mr. Secretary, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Gates, and you
    have criticized our allies in Europe about their unwillingness
    to even meet their minimum commitments to defense. I suppose
    you still believe they should meet those minimum standards, do
    you not?
        Secretary Carter. Yeah. Yeah, I absolutely do. They said
    that----
        Senator Sessions. You've said that before. But, this
    European Reassurance Initiative--a European official told me,
    ``Why did not the United States demand that Europe increase
    their defense spending at the same amount we're increasing our
    defense spending for Europe in the European Reassurance
    Initiative?"
        Secretary Carter. Well, all I can tell you is, yes, I am,
    in a long tradition--and it actually goes back before----
        Senator Sessions. My question is, Why did you not tell the
    Europeans----
        Secretary Carter. I did.
        Senator Sessions.--and----
        Secretary Carter. I did. We've been talking----
        Senator Sessions. Well, we don't have a commitment from
    them to match that amount of money, do we?
        Secretary Carter. Well, it's complicated, because some--
    each of them has made a contribution to European Reassurance,
    but you're--in terms of aggregate spending, they have a
    commitment, which not many of them have met, Senator, but a few
    have----
        Senator Sessions. Four out of----
        Secretary Carter.--which is to meet----
        Senator Sessions.--twenty-eight countries are at the
    minimum.
        Secretary Carter.--which is to spend two percent of their
    GDP. Important major countries in Europe aren't even doing
    that. That's unacceptable.
        Senator Sessions. With----
        Secretary Carter. It means that Europe--too many European
    militaries have made themselves incapable of independent----
        Senator Sessions. Well----
        Secretary Carter.--military activity----
        Senator Sessions.--I'll just say this. For the last 8 to 12
    years, they've continued----
        Secretary Carter. Okay.
        Senator Sessions.--on this, and we've said it, and
    nothing's happened. It's time for something to happen from
    Europe.
        Let me ask you, really, about the Syrian situation. It's
    such a disaster. I mean, we've got hundreds of thousands dead,
    six million refugees, and I don't see an end in sight. General
    Dunford just said that Assad is not leaving anytime soon. Five
    years ago, the President said, ``Assad has to go, and is
    going.'' He did not go. This is all a result of that. Now we're
    making some progress, I understand, against ISIS [Islamic State
    in Iraq and Syria]. What kind of agreement--what kind of end do
    you see, Mr. Secretary, for this disastrous conflict? How can
    we see an end to it? What do you foresee, and what's our goal?
        Secretary Carter. We are making progress in the counter-
    ISIL campaign in Iraq and Syria. In western Syria, where the
    civil war rages----
        Senator Sessions. No, no, no. I'm asking, What is the goal
    of the United States----
        Secretary Carter. The goal of----
        Senator Sessions.--of America----
        Secretary Carter. The goal----
        Senator Sessions.--for Syria?
        Secretary Carter. The goal of United States policy in Syria
    is to end the Syrian war--civil war. It has been that for a
    long time. That means a end to the violence there. That's--and
    also a political transition from Assad to a government that
    includes the moderate opposition and that can run the country.
    Our approach has been a political one----
        Senator Sessions. The problem is--let me ask you this. It
    seems to me that the problem is that, with our support, ISIS is
    being damaged, but they're not utterly destroyed. If some sort
    of peace agreement is reached, some sort of cease-fire, and the
    United States and others reduce their presence there, can you
    assure us that ISIS, the toughest, meanest group in Syria,
    won't be able to destabilize any government that might be put
    together?
        Secretary Carter. Well, let me be clear about something,
    which is, our counter-ISIL campaign is not on the table or part
    of the discussions of Secretary Kerry with the Russians. That
    is about the Russian activity, Syrian activity in western
    Syria. Our counter-ISIL campaign, we are conducting, and will
    conduct. You're right, we are making progress in it. That's----
        Senator Sessions. Well----
        Secretary Carter.--going to go on.
        Senator Sessions. I don't see----
        Secretary Carter. But, what Secretary Kerry's trying to
    do--and again, as we sit here today, it's very problematic--
    but, what he's trying to do is exactly what you're calling
    attention to, namely to end the humanitarian disaster
    occasioned by the civil war in Syria, and to promote a
    political transition.
        Senator Sessions. Well----
        Secretary Carter. He's trying to work with those----
        Senator Sessions.--let me wrap up and----
        Secretary Carter.--who have influence----
        Senator Sessions. My time's over----
        Secretary Carter.--there, and they're not----
        Senator Sessions.--Mr. Secretary.
        Secretary Carter.--and they're not exercising that
    influence.
        Senator Sessions. I believe we could have done a better job
    with safe zones. I'm worried about the area in Iraq. I've
    talked to you previously and personally about it. We need a
    active American policy, a leadership in the world. But, we
    cannot establish all these governments, and run them, and
    assure how they'll come out in the end. We can't occupy these
    countries for decades to try to assure that. That's just not
    realistic.
        A wise statesman would have seen the danger in Syria. A
    wise statesman would have seen the danger in Libya. A wise
    statesman should have seen what could have happened in Egypt.
    Except for 30 million Egyptians going to the public square and
    driving out the Muslim Brotherhood, we could have a disaster
    there.
        We've got to be more realistic in our foreign policy. We've
    got to know what we can do to affect, positively, the world and
    what we cannot do. We're not able to ensure democratic
    governments throughout this region of the world. We're now
    facing colossal humanitarian disaster, and it's been bubbling
    for a number of years. There's no easy solution to get out of
    it. I wish it were, but there's not.
        Thank you.
        Senator Reed [presiding]. On behalf of Chairman McCain, let
    me recognize Senator King.
        Senator King. Thank you.
        An observation about the budget. A year and a half ago, we
    had a bipartisan agreement on the budget number. Then
    allocations were made to the Appropriations Committee, and they
    went through their process. I thought, ``Finally, some
    stability. We can have appropriations.'' But, I'm reminded of
    an old saying in Maine, ``He's so dumb, he could screw up a
    two-car funeral.'' We had the numbers, we had the allocations,
    we had the agreement, and yet, here we are at a Continuing
    Resolution.
        I think we ought to be clear about what it is that's gotten
    us here. There is a dispute, as Senator Sessions pointed out,
    on the numbers. But, that's the kind of thing that can be
    negotiated. If there's an $18 billion been added to Defense,
    and there are people that feel that, on the domestic side,
    there also needs to be increases in areas like the FBI, for
    example, that's a legitimate area that reasonable people in an
    afternoon should be able to figure out.
        What's really holding things up, as I understand it, are
    riders that have nothing to do with the budget, that have to do
    with policy preferences of various individuals. A perfect
    example is the National Defense Authorization Act, which, my
    understanding is, is now being held up by the sage grouse. The
    sage grouse is what is stopping the finalization of the
    National Defense Authorization Act. A very important issue to a
    lot of people, I'm not denigrating it. I know it's very
    important in the West. But, it should not be the thing that
    holds up the National Defense Authorization Act and the support
    of our men and women all over the world.
        I think we ought to be clear about what the problem is,
    here, that trying to load on a lot of political baggage to both
    the appropriations bills and the national defense bill is what
    has gotten us to this place. The numbers have been agreed on by
    a year--for a year and a half. If we want to increase them,
    let's discuss that and work out an agreement. That should be
    easy. But, to be holding up this-- and the--similar to the sage
    grouse, other kinds of those issues are why, my understanding
    is, is holding up the appropriations process.
        We're doing a Continuing Resolution even though we've had a
    number agreed on for two years--for a year and a half. It's
    just--you know, this institution, as Senator Lindsey Graham
    pointed out last week, is one of the greatest threats to
    American security. He went through a litany of how we've taken
    more troops off the battlefield, more airplanes out of the air,
    more ships out of the ocean than any enemy has done by our
    inability to work out what ordinary people on the street would
    think people ought to be able to figure out in a relatively
    short period of time.
        If you can find a question in there, you're welcome to it.
        Secretary Carter. I would like to say one thing, which is
    just to repeat that it is on the basis of that bipartisan
    budget agreement, and the stability it promised, that we
    submitted our budget.
        Senator King. Right.
        Secretary Carter. Now--and that--we figured that was the
    best the country could do on a bipartisan basis. That's the
    only way we've had stability in the past.
        Now, I'm asked about this proposal and that proposal that
    would depart from that, and my answer is, in all seriousness,
    with responsibility for trying to shepherd this institution,
    is--I have to look at what I think can be delivered----
        Senator King. Sure.
        Secretary Carter.--on a stable basis. That was what the
    bipartisan budget agreement is, and that is the--that has been
    the foundation, and remains the foundation, for our budget
    submission. We did a very good job, in my judgment--and this is
    the senior leadership of the Department--to manage responsibly
    within that budget. We've done that. That's the budget we
    submitted, months ago----
        Senator King. Mr. Secretary, I----
        Secretary Carter.--for this fiscal year. Now the fiscal
    year ends, and--so, we've played it very straight.
        Senator King. My point is, we had a budget agreement, we
    had a number, and we still can't get it done.
        Let me ask an entirely different question.
        Next week, we are probably going to be dealing with a veto
    of the bill that would allow people to sue Saudi Arabia, the
    so-called Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. General
    Dunford, do you have--or both of you--do you have concerns
    about what the effect on our troops, our liability around the
    world, would be if that bill becomes law?
        Secretary Carter. Let me--if I may, I'll say something
    first----
        Senator King. Sure.
        Secretary Carter.--and then General Dunford, if he wishes
    to.
        The--first of all, I completely associate myself with the
    intention of this, which is to honor the families of the 9/11
    perished. That is the origin of this. That's--is a worthy one.
        I--it is a law enforcement matter, and, I have to say,
    we're--we--we're not the ones who are dealing with it, nor
    are--am I, at least, an expert on it. But, you did raise one
    thing that I am aware of, which is a complication from--that
    would be a complication, from our point of view, namely that
    were another country to behave reciprocally towards the United
    States, that could be a problem for some of our servicemembers.
    That is, I'm told, a--something that we, in the Department of
    Defense, should be concerned about. You're referring to that.
    That's my understanding, as well.
        Let me ask the Chairman if he wants to add anything.
        General Dunford. Senator, the potential second-order effect
    the Secretary has raised is one that was--been brought to my
    attention. That's my concern, as well.
        Senator King. I think it would be helpful if you could give
    us more detail on that issue, because we're going to be having
    to make a decision, probably next week. I, for one, want to be
    sure I understand the full implications of that decision, not
    only on the victims' families, but also on other United States
    interests around the world. I'd appreciate it if that could be
    made available in the next few days.
        Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Reed. On behalf of the Chairman, Senator Ayotte,
    please.
        Senator Ayotte. Thank you, Chairman.
        I want to thank you both for your service and leadership
    for the country.
        You know, just to briefly weigh on this funding issue,
    what's been most disappointing to me, as someone who supported
    the bipartisan budget agreement, is that the defense
    appropriations bill passed within that cap set by the
    bipartisan budget agreement unanimously out of the
    Appropriations Committee. Both parties agreed with the funding
    on defense. Then it came to the Senate floor, and it's been
    blocked multiple times because it's being held hostage to other
    issues.
        Just to be clear, what you're asking for, it's there. It's
    just disappointing to people like me and others here, because
    the priority of defending this Nation and having the funding
    for our troops and what you need to do should be our priority,
    no matter what.
        You know, as I hear this kabuki dance, it's obvious. We
    passed an appropriations bill. It was completely bipartisan,
    within the budget caps. Why is it being blocked? I was proud to
    vote for it. I'd vote for it again tomorrow. I just wish we'd
    get it done for you and our men and women in uniform.
        I wanted to shift gears here and ask about Iran. General
    Dunford, does Iran continue to be one of the lead sponsors of
    terrorism around the world?
        General Dunford. They are, Senator. I describe their major
    export as malign influence.
        Senator Ayotte. Are they continuing to test ballistic
    missiles that is quite troubling to both us and our allies and,
    I think, in violation of U.N. resolutions?
        General Dunford. They are, Senator, as well as provocative
    behavior in the Gulf.
        Senator Ayotte. Exactly, that our military has encountered
    in the Gulf just recently.
        General Dunford. That's right, Senator.
        Senator Ayotte. One of the things that I wanted to ask
    about is--recently, we learned that the $1.7 billion in cash
    relief has actually gone--that the administration has provided
    Iran--has actually gone directly to the Revolutionary Guard
    Corps. I don't know if you were aware of that. In fact, the
    Iranian parliament, or their equivalent of our--their
    legislative body passed a law that essentially said if there
    was a settlement, a legal settlement from a foreign country,
    which is how this $1.7 billion has been characterized, it would
    go directly to the military. Does that trouble you, that
    they're taking the proceeds that we're giving them and funding
    their military?
        General Dunford. Senator, I wasn't aware of it. It doesn't
    surprise me that the Republican Guard would have a high
    priority for funding inside of Iran. But, it certainly is
    troubling. The more funds that they have available, obviously,
    the more effective they'll be in spreading malign influence.
        Senator Ayotte. One of the things, as I look at this--this
    is our--you know, this relief that we're giving them, they're
    testing ballistic missiles, they--the money that they're
    getting--this isn't going to the Iranian people, it's going to
    their Revolutionary Guard Corps, that we know promotes
    terrorism and undermines stability around the world. As I see
    this situation, I don't see us taking any steps that we should,
    in terms of being aggressive in coming back, especially on the
    ballistic missile program and their terrorism issues. What
    should we be doing, General?
        General Dunford. Senator, there's two things that I'd draw
    your attention to. First is our posture in the Central Command,
    which is, in fact, their--both to deter Iran, but also to
    respond to Iran, should a response be required. Also, in the
    fiscal year 2017 budget--and I expect you'll see similar
    requests in the fiscal year 2018 budget--much of what we are
    focused on is dealing with what we describe as anti-access area
    denial. That's Iran's desire to keep us from moving into that
    area, and then operating freely within that area. Many of the
    programs, from a cyber perspective, from ballistic missile
    defense capability, strike capability, are all designed to deal
    with the threat of Iran in the region.
        Senator Ayotte. Let me just ask you. They're still testing
    ballistic missiles. Would you agree that's a grave threat and
    something that needs to be addressed, in terms of our security?
    This is all post-agreement, that they're doing this, agreed?
        General Dunford. Absolutely, Senator, and that's why we've
    identified them as one of the four state challenges that we
    benchmark our joint capabilities against.
        Senator Ayotte. One of the things I wanted to ask your
    thoughts on, General, is that we've learned about this $400
    million in cash that Iran got, that would be included in the
    $1.7 billion that I referenced, for release of the American
    hostages. Did you think that was a good idea? Were you
    consulted about that?
        General Dunford. Senator, that would, in the normal course
    of events, not be something that would be in my lane, so I was
    not consulted.
        Senator Ayotte. Well, do you think it's a good idea that we
    should exchange cash to a country like Iran, that you've
    already confirmed is one of the largest state sponsors of
    terrorism, in exchange for hostages? Because, as I look at this
    situation, they've now taken at least three more American
    hostages.
        General Dunford. Senator, I just don't know the details of
    the agreement that was made with Iran and what the nature of
    that money was. I--you know, on principle, I would prefer that
    we not provide additional resources to Iran.
        Senator Ayotte. On principle, you'd rather them not have
    more money. I mean, doesn't it worry you that, as we think
    about exchanging cash with a country like Iran--obviously, it
    was funneled through the European countries--and that, in fact,
    we're going to encourage more bad behavior from Iran, and we've
    seen some of it? Isn't that something we should be concerned
    about?
        General Dunford. Senator, before whatever arrangement was
    made, and after whatever arrangement was made, I'm under no
    illusion of what Iran is intending to do, nor are we not--nor
    are we--we are mindful of the capabilities that they're
    developing, as well.
        Senator Ayotte. Well, I hope--you know, I've introduced
    sanctions legislation on--to address their ballistic missile
    program. I think this ransom payment issue is just deeply
    troubling, and it's just causing further bad behavior from
    Iran. We know they've taken further hostages. I just hope that
    this administration will step up and finally address Iran's bad
    behavior.
        Senator Reed. On behalf of Chairman McCain, Senator Ernst,
    please.
        Senator Ernst. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Thank you, gentlemen, for being with us today and joining
    in the discussion.
        I'd like to start with just a few quick yes-or-no
    questions; very brief, please, gentlemen.
        For Secretary Carter, did you know that Khalid Sheikh
    Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, and Ramzi Yousef,
    who masterminded and planned the 1993 World Trade Center
    attacks, utilized the Philippines as a safe haven for their
    planning and training? Yes or no?
        Secretary Carter. Senator, it's--I'll just say it to be--
    I'll try your questions yes or no. It depends on whether they
    lend themselves to that. In this case, no, I was not aware.
        Senator Ernst. Okay. Yes, he did use it as a safe haven
    during that planning and training.
        General Dunford, did you know that Operation Enduring
    Freedom covered the Philippines in order to train and assist
    those local forces in the Philippines against al Qaeda-linked
    terrorist organizations?
        General Dunford. Yes, I did, Senator.
        Senator Ernst. Okay, thank you, General.
        For both of you, are you both aware that ISIS released a
    video this year encouraging fighters that can't get into Syria
    to head to the Philippines?
        Secretary Carter. I am, yes.
        General Dunford. I am, as well. I was in Manila last week,
    Senator.
        Senator Ernst. Wonderful. Thank you, General.
        Just like we're witnessing in the Middle East, and we have
    heard much of the discussion today focus on the Middle East.
    General, I appreciate you've spent time in Africa, as well,
    dealing with Islamic extremist groups. They are also in
    Southeast Asia. We are not spending much time talking about
    that. Groups like Abu Sayyaf, they're bonding together beneath
    the flag of ISIS. Yet, we really, like I said, don't seem to be
    focusing on this. The Philippine forces lost 44 of their
    special police in a single battle to these terrorist groups
    last year. Fifteen soldiers were killed in a single battle just
    last month. It's clear that this is a very real threat.
        President Obama admitted that we have underestimated the
    rise of ISIS in the Middle East. What I fear right now is that
    we are completely underestimating the rise of ISIS in Southeast
    Asia.
        Before the President went to Asia last month, I did send a
    letter to him and encouraged him to visit about how we can
    counter terrorism and counter ISIS in that region. I did urge
    him to bring up this issue with the President. Shortly after
    that, ISIS claimed another attack, killing 14 civilians.
        Secretary Carter, are you concerned with what we see as the
    rise of ISIS in Southeast Asia?
        Secretary Carter. I am. I'll say something, and then I'll
    ask the Chairman also if he'd chime in.
        When I talked about the metastasis of the cancer of ISIL,
    you're absolutely right that South Asia clearly is a place they
    aspire to spreading. I talk to our counterparts there who are
    concerned about it. We work with them. Just next week, I'm--
    I'll be convening them in Honolulu on a number of issues of
    Pacific security, but one of them is going to be
    counterterrorism and countering ISIL. I'd say Malaysia,
    Indonesia, Singapore--you mentioned the Philippines, and other
    places, but those four come to mind. I've spoken to the Defense
    Ministers in each of those four countries. They have concerns,
    particularly about the possibility that ISIS could establish a
    foothold there. In some places, it's already troubled, in some
    way. There are places in all those countries. It could grab
    hold there.
        Senator Ernst. Absolutely.
        Secretary Carter. It is very much on our agenda.
        Chairman, please.
        General Dunford. Senator, I agree with your assessment and
    concerns. Last week, I met with 29 Chiefs of Defense in the
    Pacific, in Manilla, hosted by the Chief of Defense of the
    Philippine Armed Forces, and we discussed, broadly, the threat
    of extremism in Asia and what we need to do to deal with it.
        To your point, there's 1,000 foreign fighters, alone, we
    estimate have come from Indonesia into Syria and Iraq. There
    are hundreds that came from the Philippines. Other countries,
    as well, are dealing with that issue.
        I think, although it's not very visible, there's a
    significant amount of activity going on to build the capacity
    of our partners in the Pacific. We're trying to work with them
    to develop a framework within which they can share information,
    share intelligence. We have a significant maritime domain
    awareness initiative, which will help them understand the
    movement into the sea. We see, for example, significant
    cooperation between the Philippines, Malaysia, and Indonesia in
    the Sulu Sea associated with the movement of people and so
    forth, you know, in--as part of this violent extremist problem.
        It is a different fight. I call it a requirement for a
    regional approach in Southeast Asia, as opposed to a coalition,
    which is required in Syria and Iraq. But, we are absolutely
    putting pressure on ISIL in South Asia. We are absolutely
    working very closely with our partners. Frankly, the limit of
    the support we provide is often what they are willing to accept
    politically. We're very keen, and we will bring to the
    President any requests for support. I think, as you know,
    Senator, we are providing some support now to the Philippines--
    intelligence support and----
        Senator Ernst. Absolutely.
        General Dunford.--other support, to help them to deal with
    the extremist problem that they have in the south.
        Senator Ernst. Thank you, General.
        Thank you, gentlemen.
        I just really want us to ensure that we are not taking our
    eyes off of that region. We seem to focus very heavily, as we
    should, on the Middle East and Africa, but we do have other
    footholds for ISIS. We do have five new bases going into the
    Philippines, and I think it's important that we really focus on
    these counter-ISIS opportunities.
        Thank you, gentlemen, very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Senator Reed. On behalf of the Chairman, let me recognize
    Senator Shaheen.
        Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Secretary Carter and General Dunford, for being
    here today and for your service to the country.
        General Dunford, at one point before this committee, you
    indicated that you believe Russia poses the greatest threat to
    the United States. Do you still feel that way? If so, can you
    identify where you think those threats are most concerning?
        General Dunford. Senator, I can. Thank you. I raised that
    issue--I was asked before the committee, what did I think the
    most significant challenge to the United States was. Of course,
    we talk about all four state challenges and one violent
    extremist. But, when I look at Russia's nuclear capability,
    when I look at their cyber capability, when I look at their
    developments in undersea warfare, when I look at their patterns
    of operation--how often they've operating, the locations
    they're operating--it's a pattern of operations that we haven't
    seen in over 20 years. When I look at Mr. Putin's activities in
    the Ukraine, in Crimea, in Georgia, that causes me to say that
    a combination of their behavior as well as their military
    capability, again, in some high-end areas, would cause me to
    believe that they pose the most significant challenge,
    potentially the most significant threat to our national
    interests.
        Senator Shaheen. Well, thank you.
        I very much appreciate, Secretary Carter, your raising the
    European Reassurance Initiative as one of the programs that's
    threatened if we can't get agreement in Congress on funding,
    and share that concern, especially because of the potential
    threat that Russia poses on--in Eastern Europe.
        One of the things that Secretary Kerry said yesterday was
    that we should consider grounding all military aircraft in key
    areas of Syria in response to what appears to be a blatant
    Russian bombing of the humanitarian aid that was scheduled to
    go into Syria. They have denied, of course, but, I think, as
    we've seen in the past, we can't really believe what they say.
        I would ask you, Secretary Carter, do you agree that that
    is one avenue that we could take? What would be the followup
    position if they continue to fly aircraft?
        Secretary Carter. Well, I can't speak for Secretary Kerry.
    He is trying to get on the--for the Syrian and Russian air
    force, exactly that, a cessation of hostilities and a--which
    means a grounding of their aircraft, and not continuing to use
    them, particularly in a clumsy way--it's a nice word--in the
    Syrian civil war.
        There's no question--can be no question of grounding U.S.
    aircraft that are conducting strikes against ISIL. We do that.
    We do that with exceptional precision and care and concern for
    civilian casualties that no other country can match. That's
    true of our whole coalition in all the strikes we conduct.
        They're not in the same category at all. We need to
    continue with our air campaign to defeat ISIL.
        Let me ask the Chairman if he wants--anything to add.
        General Dunford. Senator, the most significant concern I
    would have--and I don't know what the proposal is--but, I would
    not--first of all, there's no reason to ground our aircraft.
    We're not barrel bombing civilians, we're not causing
    collateral damage. We have momentum, as we've all discussed
    here earlier today, against ISIL right now. I think what the
    Secretary is saying, I fully associate myself with. We need to
    keep the pressure on ISIL. The number-one priority that we have
    is disrupting their ability to plan and conduct external
    operations from Syria. The cost of taking pressure off of ISIL
    right now exposes us to risk that I think is not acceptable.
        Senator Shaheen. In the absence of some other action that
    we take, along with our allies in that area, do you see
    anything changing the dynamic of the civil war in Syria? I
    mean, I--I believe it's going to take some other outside--some
    other intervention in order to change the direction of this
    war. Right now, there's nothing happening that would do that.
        Either one of you.
        Secretary Carter. Well, I'll start.
        The direction in which Secretary Kerry is trying to get the
    Russians to move, which I understand fully, is the direction
    they always should have been in Syria, which is towards putting
    an end to the civil war, not pouring gasoline on it, and not
    emboldening Assad to be intransigent----
        Senator Shaheen. But----
        Secretary Carter.--let alone conducting an air campaign,
    which is--doesn't adhere to the standards that ours does.
        Senator Shaheen. But--I'm sorry to interrupt, Mr.
    Secretary, but I guess--I appreciate what you're saying, and
    that that should have been Russia's position all along, but
    clearly----
        Secretary Carter. That's what Secretary Kerry's trying to
    get them to.
        Senator Shaheen. Right. But, we have had no success, after
    five years of civil war. What I'm asking is, What other options
    do we have that might change the trajectory of what's happening
    in Syria?
        Secretary Carter. Well, I'm--again, I'm not going to try to
    get in the middle of these negotiations, but I think that
    Secretary Kerry is trying to find a way to achieve those
    objectives. They're--those are the right objectives to have. As
    we sit here today, the Russians do not, and the Syrians do not,
    seem to be moving in that direction, as he said yesterday.
        Chairman, you want to add anything?
        Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman McCain [presiding]. Senator Cotton.
        Senator Cotton. Thank you.
        Mr. Secretary, I share your regret about the Department
    starting the fiscal year with another Continuing Resolution. I
    also regret that the Democrats have filibustered the Defense
    appropriations bills three times. Do you share my regret over
    that fact?
        Secretary Carter. I can't speak to the internal
    deliberations of the Congress. The only thing I'd say----
        Senator Cotton. Well, that's a public vote. That's not an
    internal----
        Secretary Carter. Well, let me just say, we know that the
    only way to get budget stability is with everybody coming
    together. I see proposals from this side and that side, and
    this committee and that committee, and they're all different.
    We submitted a budget, in accordance with the bipartisan budget
    agreements just months after a two-year bipartisan budget
    agreement was agreed. That's what we did. That is, in my
    judgment, the only way we can get true stability.
        I'm--I am continuing to support the position of the
    bipartisan budget agreement. Anything that comes out of the
    Congress that is supported, an appropriation, at last, for
    fiscal year 2017 would be good for the Department of Defense. I
    hope we get such a thing----
        Senator Cotton. Do you----
        Secretary Carter.--in November.
        Senator Cotton. Do you----
        Secretary Carter. But, the reality is that these things
    have to be supported by both parties, both houses, and signed
    by the President. I'm the Secretary of Defense. I can't make
    all that happen. But, I know that's what has to happen in order
    for us to get an appropriation. Eight years in a row, straight,
    that hasn't----
        Senator Cotton. Okay.
        Secretary Carter.--happened.
        Senator Cotton. I understand. My time is limited here.
        Do you believe, if a bill is passed out of the House of
    Representatives that has a larger increase for defense spending
    than it does for nondefense discretionary spending, that the
    President should sign that legislation?
        Secretary Carter. I can't speak for the----
        Senator Cotton. Mr. Secretary, you are the----
        Secretary Carter. I'm going to give you----
        Senator Cotton.--Secretary of Defense.
        Secretary Carter. You asked the question----
        Senator Cotton. You are not the Director of the National
    Endowment of the Arts. You're not the Secretary of Housing and
    Urban Development. You are the----
        Secretary Carter. That's where I was----
        Senator Cotton.--Secretary of Defense.
        Secretary Carter.--headed. That's exactly where I was
    headed. I'm not. Therefore, I can't speak for the needs of
    those departments. I do know that some of the national-
    security-related departments, which are outside of the defense
    appropriation----
        Senator Cotton. You stated that----
        Secretary Carter.--with which I am----
        Senator Cotton.--stated that testimony up to here----
        Secretary Carter.--need their funding----
        Senator Cotton.--and others----
        Secretary Carter.--as well. It's not a matter of
    indifference to me whether the government as a whole is funded.
    It's certainly not a matter of indifference to me whether an
    appropriation that can be supported by everyone up here so that
    it passes, and passed by the President, is done, or not. That's
    what I have to be for. Because I'm for getting a budget and for
    budget stability. I just observe--I'm not a participant, I'm an
    observer--that the only way that happens is not with this
    proposal and that proposal, it's with a bipartisan budget
    agreement. That's the line we tried to hew to. We're just
    playing it as straight----
        Senator Cotton. I----
        Secretary Carter.--as we can.
        Senator Cotton. I understand. You were the Deputy Secretary
    of Defense for Secretary Panetta. Is that correct?
        Secretary Carter. Yes.
        Senator Cotton. On page 374 of his memoirs, he states, ``In
    fact, as my efforts to fight the sequester began to get some
    attention, a few congressional Democrats urged me to emphasize
    the danger of cuts to domestic programs, not just defense. To
    my amazement, the rest of the Cabinet, including members
    responsible for those parts of the budget, largely stayed out
    of the debate. That left me to argue for all of us, which I
    tried to do, even when I found myself frustratingly alone.''
        Have congressional Democrats urged you to advocate for
    increased domestic spending in addition to defense spending?
        Secretary Carter. Well, first of all, I should say, you
    know, few had the experience with bipartisan budget management
    than Secretary Panetta. I don't remember that passage of his
    memoirs, but that sounds--it sounds like his----
        Senator Cotton. Do you remember----
        Secretary Carter.--his voice. But----
        Senator Cotton. Do you remember----
        Secretary Carter.--I've not found myself in the same
    circumstance, except I am in the same circumstance he was,
    namely--and I guess that was 2013--facing the prospect of
    sequester. He didn't like it. I didn't like it. I don't think
    any Secretary of Defense liked it. I think it's awfully unfair
    to our troops to do this again and again and again and again.
    That's what we've been warning about. That's where I have been.
    That's what our chiefs did last week. I'm just hoping that,
    when everybody comes back in November, Congress reconvenes,
    that we get an appropriation that everybody can stand behind
    and that moves the country forward.
        Senator Cotton. General Dunford, are we in great-power
    competition with China?
        General Dunford. We are, Senator.
        Senator Cotton. Secretary Carter, are we in great-power
    competition with China?
        Secretary Carter. We are, absolutely right.
        Senator Cotton. Thank you.
        One final question. Are you engaged in any planning,
    deliberations, internal consultations of any kind to transfer
    control of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay to the
    Department of Justice?
        Secretary Carter. No. I'm not.
        Senator Cotton. Thank you.
        Chairman McCain. Senator McCaskill.
        Senator McCaskill. I'm going to take a deep breath. I'm
    always proud to serve on this committee, because it's an oasis
    of bipartisanship in the Senate. I hope we keep our eye firmly
    on our ability to lead in a bipartisan way to get the funding
    for our military that we really need, including being honest
    about budgeting, not putting base budget items in OCO [Overseas
    Contingency Operations] so that we can pretend that we're not
    spending money because OCO is off the budget books. I think
    that the Chairman has done a remarkable job to try to keep us
    in an honest place as it relates to budgeting. I respect him
    for his effort in that regard. I know I speak for many on our
    side of the aisle, including, I hope--I know, the Ranking
    Member, that we're going to continue to try to work as hard as
    we can in a bipartisan way to get your budget done and make
    sure we're not trying to come back in six months and fund the
    war effort because we've played budget games at the eleventh
    hour with OCO.
        My question today--we've got $1.3 in the fiscal year 2017
    budget for train-and-equip for local opposition forces and for
    the Iraqi Security Forces. I'd like some kind of brief update,
    if I could, on the screening process. How are we determining
    who--I mean, one of our challenges has always been in Syria.
    Who do we help? Are they really the good guys? Obviously, we
    had one massive failed attempt to try to put together a force
    on the ground through train-and-equip. Now I know we've gone
    back. I was in Jordan and visited with our leaders over there
    about the effort that's ongoing, working with smaller groups
    and testing them first and making sure they're doing the right
    thing. But, if you could briefly talk about how we are doing
    the screening process for those resources, I'd appreciate it.
        Secretary Carter. Sure, Senator. I'll start. Thank you.
    Basically, it is as you say. Namely, we have the same vetting
    process going on--and I'll as the Chairman to describe that--
    but, the train-and-equip program that was a disappointment when
    it started is now--we have a--changed completely our approach
    to it. It is as you describe; namely, not trying to create de
    novo forces that will go in and oppose ISIL, but identifying
    forces that are, and then enabling them. That has been
    successful. We're going to continue to do that. It does involve
    vetting to our standards, which is required of us. But, the
    program has changed. It needed to change. It did change, and is
    now on a much successful footing.
        I should also thank the committee, in the spirit of what
    you said earlier, about--for their budgetary support in a
    timely way to our requests for that. Much appreciate that, as
    well.
        If--I'd ask the Chairman, also.
        General Dunford. Senator, just some of the mechanics.
    First, individuals who we are working with are vouched for by
    their tribal leadership. We do biometrics. We do a detailed
    interview process. We watch closely their behaviors. I would
    say our leaders over the last several years have been very,
    very good at literally separating wheat from the chaff as we go
    through the process of growing Syrian opposition--Syrian or, as
    the case may be, forces in Iraq--tribal forces in Iraq.
        The vetting process, I think, is fairly sophisticated.
    Again, it's built on 15 years of lessons learned right now. A
    combination of the technology that we have available with
    biometrics, but also some intangibles that include, again,
    tribal leadership, behavior identification, those kinds of
    things.
        Senator McCaskill. I also wanted to--to both of you, I
    appreciate your continued commitment in the area of sexual
    assault. I know we have put a lot on the military. I think we
    have counted up--literally, there are hundreds of changes we
    have made over the last few years to the Uniform Code of
    Military Justice. I did want to hone in on one area, because,
    as we looked at all of the reports in the last year, lots of
    good news--incidents down, reporting up--but that retaliation
    thing is an issue. You issued a report in April which
    highlighted standardizing the definition of ``retaliation,''
    which is tough, because, you know, sometimes it's in the eye of
    the person who's being retaliated upon. Getting a standard
    definition, I think, is really important. We put, in this
    year's NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act], a provision
    to make retaliation its own offense. I wanted to find out, What
    kind of progress are you making on trying to come up with a
    standardized definition of ``retaliation'' in this context?
        Secretary Carter. Thanks very much, Senator. Let me just
    begin by saying--by thanking you and all the members of this
    committee for bearing down on this problem. You know, I'm
    really proud of the way our forces conduct themselves, but
    there always--there are people who don't conduct themselves up
    to that standard. We can't have it. It's objectionable anywhere
    in society, but, in the profession of arms, it's particularly
    objectionable. I very much appreciate your efforts.
        You're right, retaliation is something that we have begun
    to realize is a dimension of this problem that was under-
    attended. We had done good work, I think, at the law
    enforcement part, attending to victims, and at prevention.
    Retaliation--the reason why, definitionally, it's complicated,
    but we'll get there, is that there are a number of different
    ways that retaliation takes place, some of them quite subtle,
    but serious. One is, you know, a superior who holds it against
    somebody that they reported a sexual----
        Senator McCaskill. Right.
        Secretary Carter.--assault, which is----
        Senator McCaskill. Failure to promote.
        Secretary Carter.--completely unfair. A little more
    indirect is people who are getting taunted----
        Senator McCaskill. Social----
        Secretary Carter.--via social----
        Senator McCaskill.--retaliation.
        Secretary Carter.--media and so forth. We need to define
    these in such a way that they're legally appropriate, which you
    would understand, but that also cover the full gamut of things
    that a commonsense definition of ``retaliation'' would include.
    We are working towards that. It is complicated, but we'll get
    there. I very much----
        Senator McCaskill. How soon----
        Secretary Carter.--appreciate----
        Senator McCaskill.--do you think you'll get there?
        Secretary Carter.--your effort. I believe that the update
    on that is due by the end of the year--of this year. I did--the
    report that I submitted to you was earlier in this year. We
    should be able to get that done. Of course, we'll communicate
    that to the committee and get your views. But, I appreciate
    your sticking with us on this issue.
        Senator McCaskill. Thank you both.
        Chairman McCain. Secretary, I'd just like to point out
    that, if it were not for the work of the women on this
    committee in a bipartisan basis, we would not have achieved the
    results that we have. I am deeply appreciative for the
    bipartisan effort that's gone on, and continues to go on, in
    this committee to address an issue that you know is still with
    us. It may be to a lesser degree, but is still with us.
        Senator Tillis.
        Senator Tillis. Good morning, gentlemen.
        Secretary Carter, I want to go back to the comments that
    Senator Ayotte made about--I was someone else who supported the
    bipartisan budget agreement. Very disappointed that, on three
    different occasions, the defense appropriations bill has been
    filibustered. What--not talking about any other discussions
    about appropriations. You're familiar with our defense
    appropriations bill, right? The one that's been filibustered on
    three different occasions. Do each of you think that passing
    that bill would be helpful with respect to completing your
    mission within your lanes?
        Secretary Carter. Well, I'm going to go back to where I
    started, which is, there's no particular bill. I--I'm aware of
    three or four different versions----
        Senator Tillis. Are you familiar with the measure that
    we've tried to get on----
        Secretary Carter. Well, let me----
        Senator Tillis.--in the chamber on three different
    occasions----
        Secretary Carter. I'm aware of----
        Senator Tillis.--that were filibustered?
        Secretary Carter.--several different measures, both in the
    Senate and the House.
        Senator Tillis. No. Secretary Carter, this is a specific
    thing that we're trying to get on in the chamber of the Senate.
    Are you familiar with a bill that passed out of
    appropriations--the defense appropriations bill--that we've
    tried to get on in the chamber?
        Secretary Carter. I am. I've--am aware of the one that came
    before, yes.
        Senator Tillis. Are you--is anyone on your staff familiar
    with an appropriations bill that we're trying to get on in the
    Senate chamber?
        Secretary Carter. I'm sure they are.
        Senator Tillis. Okay. What would they generally say about
    the passage of that bill with respect to you being able to
    complete your mission? In your lane. I'm not talking about any
    of the other appropriations bills.
        Secretary Carter. Well, I think what they'd say is that if
    the Senate and the House pass an appropriations bill that
    comports--that the President can sign, we will get an
    appropriations bill. I fully----
        Senator Tillis. Let me----
        Secretary Carter.--hope we can get exactly that----
        Senator Tillis. Let me go to General Dunford.
        General Dunford, are you----
        Secretary Carter.--after the election.
        Senator Tillis.--familiar----
        Secretary Carter.--in November when people----
        Senator Tillis.--with the defense----
        Secretary Carter.--return here and----
        Senator Tillis.--appropriations bill that's been
    filibustered on three different occasions?
        General Dunford. Senator, I'm not familiar with the
    details.
        Senator Tillis. Do you know, generally, from your Service
    Chiefs or anyone else, that they think it would be helpful to
    pass that bill? Have you received any feedback on--this is a
    specific measure. This isn't a concept, this is something
    that's gone through the appropriations process, it's something
    that we want to pass that gives you certainty, that's within
    the constraints of the bipartisan budget agreement.
        Chairman McCain. Senator, we do not ask the uniformed
    military for their opinion on issues that are political in
    nature.
        Senator Tillis. Fair enough.
        Let me go to something else.
        Well, it just seems odd to me that we can't get a straight
    answer on something--at least on the political side, Mr. Chair,
    I understand that--from the Secretary on something that's
    specific to helping provide the certainty that we want to
    provide the Department.
        I want to ask a--go a completely different direction.
    General Dunford, maybe I'll ask you.
        Back in January, we had Iranians fire missiles within about
    1500 yards of the Harry S. Truman. Later in the same month, we
    had patrol boats captured. I'm sure you're familiar with
    Article 2 of the Code of Conduct for Members of the Armed
    Forces. Do you think the commander who surrendered met the
    dictates of the Code of Conduct under Article 2, or where there
    other mitigating factors that prevented him from doing that?
        General Dunford. Senator, I believe that's being
    adjudicated right now in accordance with the UCMJ [Uniform Code
    of Military Trustee], so it wouldn't be appropriate for me to
    comment publicly. But, the fact that it's going through the
    UCMJ, obviously, I think, answers your question.
        Senator Tillis. Another subject. This has to do with ISIL.
    You said that we need to keep the pressure on ISIL. I know that
    that was being answered in the context of Syria, and probably
    Iraq. But, do you feel like we have adequately addressed
    putting--keeping pressure on ISIL globally when you talk about
    Libya, you talk about Egypt and other areas where they seem to
    be--and Senator Ernst talked about the Philippines--do you feel
    like that we have an adequate global strategy for keeping
    pressure on ISIL?
        General Dunford. Senator, I want to assure you that we have
    a military strategy to deal with ISIL globally. We look very
    carefully at ISIL, wherever they are. We have ongoing--and we
    don't have an opportunity often to talk about it--but, we have
    ongoing operations in West Africa. We have ongoing operations
    in Libya. We have ongoing operations in East Africa. Of course,
    Syria and Iraq, we've spoken much about that today. We have
    ongoing operations in Afghanistan. We're involved in a wide
    range of capacity-building exercises and initiatives in
    Southeast Asia. We're also working--and I've just spent this
    weekend with a large group of my counterparts to look at
    counter-ISIL. I'll have almost 50 Chiefs of Defense here in
    October to discuss this. This is, in fact, what you're
    suggesting, a transregional problem that will require a global
    response. One of the key drivers of our success will be a
    broader intelligence and information framework within which we
    can harness all of these other nations who have information
    that would be helpful to us.
        But, am I satisfied or complacent with where we are? No. Do
    I believe we have a strategic framework within which to deal
    with ISIL transregionally? Yes.
        Senator Tillis. Thank you.
        Chairman McCain. Senator Nelson.
        Senator Nelson. Gentlemen, thank you for your public
    service.
        Would either one of you like to characterize the resurgence
    of the Taliban in Afghanistan?
        Secretary Carter. I'll start.
        It is the fighting season in Afghanistan. The Afghan
    Security Forces have done well this season. The Taliban has
    been strong. But, the Afghan Security Forces are much stronger
    this year than they were last year. They continue to gather
    strength. General Nicholson's doing a great job of helping them
    with that. We made some decisions--the President made some
    decisions which gave General Nicholson some wider scope to
    advise, assist, and so forth, the Afghan Security Forces. The
    President made a decision to adjust upward our presence there
    next year. We're continuing to go forward with the aviation and
    other enablers for the Afghan Security Forces.
        The process, which has been under some--underway some--for
    some years to try to build the Afghan Security Forces to the--
    to a point where they can maintain the security of their
    country and Afghanistan doesn't become again a place from which
    terrorism arises in the United States, that is our program.
    That is what we've been trying to accomplish.
        I should turn to--because we--that progress, we owe, in
    very important measure, to General Dunford, when he was the
    commander there. He knows that very well, so let me ask him to
    join in.
        General Dunford. Senator, there is no doubt that the Afghan
    National Security Forces have had some challenges over the past
    18 months, when they've been in the lead and we have gone to a
    train-and-advise-assist mission. Our assessment is that they
    continue to control about 70 percent of the country. They've
    taken far more casualties than we're comfortable with, and they
    still have capability gaps in their Special Operations
    capability, their aviation enterprise, their intelligence,
    logistics, and, of course, broadly at the Minister of Defense,
    Minister Interior level. That's our focus right now, is to
    further develop those capabilities so we can mitigate the
    casualties that they're suffering, which is of great concern,
    as well as some of the tactical setbacks that they've had.
        But, on balance, I would call what's going on right now
    between the Afghan National Defense Security Forces and the
    Taliban as roughly a stalemate. The Taliban have not been
    successful in achieving the goals that were outlined in their
    campaign plan, which they typically make public in the spring
    of each year. On balance, the Afghan forces are holding.
        In my judgment, if we commit to continue to support the
    Afghan forces, and continue to grow their capability, they will
    be able to provide security in Afghanistan. As Secretary Carter
    said, as importantly, we'll be able to maintain an effective
    counterterrorism presence and platform in South Asia in
    conjunction with our Afghan partners.
        Senator Nelson. Thank you, gentlemen.
        Thank you.
        Chairman McCain. Senator Lee.
        Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thanks, to both of you, for all you do to keep us safe and
    to keep our country free. Your service and sacrifice are deeply
    appreciated.
        Late last week, there was a video that surfaced, a video
    that appeared to show the Free Syrian Army--personnel from the
    Free Syrian Army--threatening and insulting American
    servicemembers and forcing them to leave the town of al Rai,
    where they had been providing assistance to the FSA. Analysts
    who have studied the video believe the incident occurred
    because the United States is also supporting Kurdish forces in
    Syria.
        Secretary Carter, first, have you seen this video, and can
    you confirm reports that it appears to have taken place in al
    Rai?
        Secretary Carter. I've not seen the video. I've read
    reports about it. Let me ask Chairman Dunford, who has followed
    that closely, to answer you.
        General Dunford. Senator, it took place in northern Syria.
    I'm familiar with it. I didn't watch the video. I have spoken
    to our commanders about it.
        What I can assure you is that that--the group that was
    taking some action against our forces, at least verbally, was a
    very small minority of the forces we're supporting. That
    incident was policed up by our other partners. We view that to
    be an isolated incident and not reflective of the relationship
    that our forces have with the vetted Syrian opposition forces.
    In fact, I think the progress along the northern border between
    Syria and Turkey is indicative of the relationship we have,
    which is very effective.
        Senator Lee. Okay. I think that goes a certain distance
    toward answering what was my next question, which was, you
    know, What's the level of tension that you're seeing between
    some of the Sunni Arab rebel groups that we're assisting, on
    the one hand, and, on the other hand, the Kurdish groups that
    we're also supporting in Syria? Is that--is there tension
    there? Could that tension and the resentment that it engenders
    possibly threaten the security of our U.S. personnel?
        General Dunford. Senator, it is incredible tension in that
    region. I would offer to you, I think it's a testimony to the
    professionalism of our forces that are there, because they have
    actually been managing this tension for months and months. The
    fact that we've been able to continue to support the Syrian
    Democratic Forces and have them make the significant progress
    they made, and continue to support the vetted Syrian opposition
    forces while we politically manage the relationship between
    Turkey and the Syrian Democratic Forces and the United States,
    is all--it's--it is all part of a pretty complicated situation
    on the ground over there that we are managing on a day-to-day
    basis.
        I'm not dismissive of the challenges. But, frankly, to
    date, we have been able to mitigate them.
        Senator Lee. Okay. Thank you.
        Yesterday, as I'm sure you're both aware, the Senate
    debated a resolution of disapproval related to the sale of
    United States weapons to Saudi Arabia. There was some
    discussion of our broader support of Saudi Arabia's
    intervention in Yemen. This is a headline from November 2014,
    ``Houthis Gain Ground Against Yemen's al Qaeda, Say They Will
    Continue Their Fight Until al Qaeda Is Defeated in Their
    Strongholds.''
        Secretary Carter, you stated, on April 8th, 2015, regarding
    new gains being made by al Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula [AQAP],
    ``AQAP is a group that we're very concerned with as the United
    States, because, in addition to having other regional ambitions
    and ambitions within Yemen, we all know that AQAP has the
    ambition to strike Western targets, including the United
    States,''.
        Now, your quote was made, I believe, roughly one month
    after the U.S. supported intervention against other Houthi
    rebels, who, 4 months before, had been pushing back against
    AQAP, before that began in earnest.
        Now, I understand the complexity of the conflict in Yemen.
    I completely appreciate the fact that there are no easy answers
    when it comes to that conflict in Yemen. But, Mr. Secretary, do
    you--do AQAP and other Sunni extremist groups operating in
    Yemen still pose the greater threat to U.S. security?
        Secretary Carter. I absolutely stand by what I said. We
    continue to watch very closely AQAP and to take action where we
    need to, to protect ourselves. No question about it.
        Senator Lee. Okay. Does our support of the fight against
    the Houthis, who are also AQAP's enemy, does that threaten,
    potentially, however inadvertently, to strengthen or take the
    focus off of AQAP or ISIS?
        Secretary Carter. We've not taken our focus off of AQAP,
    no.
        Senator Lee. General Dunford, you look like you wanted to
    add something.
        General Dunford. No, I just--I fully agree with the
    Secretary on that. We are singularly focused on AQAP. We have
    the resources dedicated to AQAP that we think are appropriate.
        Senator Lee. Okay.
        I see my time's expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman McCain. Mr. Secretary, are the Houthis sponsored
    by the Iranians?
        Secretary Carter. They are certainly assisted in some
    respects by the Iranians, Chairman, yes.
        Chairman McCain. Senator Donnelly.
        Senator Donnelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, would you like me to proceed?
        Chairman McCain. Please proceed.
        Senator Donnelly. Thank you.
        Mr. Secretary, General, I want to get your input on
    something I asked each of the Service Chiefs about last week.
    In the Fiscal Year 2015 NDAA, we passed a requirement from the
    Jacob Sexton Act for every servicemember to receive a robust
    mental health assessment every year. Can you give me an update
    on where the Department is with implementation of the Sexton
    Act requirement on mental health assessments?
        Mr. Secretary? General?
        Secretary Carter. I'll need to get back to you specifically
    on the--that assessment.
        Secretary Carter. I would like to say something more
    generally about mental health and the priority----
        Senator Donnelly. That's fine.
        Secretary Carter.--if I may, Senator. I appreciate your
    interest in it.
        As it happens, it is Suicide Prevention Month this month. I
    only mention that because we do have suicide in our services,
    and we do believe that suicide is preventable. That's what the
    doctors tell us. All the specialists tell us this is something
    that is preventable. Therefore, it belongs in the family of
    things that we do to take care of our troops and ensure their
    welfare.
        We're spending more--and I can get you the numbers on that,
    but I----
        Secretary Carter. We have, over the last few years,
    increased severalfold our spending on mental health treatment
    specifically aimed at suicide, and trying to remove the stigma
    associated with seeking mental health care, and also
    emphasizing the need for other servicemembers to watch out for
    one another. Because one of the things we know is, there's
    usually somebody who spotted the behavior that's--looks--that
    can lead to suicide.
        Senator Donnelly. Right.
        Secretary Carter. Self-isolation, depression, odd things on
    social media, and so forth. We're trying to tell everybody to
    watch out for their fellow servicemembers.
        Chairman?
        General Dunford. Senator, I know each of the services has
    the tools. I don't know, in application, what the percentage is
    of the force that has received the evaluation yet, but we can
    certainly get that.
        General Dunford. That's largely a service-chief
    responsibility, not something I pay attention to on a day-to-
    day basis, although, as you know, I've been--have been very
    involved in the mental health issues over the last several
    years.
        Senator Donnelly. I do. This was signed into law in
    December 2014. It's about two years now. Do you expect, General
    Dunford, to see this fully implemented in the next year?
        General Dunford. I do, Senator. I guess what I was alluding
    to is the percentage of the force that actually has it right
    now, because----
        Senator Donnelly. No, I understand that. Yeah.
        General Dunford. Right. You know, my--and I'll get back----
        Senator Donnelly. I know it takes time to ramp up. I was
    just wondering if you think 2017 is the year that this can get
    fully implemented.
        General Dunford. I think that's--based on my previous
    experience as a Service Chief, I think that's a realistic
    timeline.
        Senator Donnelly. Okay.
        Mr. Secretary?
        Secretary Carter. I absolutely concur. We'll meet that
    timeline.
        Senator Donnelly. To both of you, I wanted to talk a little
    bit about broader counterterrorism strategy. In four months,
    we're going to have a new Commander in Chief, and preventing
    the next attack on our Homeland and addressing the persistent
    conflict and instability in the Middle East is going to be one
    of the most pressing and complex challenges. How would you
    advise this concern about our counterterrorism strategy? How
    would you inform that next Commander in Chief as to how to move
    forward at this time? Obviously, there's a number of areas,
    but, looking forward, how would you talk to them about our
    counterterrorism strategy as we head into a new administration?
        Secretary Carter. I'll start and then turn it over to the
    Chairman.
        We need to continue to press on all fronts. We can't let
    up, whether it's in the counter-ISIL campaign, in Syria and
    Iraq, elsewhere, or here at home. AQAP was mentioned a moment
    ago. That's a serious one. Our capabilities--our military
    capabilities, our law enforcement capabilities, our Homeland
    security capabilities, all of this, which we've honed now in
    the years since 2001, this is not going to go away, this
    phenomenon. We'll defeat ISIL, but there will be terrorism in
    our country's future.
        Senator Donnelly. If I could ask you another question and--
    --
        Secretary Carter.--it'll be part of the national security
    landscape----
        Senator Donnelly.--I apologize, I'm running out of time
    here. You may have answered this earlier. I had to come in and
    go out. But, Raqqa. When do you--or--and not, obviously, a
    single date, but how is this moving forward? Are we cutting
    off--I know closing Manbij has cut off a significant amount of
    the flow. Where do things stand in Raqqa? Are we moving forward
    on that? Do you see progress every day? What are you looking at
    as a time when Raqqa's liberated?
        Secretary Carter. I do see progress. We're working in that
    part of Syria with the Syrian Democratic Forces. They're the
    group with which we worked in--as you indicated, successfully
    in Manbij. They and others associated with them will be the
    force that envelopes and collapses ISIL's control over Raqqa.
        At the same time, I emphasized--and the Chairman already
    stressed this--we're working with the Turks also, the Turkish
    military, our good ally, very strongly, also in northwest--in
    the northwestern part--portion there. Obviously, the have
    difficulties with one another, but, in each case, we support
    them against our common objective----
        Senator Donnelly. Mr.----
        Secretary Carter.--which is counter-ISIL.
        Senator Donnelly.--Mr. Chairman, if you'd give me just 15
    seconds.
        On behalf of everyone in Indiana, the family and others,
    too, when we go to Raqqa--we lost some young men and women
    there who were killed by ISIL. We want to have them come home.
    We don't want to leave anyone behind. We would ask for your
    cooperation and assistance. My young man, Peter Kassig, Kayla
    Mueller, so many others, not to leave any names out, but all
    the parents and all the folks back home, we want them all to
    come home. We'd sure appreciate your assistance in making that
    happen.
        Secretary Carter. Noted, Senator.
        Senator Donnelly. Thank you.
        Secretary Carter. Thank you.
        Chairman McCain. Thank you, Senator, for bringing that
    issue up. They should come home.
        Senator Graham.
        Senator Graham. Well, thank you.
        Thank you both for your service to the country.
        I'm going to try to get through as much as possible here.
        Do you support the arms sale to Saudi Arabia that's being
    proposed?
        Secretary Carter. I do, yes.
        Senator Graham. Do you, General?
        General Dunford. I do, Senator.
        Senator Graham. Okay. JASTA [Justice Against Sponsors of
    Terrorism Act]. Are you concerned that we could be creating an
    environment where something like this bill could be used
    against our troops down the road?
        Secretary Carter. That is--the law--it is a law enforcement
    matter, but we are watching it closely, for the very reason----
        Senator Graham. Do you support the President's veto of----
        Secretary Carter. Well, I'm very--I'm concerned about the--
    --
        Senator Graham. Okay.
        Secretary Carter. I'm concerned----
        Senator Graham. Fair enough.
        Secretary Carter.--about exactly what you're talking about.
        Senator Graham. Okay. Fair enough. We'll talk. I'll write
    you a letter and go into it more in detail. But, I understand
    your concerns.
        Do you support arming the Syrian Kurds?
        Secretary Carter. I do support working--continuing to work
    with them, yes.
        Senator Graham. I mean, no, I didn't say ``work with
    them.'' Providing them arms.
        Secretary Carter. Yeah. Well, we are--we have provided them
    with some equipment already, and providing them arms, yes. They
    are part of the--they are----
        Senator Graham. I gotcha.
        Secretary Carter.--part of the Syrian Democratic Forces.
        Senator Graham. Right.
        Secretary Carter. Now, we haven't taken any specific----
        Senator Graham. I gotcha. Well----
        Secretary Carter.--decisions about----
        Senator Graham. I gotcha.
        Secretary Carter. And--but----
        Senator Graham. Right
        Secretary Carter.--they are----
        Senator Graham. The answer is yes, you support arming the
    Kurds more----
        Secretary Carter. I support----
        Senator Graham.--in Syria.
        Secretary Carter.--whatever is required to----
        Senator Graham. Okay.
        Secretary Carter.--help them move in the direction of
    Raqqa----
        Senator Graham. Which could be providing them more arms.
        Secretary Carter. Yeah.
        Senator Graham. What about you, General Dunford?
        General Dunford. Senator, it's important--I can't answer
    this yes or no. It's important that I----
        Senator Graham. I gotcha.
        General Dunford.--say a couple of things about this.
        Number one, they're the most effective force that we have
    right now, and a force that we need to go in Raqqa. We do have
    sufficient forces----
        Senator Graham. Can I ask this?
        General Dunford.--to be able to secure and----
        Senator Graham. I----
        General Dunford.--seize Raqqa.
        Senator Graham. Yes, sir. I appreciate that.
        We--they--do they support removal of Assad?
        General Dunford. Today, that is not their stated political
    objective.
        Senator Graham. Wait a minute.
        General Dunford. They're focused----
        Senator Graham. Slow down. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
        We have two objectives--to destroy ISIL, right?--and to
    remove Assad. Is that correct? Both of you.
        General Dunford. We have a military objective to destroy
    ISIL. I do not have a military objective to----
        Senator Graham. Do you----
        General Dunford.--remove Assad.
        Senator Graham. Well, the President has an objective of----
        General Dunford. He has a political objective----
        Senator Graham. Okay.
        General Dunford.--to remove Assad.
        Senator Graham. All right. Do you agree with me, Assad is
    winning right now?
        General Dunford. I think Assad is clearly in a much
    stronger place than he was a----
        Senator Graham. All right.
        General Dunford.--year ago.
        Senator Graham. Well, thank you. You've always have been
    very honest with this committee.
        Do you agree that Obama will leave office and Assad will
    still be in power, January 2017?
        General Dunford. I don't see a path right now where Assad
    would----
        Senator Graham. Okay.
        General Dunford.--not be in office in----
        Senator Graham. Let's talk about how you change the
    political equation. Do you agree with me that the only way
    Assad's ever going to leave, if there's some military pressure
    on him that makes the threat, militarily, more real to him?
        General Dunford. I think that's a fair statement, Senator.
        Senator Graham. Okay. If the main fighting force inside of
    Syria is not signed up to take Assad out, where does that force
    come from?
        General Dunford. Senator, I can't identify that force, but
    I do want to distinguish between what you're suggesting with
    Assad and Raqqa. The reason why I support the SDF [Syrian
    Democratic Forces] is, my number-one priority is to----
        Senator Graham. Yeah, I----
        General Dunford.--stop the planning and conducting of
    external operations.
        Senator Graham. Totally----
        General Dunford. Moving forward----
        Senator Graham. Totally----
        General Dunford.--against Raqqa with the SDF----
        Senator Graham. Yes, sir.
        General Dunford.--is the way to do that.
        Senator Graham. Let's look at it this way. ISIL's Germany
    and Assad's Japan, we're focusing on Germany. Will this force,
    which is mainly Kurd, but not all--can they liberate Raqqa, and
    hold it?
        General Dunford. This force is not intended to hold Raqqa,
    no.
        Senator Graham. What is the plan to hold Raqqa?
        General Dunford. We currently have 14,000 Arabs that have
    been identified. When we----
        Senator Graham. Is that the holding force?
        General Dunford. That may consist of part of the holding
    force.
        Senator Graham. Well, do we have a plan to hold Raqqa?
        General Dunford. We have a plan. It is not resourced----
        Senator Graham. Okay.
        General Dunford.--Senator.
        Senator Graham. All right. I just want everybody to know
    where we're at in Syria. We're making gains against ISIL. The
    main force that we're using are Kurds, who can't hold Raqqa.
    The Arabs have to. You're absolutely right about that. The
    Kurdish force, which is the main center of gravity inside of
    Syria, at this moment is not interested in putting military
    pressure on Assad. Other than that, we're in a good spot.
        Now, I'm not blaming y'all. You didn't create this problem.
    Years ago, most of you recommended we help the Free Syrian Army
    when it would have mattered. We are where we are. I just want
    to make sure that the country knows what's going on in Syria is
    going to be inherited by the next President. If there's not a
    change in strategy to create a ground component that not only
    can hold Raqqa and put military pressure on Assad, this war
    never ends.
        Russia. Did they bomb this convoy--U.N. convoy?
        General Dunford. Senator, we--that hasn't been concluded,
    but my judgment would be that they did. They're certainly
    responsible.
        Senator Graham. Do you agree with me, Secretary Carter--and
    we've been friends for years, and I'm sorry it's so
    contentious--I----
        Secretary Carter. That's all right.
        Senator Graham. You're a good man. What should we do about
    Russia, who was given notice about this convoy, if they, in
    fact, bombed a U.N. convoy delivering humanitarian aid? What
    should we do about that?
        Secretary Carter. Well, I--if--let me put it even a little
    more harshly. The Chairman said this earlier. The Russians are
    responsible for this strike, whether they conducted it or not,
    because----
        Senator Graham. I totally agree.
        Secretary Carter.--they have taken responsibility for the
    conduct of the Syrians by associating themselves with the
    Syrian regime. What they're supposed to do, and what Secretary
    Kerry has been indefatigably pursuing diplomatically, is to get
    a true cessation of hostilities and get Assad to move aside in
    a political transition.
        Senator Graham. They're not doing their part.
        Secretary Carter. I'm--that is what Secretary Kerry is
    trying to achieve. Is that difficult? Absolutely. Does it look,
    in the last few days, like that's the direction it's headed?
    No. He's said as much. But, that's what he's trying to
    accomplish.
        Senator Graham. Do you think the Russians are being
    helpful? My time is up. Have they been more--do you think the
    Russians bombed this convoy? Most likely?
        General Dunford. I do, Senator.
        Senator Graham. Last question. Is there a Plan B, in terms
    of--if diplomacy fails, a Plan B for Syria that has a military
    component?
        General Dunford. Senator, we have----
        Senator Graham. Regarding Assad.
        General Dunford.--we have done, and will continue to do, a
    wide range of planning. Should the President change the policy
    objectives, we'll be prepared to support those.
        Chairman McCain. Senator Fischer.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, gentlemen, for your service. It is appreciated
    by all of us.
        Secretary Carter, you stated that the United States will
    not ignore attempts to interfere with our democratic processes,
    which I believe is in reference to the recent cyberattacks on
    political parties, candidates, and election systems. By that,
    do you mean that costs will be imposed on those responsible for
    these attacks?
        Secretary Carter. It's--sadly, the reference is a very
    broad one. I made it in Europe, and was speaking to that
    audience, very broadly, to include the issue you stated, but
    which is a concern they all have, and we have, at NATO. The
    broader category is called hybrid warfare. It ranges from
    little green men to people interfering in democratic process.
    That's a concern that I was discussing with allies when I was
    over there.
        Senator Fischer. But, when----
        Secretary Carter. It's part of the way NATO's going to have
    to adapt to the world as it really is. Yes, we're going to have
    to defend ourselves against----
        Senator Fischer. So costs----
        Secretary Carter.--that kind of thing.
        Senator Fischer.--would be imposed for cyberattack.
        Secretary Carter. That is--like any other attack.
        Senator Fischer. Do you think that--with regards to cyber,
    that this should be done in a public way so that the penalties
    are clearly visible and--to other potential attackers in the
    future?
        Secretary Carter. Well, I certainly think that we need to
    defend ourselves and then take action against perpetrators when
    we identify them, and that in--is in appropriate ways. I simply
    mean that because the perpetrators are--of cyberattacks range
    from--and cyberintrusions--range from nation-states to cutouts
    to hackers to criminal gangs.
        Senator Fischer. Correct.
        Secretary Carter. It's quite a variety. It's why our
    highest priority in cyber, and including in our Cyber Command,
    is defense of our own networks.
        Senator Fischer. Right.
        Secretary Carter. It's something----
        Senator Fischer. It has been widely reported that Russian
    hackers are responsible for the penetration that we've seen at
    the Democratic National Committee [DNC], those computer
    systems, when we look at leaks of the DNC emails and documents.
    I guess the questions continue to persist regarding the
    strength of that connection between the hackers and Russian
    officials. It is generally accepted that the affiliation
    exists.
        If this is true, that there is this connection out there,
    what is clear is that it's a--to me, another very public
    instance, this time using cyber, where Russia continues their
    aggression towards this country and towards our interests. When
    we have an adversary who so brazenly strikes at the heart of
    our democratic process, I think that indicates how low they
    believe the cost of that behavior is going to be. In other
    words, I think we've possibly lost the deterrence factor when
    it comes to cyberattacks.
        Would you agree with that?
        Secretary Carter. We can't lose deterrence effect, ever.
    With respect to Russia, it is--one of the reason--one of the
    emphases, stresses we made in our budget--and, by the way, this
    is one of the reasons why we would appreciate having our budget
    passed, as is, to get back to an earlier question--is because
    it prioritize something we haven't had to do, Senator, as
    you're stressing, for a quarter----
        Senator Fischer. But, do you----
        Secretary Carter.--of a century, which is--we--it used to
    be--we haven't had, as a major component of our defense
    strategy, countering the possibility of Russian aggression.
        Senator Fischer. But, now we do.
        Secretary Carter. That's why we're making----
        Senator Fischer. And----
        Secretary Carter.--investments. It ranges from cyber to the
    European Reassurance Initiative, which is one of the things
    that we hope doesn't get affected in----
        Senator Fischer. Am I----
        Secretary Carter.--budget----
        Senator Fischer. I apologize for interrupting you. The
    Chairman's strict on time.
        But, dealing with--dealing with cyber, when we look at
    cyber, do you have plans that you have given to this
    administration or are plans available to provide the
    administration with flexibility in dealing with cyber?
    Specifically, how do we address such attacks, whether they are
    from a nation-state, whether they are from organized crime, or
    whether they are from individuals? Are there plans out there on
    how these attacks are going to be addressed, whether through
    deterrence or actual actions? Are those plans updated as we
    continue to see the expansion of cyberattacks on this country?
        Secretary Carter. That's a very good question. We're just
    discussing here, because there are many aspects to the answer
    to this, but, yes, we have a lot of cyber capabilities that we
    are building, developing in all the services and at Cyber
    Command.
        More generally, for the Russians, let me ask the Chairman
    to add something.
        General Dunford. Senator, for exactly the reason you're
    raising, we're in the process of rewriting, at the Secretary's
    direction, a more broad framework for dealing with Russia in
    contingencies associated with Russia. It's also the reason why
    our national military strategy now will be a classified
    document, because what we are trying to do is provide a
    strategic framework to deal with the full range of behavior
    that we may see from a state like Russia, China, North Korea,
    and Iran. In some cases, a cyberattack may not beget a cyber
    response. We want to make sure our national command authority
    has a full range of options to deal with something that has
    been determined, in fact, a violation of our sovereignty and an
    attack in cyberspace.
        There's really two things. One, the strategic framework
    working on, and we're also working on a full range of tools--
    cyber tools--so that we have both the ability to protect our
    own network and to take the fight to the enemy in cyberspace,
    as required, our offensive cyber capability.
        I would tell you that the issue that you're outlining
    really is being addressed in both a strategic framework as well
    as physical tools that we're developing. But, again, it's not
    just focused on cyber, it's focused on providing the Secretary
    and the President a full range of options with which to respond
    in the event of an attack--again, whether it be cyber or
    anything else.
        Senator Fischer. I thank you for that. I think the
    deterrence aspect of cyber response is very, very important,
    that we keep that, and also that public responses make an
    impression, as well. Thank you, sir.
        Chairman McCain. Senator Sullivan.
        Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Gentlemen, last week, as you know, we had the Service
    Chiefs testify. I began my comments commending you, Mr.
    Secretary, and the President for the selection of such men and
    women of high caliber, high integrity, leading our military,
    including the current Chairman. One of the reasons is that they
    typically give this committee and the American people honest
    testimony.
        An example of that was last week. I asked what the risk
    level was our Nation faced in being able to conduct a full
    spectrum of operations, including one conventional conflict.
    Each Service Chief said that this would entail, ``high military
    risk'' for their service. Each Service Chief. Which I found
    remarkable. Distressing.
        General Dunford, do you know if that's ever happened
    before, where all four Service Chiefs have stated that we
    currently exist at a state of high military risk for our
    forces? General Milley described what that meant, which is a
    lot of death for our military if they have to go into this kind
    of spectrum of ops. Is this unprecedented?
        General Dunford. Senator, I don't know if it's
    unprecedented, but, over the last several years, I think all
    the chiefs, to include me when I was the Commandant, and the
    chiefs before I assumed that responsibility, have been
    articulating the risk associated with the readiness challenges
    that we've had, really, now that date back as far as 2005.
        Senator Sullivan. Do you--you agree then, I assume, with
    the assessment of each Service Chief, that we face high
    military risk, in terms of a----
        General Dunford. Senator----
        Senator Sullivan.--spectrum of ops that includes----
        General Dunford. Senator, I don't agree that we have--I
    agree that each of the services has high risk, and they've
    articulated it.
        The one thing I think I want to--I would like to say and
    then answer your question is, we, today, can defend the
    Homeland. We, today, can meet our alliance responsibilities.
    We, today, have a competitive advantage over any of those four-
    plus-one we spoke about. But, I fully associate myself with the
    chiefs when they talk about the time and the casualties that we
    would take as a result of readiness shortfalls that we have
    today.
        Senator Sullivan. You think high military risk is
    acceptable?
        General Dunford. I did not say that, Senator, for one
    minute.
        Senator Sullivan. So----
        General Dunford. What I want to do is, I want to
    communicate, to those who are listening, both in the force and
    our potential adversaries, to make it clear that my judgment is
    that the U.S. military, today, can, in fact, dominate any enemy
    in a conflict. I----
        Senator Sullivan. Mr. Secretary, the four Service Chiefs
    talked about high military risk. Again, I thought that was
    remarkable. I don't know if that's ever happened, Mr. Chairman,
    before this committee before. But, it begs the question that
    we've been talking about in this hearing today, is how--if
    that's what they're saying, how can we not--how can the
    President not support increased military spending? Right now,
    there's a new Gallup poll out, saying, ``First time since 2002,
    the American people support more military spending.'' If the
    Service Chiefs are each saying we face high military risk, how
    can we not be supportive of additional military spending? I
    just don't--I just don't understand that at all.
        Secretary Carter. Well, first of all, let me thank you and
    associate myself with your commendation of the senior
    leadership of our Department. We're blessed as a country to
    have such people serving us. They told it to you straight. I,
    too, associate myself with what they said.
        There is risk in the force. The risk----
        Senator Sullivan. It's actually high risk.
        Secretary Carter. Let me just tell--let me unpack that,
    because they each did that for you. There are--it's different
    in each of the services, but there are a few common
    denominators.
        One has been budget instability, which is why I am and will
    continue to hew to the idea that we need budget stability. That
    means everybody coming together. Not this idea and that idea
    and that idea, but one that everybody can agree to. We haven't
    seen that yet, and it's the end of the fiscal year.
        Senator Sullivan. Mr. Secretary, just to--just real----
        Secretary Carter. Eight--let me finish--eight----
        Senator Sullivan.--a quick point on that----
        Secretary Carter.--eight times in a----
        Senator Sullivan.--just a quick point on that----
        Secretary Carter.--eight times in a row. That's going to
    have an effect----
        Senator Sullivan. You've had the minority leader----
        Secretary Carter.--on risk.
        Senator Sullivan.--of the United States Senate filibuster
    the defense appropriations bills, not three times, as my
    colleagues have said--six times in the last year and a half
    year. So----
        Secretary Carter. Let me----
        Senator Sullivan.--we're trying to make that happen.
        Secretary Carter. Thank you. Let----
        Senator Sullivan. We're all trying to make that happen.
        Secretary Carter. Thanks. Let me go on. There's another
    thing that's so substantive of importance, other than the
    budget instability the last few years. That is the services--
    and, I think General--I think you mentioned General Milley--he,
    in particular--and I want to associate myself with this--is
    trying to move to full spectrum, exactly the words you used,
    from an Army that we dedicated almost wholly, in terms of force
    structure, to the COIN [counter insurgency] fights that we had
    to conduct in Iraq and Syria. The Army's been resourcing them
    heavily. Now he is trying to get his forces trained for full-
    spectrum combat.
        As--I think, as he said to you, that's a matter of budget
    stability, yes, but it's also going to--it also is a matter of
    time. He's working on it. That's his highest priority. I agree
    with him, for the U.S. Army. He's trying to get all his Brigade
    Combat Teams to go through the Nellis, the CTC at Nellis.
    That's going to take some time.
        If we go to the Marine Corps--and I know General Neller
    spoke to you about that--their highest readiness priority,
    which I also want to foot-stomp, as I'm sure he did, is in
    their aviation. There are a lot of different dimensions to
    that. One is the recap of their aviation, both rotary wing and
    with the F-35 joint strike fighter coming down the line.
        With the Navy, it's mostly a matter of ship maintenance,
    depot maintenance. Admiral Richardson's working on that.
        In the Air Force, for General Goldfein, the Air Force
    continues to have readiness challenges which are associated
    partly with budget instability, but mostly with the high
    OPTEMPO of the Air Force. We're working the United States Air
    Force really hard in that air campaign over in Iraq and Syria.
    It's essential. It's important. But, it means that air wings
    are constantly rotated in and out, and, when they come back,
    they have to go back in for readiness training.
        In the budget we submitted for fiscal year 2017--and we
    said this--readiness and resourcing are--the readiness plans of
    each of the services was our highest priority. There's no
    question about it, there's risk there. It has accumulated over
    the years. We need stability and we need priority in order to
    work through it. We need stability from you. We'll give it
    priority. I totally support the chiefs in what they told you
    last week.
        Chairman McCain. Senator Cruz in just a second.
        Mr. Secretary, the impression that was given by the Service
    Chiefs was: it comes down to readiness, training, spare parts,
    all the things that go when you have budget cutbacks. We've
    seen the movie before. As you pointed out, each individual
    service has some specific needs, it all comes back to funding
    for operational readiness and training, which is always the
    first to go. That's--obviously, when we have United States
    pilots flying less hours per month than Chinese or Russian
    pilots, there's something fundamentally wrong. I know you agree
    with that.
        Senator Cruz.
        Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Secretary Carter, General Dunford, thank you for being here
    today. Thank you for your testimony on the critical national
    security threats facing our country.
        The last seven years, we've had an administration that has,
    in many ways, neutered itself and ignored one transgression
    after another from our enemies. As a result, our adversaries
    are continuing to increase their belligerence.
        Iran has received no meaningful repercussions for illegally
    seizing American sailors and endeavoring to humiliate them, and
    has since increased their aggressive tactics and harassment of
    United States Navy vessels operating in the Arabian Gulf.
        For months, Russia has been ramping up the pressure on our
    military, previously flying within 30 feet of a United States
    Navy warship, and most recently flying within 10 feet of a U.S.
    Navy surveillance aircraft. Instead of treating these as
    escalatory acts from an adversary, Secretary Kerry rewarded
    Russia by agreeing to share intelligence in Syria.
        These examples don't even touch on Iranian and North Korean
    efforts to develop their ICBM programs, nor the expansion of
    ISIS beyond the Middle East.
        Sadly, this week's terror attacks in New York, Minnesota,
    and New Jersey once again demonstrated that radical Islamic
    terrorism continues to threaten our safety. By any reasonable
    estimate, we can conclude that our national security interests
    are at serious risk. I want to thank both of you for your
    service during such a pivotal and dangerous time in our
    Nation's history, and for your leadership of our men and women
    in uniform.
        I want to ask you, starting with Iran, What is and what
    should be our response to escalating Iranian belligerence and
    threats?
        Secretary Carter. Well, first of all, thank you very much,
    Senator, for that. You hit them all, the five parts of our
    military strategy that are reflected in what we're trying to
    get in our budget, namely counter-ISIL, Iran, North Korea,
    Russia, and China. All of those are--present very different,
    but serious, challenges that have a serious military dimension
    to them.
        With respect to Iran, notwithstanding the nuclear deal,
    which was good, in the sense that it removed--if implemented
    faithfully, which it is being, so far--removed nuclear weapons
    from our concerns about Iran. It did nothing to alleviate other
    concerns we have--their malign influence, their support for
    terrorism, malign influence in the region. This is why, to give
    you one answer to your question--and I'll ask the Chairman to
    pitch in--why we have a strong, ready presence in the Gulf.
    Gets back to our readiness discussion. It's not just about
    ISIL. We have a big OPTEMPO to defeat ISIL. We're going to do
    that. Takes a lot of force structure, but also readiness
    consumed doing that, consumed in a good thing because we're
    defeating ISIL. But, we are also standing strong in the Gulf.
    That means defending our friends and allies there, defending
    our interests, and countering Iranian malign influence. It is
    an enduring commitment of ours.
        Let me ask the Chairman to join in.
        General Dunford. Senator, I think there's--from a military
    perspective, there's three things that we need to do. Number
    one is, we need to make sure that the inventory of the joint
    force can deal with Iranian challenges that do range from
    ballistic missile defense to the malign influence that you
    spoke about earlier. Number two, we need to make sure, in our
    day-to-day operations, we make it clear that we're going to
    sail, fly, and operate wherever international law allows us to,
    and we'll continue to do that. Number three, as the Secretary
    said, we need to have a robust presence in the region that
    makes it very clear that we have the capability to deter and
    respond to Iranian aggression. Those would be the three
    elements that we need to have for--from a military perspective,
    to give our President whatever options he may need to have.
        Senator Cruz. General, in your judgment, was flying $1.7
    billion in unmarked cash to give to the Iranian Government
    incentivizing positive behavior from Iran?
        General Dunford. Senator, I'm not trying to be evasive, but
    I don't know the details of that arrangement. It really was a
    political decision that was made to provide that money. I don't
    think it's appropriate that I comment on that.
        Senator Cruz. Well, let me ask it this way. I spoke,
    yesterday, to Pastor Saeed Abedini, who was one of the American
    hostages held in Iran. Pastor Saeed described how, when he was
    preparing to fly out, that his captors told him they were going
    to wait until the planeload of cash landed. If the planeload of
    cash didn't land, he wasn't flying out. When $400 million
    touched down in cash, they allowed him to fly out.
        Now, under any ordinary use of language, that would seem to
    be payment of a ransom. Does it concern you if the United
    States is now in the business of paying ransom to terrorist
    governments for releasing Americans, the incentive that we face
    for future terrorists and future terrorist governments to
    attempt to kidnap and hold for ransom Americans?
        Secretary Carter. It--Senator, let me just jump in here for
    the Chairman.
        We weren't involved in this. This was the settlement of a
    legal case. It's longstanding. I don't know all the details of
    it. The Chairman and I were not involved in that. It is a
    decision that was taken by the law enforcement and the
    diplomatic----
        Senator Cruz. Mr. Secretary, I appreciate----
        Secretary Carter.--community. I think we have to refer
    you----
        Senator Cruz.--that, but----
        Secretary Carter.--refer you there.
        Senator Cruz.--I would like an answer from General Dunford
    to the military question, whether, in his professional military
    judgment, it concerns him, the precedent of paying ransom for
    Americans, to terrorist governments.
        General Dunford. Senator, without commenting on whether or
    not that was ransom, again, because I don't know the details,
    our policy in the past is that we don't pay ransom for
    hostages. I think that's hold us--held us in good stead in the
    past. But, again, I don't know the arrangements that were made
    in this particular case, and I can't make a judgment as to
    whether or not that's what we did. All I've done is read the
    open-source reporting on that.
        Senator Cruz. Thank you.
        Chairman McCain. Senator Wicker, if you would give Senator
    Sullivan a chance to ask one more question.
        Senator Wicker. Indeed.
        Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Gentlemen, I just wanted to turn to the issue of the South
    China Sea. The international ruling in the Hague put China on
    the defensive. Mr. Secretary, as you know, a number of us at
    the Shangri-La Dialogue have been supportive of your efforts. I
    certainly want to give the administration credit for sending
    two carrier battle groups to the region together recently. But,
    I think a number of us remain concerned about the likelihood of
    reclamation at the Scarborough Shoal and the ongoing--and it's
    definitely ongoing, from all reports--militarization at Fiery
    Cross, Subi, and Mischief Reef, which was also declared as not,
    you know, being within China's territorial realm. What's the
    strategy to deter future Chinese reclamation activities in the
    South China Sea, especially at Scarborough Shoal? Equally, if
    not more important, what's the plan to respond to ongoing
    militarization of the land that they've already claimed?
        Secretary Carter. Thanks, Senator. I'll start and then--
    Chairman can join in.
        I'm actually glad you raised the issue. We haven't talked
    much about the Asia-Pacific, but you know a great deal about
    it, and I appreciate that Chairman McCain always leads a
    delegation out there to Shangri-La, because it shows the
    persistence of the American presence in that region and the
    centrality of our continued presence there.
        Now, the--what we have stood for there now for many, many
    years, and continue to stand for, and the reason why so many
    countries there associate their--themselves with us, and
    increasingly so, is, we stand for principle. One of those
    principles is the rule of law. The decision did come down, and
    our--we didn't take the position the disputes themselves--we do
    support the decision of the court.
        China's rejection of that is having the effect--you asked,
    sort of, What's the reaction to all this?--the effect of
    causing countries there to express their concern by wanting to
    do more with us. We like building the security network there.
    We're not trying to do that against China, but, if China
    chooses to exclude itself in this way, this is the development
    that occurs. We're working more with each and every country
    there. We find them increasingly coming to us. We are
    continuing to operate there, as we always have and always will.
        Last, I guess I should say, in terms of investments, in
    addition to putting a lot of our force structure there, which
    you're very familiar with, and I'm grateful that your State
    hosts some of that, including some of our most modern stuff,
    we're making a number of qualitative investments in--and that's
    one of the things that's reflected in our budget, and one
    reason why we hope that, in addition to funding our budget,
    we--nobody shuffles around in our budget stuff that we--new
    stuff that is oriented toward the high end for old force
    structure. We've seen a tendency towards that.
        We're reacting in a number of ways, in terms of our own
    activities and investments. But, the most important thing
    that's going on is in the region, itself.
        Let me ask the Chairman to add.
        General Dunford. Senator, I think a response to the
    challenge you identified clearly is going to require diplomatic
    action, economic action, and military action. I'll talk to the
    military piece of this, which, right now, is actually, I don't
    think, the most prominent piece in dealing with the challenge
    of China. But, I think, from my perspective, we need to do a
    couple of things:
        Number one, militarily, we need to recognize the
    implications of the militarization of the South China Sea, and
    our plans need to be adjusted accordingly.
        Number two, we need to continue to fly, sail, and operate
    wherever international law allows, and make it very clear that
    we're doing that on a routine basis
        Number three, we need to make sure that our posture in the
    Pacific assures our allies and deters any potential aggression
    by China, and makes it absolutely clear that we have the
    wherewithal, both within the alliance as well as United States
    capabilities, to do what must be done, vis-a-vis China.
        I think if we provide the President with clear options, I
    think we will have done our job. But, primarily, right now, I
    think the President is--has some diplomatic and economic areas
    where--also will contribute to moderating China's behavior.
        Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman McCain. Senator Wicker.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Let me say that I hold both of these witnesses in high
    regard. I appreciate their distinguished career of service.
        I do have a statement for Secretary Carter, followed by a
    question.
        Mr. Secretary, in his farewell speech to the U.N. General
    Assembly on Tuesday, President Obama stated, ``There is no
    ultimate military victory to be won in Syria.'' As a member of
    this committee for many years, I find this assertion to be
    astounding. Our Chairman and I, along with other members of
    this committee, have made repeated admonitions over the years
    that decisive action needs to be taken against President Assad.
        In August 2012, the President delivered his now infamous
    red-line statement in which he said, ``We have been very clear
    to the Assad regime that a red line for us is, we start seeing
    a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being
    utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my
    equation.''
        Now, Mr. Secretary, a year later, disregarding the counsel
    of your predecessor, Secretary Hagel, the President canceled
    airstrikes against Assad, who had unleashed sarin gas on his
    own people outside of Damascus and continued his gruesome use
    of barrel bombs on civilians. This dramatic demonstration of
    weakness by the President left a vacuum in the region that was
    quickly seized by President Putin. We are now faced with an
    enduring quagmire.
        Sadly, President Obama's stunning remark that there is no
    ultimate military victory belies the reality of the Obama
    foreign policy that has ignored and belittled the advice of our
    leaders in the Department of Defense.
        To add insult to injury, the President issued a memo
    yesterday ordering you and General Dunford to consider climate
    change during our military planning process. Last weekend, we
    dealt with a multiple--with multiple terrorist attacks on our
    shores. Last night, we heard that ISIL may have launched a
    chemical attack on our troops. It boggles the mind that the
    President would issue such an order during this critical time
    in our history. Four-hundred thousand civilian deaths in Syria.
    I wonder what the carbon footprint of these barrel bombs would
    have been that we could have prevented, had we acted
    decisively.
        Mr. Secretary, I have the highest regard for you as an
    individual, as I've already stated, and I thank you for your
    service. I just wish you had been given the appropriate
    authority by the President to turn this administration's
    misguided policy around.
        Now, I was here when this hearing began, at 9:30 a.m.
    You've all been very patient with your answers. I know you've
    discussed this already, Mr. Secretary, but it--at this point,
    toward the end of this hearing, is there anything else you'd
    like to add in response to what I've said?
        It seems the President is now--is more resolved now than
    ever to forget his 2012 promises. What's your recommendation as
    to the future of the Assad regime? What about the President's--
    what about your statement during confirmation that, as the
    President has said, Assad has lost his legitimacy and cannot be
    a part of the long-term future of Syria? Is that statement
    still operative?
        Secretary Carter. I think it is. I--and I'll just give a
    general answer to your general question. You're right, it was
    discussed earlier. Even though we are going to be, I'm
    confident, militarily successful against ISIL, insofar as the
    Syrian civil war is concerned, the violence can't end there
    until there's a political transition from Assad to a government
    that is decent and that can govern the Syrian people and put
    that tragically broken country back together. That doesn't look
    in sight now. It was we talked earlier about Secretary Kerry's
    trying to make arrangements to promote, but it is--that's
    necessary for the resolution of what is, as you say, a very
    tragic situation.
        Let me see if the Chairman wants to add anything.
        Senator Wicker. Well, let me just ask this, if you don't
    mind, Secretary Carter. It would help if the barrel bombing
    ended. I spoke to a Democratic colleague of mine today. I've
    been calling for a no-fly zone to stop the barrel bombing, and
    I asked this colleague of mine on the other side of the aisle
    if he would support that. He said, ``Yes.'' He said, ``I want
    to call it something else, rather than a no-fly zone,'' but
    that this particular Senator--it is a fact that this particular
    Senator has now changed his position and would like us to take
    action to present--to prevent the barrel bombing.
        What is your position about that? Wouldn't it help if we
    took decisive action and ended this carnage?
        Secretary Carter. I don't know the specific proposal which
    you're discussing with your colleague. I'll make one comment
    and see if the Chairman wants to add anything.
        Senator Wicker. I think he was talking about a no-fly
    zone----
        Secretary Carter. Well, okay.
        Senator Wicker.--but described in more palatable terms.
        Secretary Carter. There are--a number of different
    proposals have been made, but I--the one that I think it--the
    focus on right now is the one Secretary Kerry's trying to
    promote, namely a no-fly zone for the Russians and the Syrians
    who are attacking the Syrian people. If they're talking about a
    no-fly zone for American aircraft fighting ISIL, needless to
    say, that--that's not going to get any enthusiasm, get strong
    opposition from me.
        Senator Wicker. I'm speaking about a----
        Secretary Carter. But, I think that's what a--but--it's not
    called that, but Secretary Kerry is trying to get a standdown
    of the Syrian and Russian air force. If he's successful, that
    would be a good thing.
        Let me ask the Chairman if he has anything to add.
        General Dunford. Senator, the only thing I'd say is, you
    know, as the situation on the ground changes, I think I have a
    responsibility--we, the joint force, has a responsibility--to
    make sure the President has a full range of options. We have
    discussed that issue in the past under certain conditions. The
    conditions on the ground will change, and we'll continue to
    look at those options and make sure they're available to the
    President.
        Senator Wicker. What about the option of controlling the
    airspace so that barrel bombs cannot be dropped?
        General Dunford. All options----
        Senator Wicker. What do you think of that option, sir?
        General Dunford. Right now, Senator, for us to control all
    of the airspace in Syria, it would require us to go to war
    against Syria and Russia. That's a pretty fundamental decision
    that certainly I'm not going to make.
        Chairman McCain. To impose a no-fly zone----
        General Dunford. Chairman, could I, for a second, say----
        Chairman McCain. No. No.
        General Dunford. That's not what I said, Chairman.
        Chairman McCain. Go ahead.
        Senator Wicker. Well, yeah, I do think that's----
        General Dunford. What Senator--what the Senator asked me
    was ``to control all of the airspace''----
        Chairman McCain. No, what he asked was, Should we have a
    no-fly zone so we can protect these people from being
    slaughtered? What's what he's talking about.
        General Dunford. I answered that first.
        Chairman McCain. That's what we're all talking about.
        Senator Wicker. That would not require going to war, full-
    scale, would it?
        General Dunford. Not necessarily, Senator. I--I'm sorry,
    but I tried to answer the first question first, and then I was
    responding to the second part of your question.
        But, that--I did not mean to say that imposing a no-fly
    zone would require us to go to war. That's not the question I
    was answering.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman McCain. Senator Gillibrand.
        Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you both for testifying today.
        I want to continue some of the issues that Senator Fischer
    brought up about cyber. In the past year, we've learned,
    obviously, about a number of cyberattacks, whether it was
    against the DNC or against NSA [National Security Agency] or
    the Office of Personnel Management. These attacks have
    demonstrated the integrated nature of our networks and how
    our--how targeting one system can have a broader effect.
    Whether it's critical infrastructure, private companies, or
    political party networks, we need to have a much more
    integrated response to these attacks.
        How can we create an integrated framework for response to
    hacks and cyberattacks? What is DOD's role? Are the processes
    and authorities now in place for DOD to respond in a systemic
    way rather than ad hoc to each attack?
        Secretary Carter. I'll start.
        You're--you used the phrase, Senator--and thank you--that I
    would use, as well, which is ``an integrated approach,''
    because you don't necessarily know, at the beginning, who the
    perpetrator is. There's this whole spectrum of possible and
    actual perpetrators, ranging from criminals and kids right up
    to nation-states. You're right, it's--it is--the Defense
    Department shares this responsibility with law enforcement and
    Homeland Security and intelligence. But, we aim to play a big
    role--a big supporting role.
        Our first job is the defense of our own networks. That's
    our highest priority within the DOD cyber system, because we
    depend so abjectly upon those systems for the performance of
    our military, overall. All our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and
    marines, ships, planes, and tanks, and so forth are networked
    together. In order to function as excellently as they do, those
    networks need to be secure. That's our first job.
        We also do develop cyber offense. We've acknowledged that
    in the last year. And----
        Senator Gillibrand. Yeah, and I really appreciate the work
    you're doing on innovation. I think the Defense Innovation Unit
    Experimental that you started in Silicon Valley and now have
    expanded to both Boston and Austin is really exciting. I
    actually would invite you to look at New York for your next
    site, because we have so many venture-capital high-tech
    developing there. It's becoming sort of this new Silicon Alley.
        Secretary Carter. I appreciate that. I appreciate the
    committee's support for DIUX. It's one of many things we're
    trying to do to continue to connect our Defense Department to
    the most innovative parts of American society, get good people
    to want to join us or our defense companies--good scientists
    and engineers--and let them feel the meaning of contributing to
    national defense. We've got to work extra hard at that, simply
    because, generationally, a lot of young people haven't served--
    they may be cyber experts, they haven't served, they've never
    worked with or for our Department before. We're really working
    hard to draw them in.
        I just opened up the DIUX branch in Austin, and there'll be
    more. I appreciate----
        Senator Gillibrand. I'd be grateful----
        Secretary Carter.--what you said about New York.
        Senator Gillibrand.--if there's any further authorities or
    resources you need to continue to develop the strongest
    cyberforce we possibly can, if you could give that to me so I
    can put it in the NDAA. Because I think this effort you're
    doing needs thoughtful and continual investment of thinking and
    resources. So----
        Secretary Carter. Thank you. We'll give----
        Senator Gillibrand.--things that you need further, you----
        Secretary Carter.--we'll give you more. I should say, it's
    strongly represented in our fiscal year 2017 budget, because--
    --
        Senator Gillibrand. Yeah.
        Secretary Carter.--because we gave it a lot of priority.
    The reason why it was possible to give it priority is not just
    because of its importance, but because--it's not just a matter
    of money, it's--as you indicated, it's a matter of good people.
        Senator Gillibrand. Right.
        Secretary Carter. They're the hard thing to find in cyber.
    And----
        Senator Gillibrand. Lastly, I just want to continue on
    Senator McCaskill's line of questioning. We've been really
    looking at this issue of retaliation very hard. We've made it a
    crime for several years. But, the 62 percent of retaliation
    being reported over and over again is very challenging. Those
    being reported, their view is that it's from above them in the
    chain of command, more often than not. That's just what we're
    working with. It's a perception, not necessarily a defined,
    enumerated crime. I fully understand that. But, have you done
    any prosecutions of retaliation this year? Have you actually
    taken any cases to court-martial yet?
        Secretary Carter. I can't answer that question. I believe
    the answer to that is yes. I'll get back to you on that,
    Senator.
        Senator Gillibrand. Yeah.
        Secretary Carter. But, can I just thank you for--I think
    you, among others on this committee, were the ones who really
    tuned us in to retaliation as another dimension of the sexual
    assault problem we needed to combat. We are trying to--you're
    right, sometimes it's higher up, but sometimes it is laterally,
    also.
        Senator Gillibrand. Yeah. All of those reasons, whether
    it's lateral or higher up, is one of the reasons why survivors
    don't report. It's one of their enumerated reasons. They feel
    it will end their career. We still only have two out of ten
    survivors reporting. We're not where we need to be. It's not
    good enough. And----
        Secretary Carter. Right.
        Senator Gillibrand.--I'm grateful for your continued
    efforts.
        Secretary Carter. Thank you. Likewise.
        Senator Gillibrand. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman McCain. I can assure the Senator from New York, as
    long as I'm Chairman of this committee, we will not take away
    the responsibility of the commanding officer, the chain of
    command, as hard as she may try to remove that.
        Senator King, did you have anything else?
        Senator King. Just one quick question, to follow up on this
    line of questioning about cyber.
        Gentlemen, do you believe that we should separate--or, I'm
    sorry--that Cyber Command should be elevated to a independent
    combatant command?
        Secretary Carter. Senator, that's not a decision we've
    taken yet, but I think that's going to be a natural evolution
    for us and is going to be part of the natural evolution of our
    cyberforce in giving this new priority. We are looking at the
    various managerial aspects of cyber. Chairman and I discuss
    that frequently. We discuss it with our colleagues around
    Washington and the intelligence community with which we share a
    lot of it--of responsibility.
        I mean, ultimately, something that involves combatant
    commanders would be a presidential decision. But, this
    committee will have a big role in that, as well. We look
    forward to working with you as we make that evolution. But----
        Senator King. I----
        Secretary Carter.--we're thinking about it, absolutely.
        Senator King. I just hope the evolution takes a little less
    time than the evolution of human beings.
        [Laughter.]
        Secretary Carter. I think it will.
        Chairman McCain. Mr. Secretary, it's been a long morning
    for you and General Dunford, but I would just like to ask one
    additional question.
        This news of this chemical--what appears to be a chemical
    weapon yesterday, can you tell us what you know about that and
    what--any conclusions you may have reached on that?
        Secretary Carter. Absolutely, we can.
        Go ahead, Chairman.
        General Dunford. Chairman, it's a--we assess it to be a
    sulfur mustard blister agent. We don't assess that ISIL has
    the--has a very rudimentary capability to deliver that. It went
    on one of our bases. We have effective detection equipment
    there. We have effective protection equipment. We can also
    decontaminate. But--and we also are tracking a number of
    targets. One, we struck last week, which was a pharmaceutical
    plant, which is part of the chemical warfare network that ISIL
    has. We have been tracking this. We've had a number of
    strikes--I think 30 over the past year--against emerging
    chemical capability. In this latest strike, again, we assess
    was sulfur mustard. None of our folks were injured by this
    particular incident. It wasn't particularly effective, but it
    was a concerning development.
        Chairman McCain. It is concerning, because we have known
    that they had some kind of chemical weapons facility there in
    Raqqa. As you say, we have struck it, but it is concerning,
    particularly on those people who don't have the protective
    equipment, as well.
        I thank the witnesses. I know it's been a long morning. I
    appreciate their being here. We will look forward to, perhaps
    in the lameduck session, trying to get them the authorization
    that they require in order to carry out their responsibilities.
    I am not proud of the fact that the Congress of the United
    States has not carried out ours.
        I thank the witnesses.
        This hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                                     [all]