Let me make a brief comment. And by the way its not only mine but when you look at the brutality, the slaughter and what i. S. I. L. Has been doing, killing, slaughtering, murdering women and children sunni, shia, kurd, minorities of any kind completely indiscriminate and when you add it up represents a pretty clear and different kind of threat. How does that relate to your question about syria . Define a stable government, leaders in syria to be able to bring some stability to that country is part of it. But isil is right now, and isil is threatening the country of iraq, and the government of iraq. And so thats why we are dealing with that component first, because we must. They are a threat to our allies, they are a threat to us. Thank you. Mr. Larson. Thank you mr. Chairman. Secretary hagel, you have my first two minutes and general dempsey will get the next two. For secretary hagel there has been no discussion of the request for 15, which is 5. 6 billion. What do you know about the current 2014 oco requests through the end of the cr . What is in that, and why do you need an additional 5. 6 in 015 given that there is authority for you at least through the cr for out of 014 money . The quick answer is i have noted in my testimony, part of that that new additional money, the 5 billion for defense is for a new train and equip program in iraq. When we had the budget hearings when the original oco submissions were made months and months ago that wasnt the case, so it is a new and sustaining and and sustaining effort. The the other the other dollars are for the continuation, which we didnt have six months ago either of our efforts in syria and iraq, air strikes, train and assist train and equip will be in 1. 6, but the other assistance that we are giving iraq. So it is separate. It is new. It is different. And particularly the sustainability of us being able to do that and carry it out. [ technical difficulties ] let everybody know the accounting im del walters in new york. Were having temporary problems. We have our signal black now. General dempsey the defense has requested waiver in existing laws. Why is the department need what would the impacts be if you didnt get waivers and you had to follow existing acquisition laws in order to implement. The irk you is pace, i think is probably the short answer to your question. The National Security waiver in the hands of the secretary of defen defense allows us to move with the pace in an environment where you know, its interesting, one of the real advertise of this complain is kind of the conflict between progress and patience. You know what i mean . I have mentioned strategic patience is actually a virtue in this kind of conflict. I think it would allow us to move it a pace that would allow us to produce that kind of progress that would as a result, result in patience. All right. Thats fine. Thank you both for giving me some food for thought. I appreciate it. Yield back. Thank you. Mr. Jones. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, its kind of ironic, the last time i heard before today a secretary of defense talk about military involvement in iraq was secreta secretary Donald Rumsfeld that got us into a war that was unnecessary. I know isil needs to be taken out, but i think back to 2002 when you were a senator, and i also looked at your statements in 2007 when like myself you came out against in iraq. Now we are possibly going to be asked by the president of the United States like we were by george bush to authorize an amuf. This is nothing but an abvocation of our constitutional responsibility to give any president an aumf. We tried in june when we had the addma bill, adam shift tried to sunset out the aumf that we gave to president bush, which has been used by president obama, and i do not understand how we can continue to advocate what the constitution says is our responsibility. James madison once said the power to declare war including the power of judging the causes of war is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature. And i do not believe sincerely because when this happens to be president obama, he wants to have another aumf, or an extension of what we have, i hope that the congress, both parties will look seriously at what is our responsibility. Because its not going to be so long you have sent more and more troops to iraq to train many of these former sue dam hussein loyalists, and now they are fighting with the other side. Its very complex, i agree with that. But why in the world should we make such a commitment and we dont even have an end point. I would like for you and general dempsey to submit for the record, two things very quickly how does this new war end in your opinion . And i realize its just your opinion. But its very important because of who you are. What is the instate end state of what were trying to accomplish. Over 50 of the American People do not want our personnel in syria or iraq. And i will be honest with you, i dont know how we can convince the American People that a nation thats financially broke you sat right here and you are exactly right. Sequestration and all of the budget problems coming your way, and yet you are asking for 5 or 6 billion to drop more armament in iraq and syria. Where is it coming from . Please explain to the American People and this congress how this war is going to end some day . Whether we are advisor ors or fighting, and i hope to god we with not fighting. So if you will get those into the committee for written form, then you wont have to answer the questions, but this again it looks like we are going down the same road that secretary Donald Rumsfeld told us we had to do. We had to do, and we had no end point. Congressman if i might respond very briefly. You very accurately described my position when i was in the United States senate, but its basic as you have noted to the responsibilities of congress. And aumf comes out of congress. The authority of military force for a president , that that Authority Comes from the congress of the United States, and i too hope that congress will engage in this, and i have great confidence that congress will. They need to, they must. It is the responsibility of the congress. Im with you on that point, and ill give you my best thoughts on your other question as well. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Bordelo. Thank you mr. Chairman for holding this important hearing. Secretary hagel and general dempsey thank you for your time today. As i stated before, i believe that isil could become a direct threat to the United States or our allies in europe, and we must make efforts to avoid that threat. While i believe that we must keep all of our options open, it must be a joint effort with our coalition and allies to stop isil. Secretary hagel, what additional u. S. Or allied military support do you believe it will take for the iraqis, the kurds or the Syrian Rebels to hold their current position and eventually advance to retake areas now controlled by isil . Kong Woman Congress women as i noted in my statement, thats a very important part of what we are doing to assist the Iraqi Security forces as they strengthen their capacity, capabilities. Thats obviously a big part of the train and equip effort. As our Coalition Partners are with us on this. As well as a reinstitution of the Iraqi Security forces at at the top with confidence, with trust, of the men and women in uniform, and a unity government that they in fact believe is worth fighting for. As general dempsey said they have some confidence in, not just for themselves but their families, so it as i have noted, it is a comprehensive strategy. It i believe can be done. But this is an iraqi fight. It is their future, and we can help. We are helping. We are doing everything we can, and well continue to support them as as we will with our Coalition Partners. But thats the way i would just very briefly respond to the question. Thank you. General dempsey, in testimony before the senate back in october, you mentioned that oco is not the solution to funding. And i have stated before that i agree that the oco credit card is going to come to an end sometime very soon. However, as the Ranking Member on readiness, im deeply concerned about the impact of the loss of oco on readiness. When will you have a better sense of what this is going to cost, both monetarily and in manpower to continue depreciations against isil . What is the department doing to plan for these activities in the base budget. Yes, i did say that, i said that the overseas Contingency Operations fund was gas money, and that the Service Chiefs also need the base to support the recruiting, training, organizing, and equipping of the force over time. You cant sustain the force with oco. You can use it. And thats why i described it as gas money. We have a pretty good idea of what it is costing right now, and given that we think our level of commitment is about what it will be for the foreseeable future. Its approximately 8 million a day, and the request that the secretary mentioned accounts for that. Were well aware of the desire to reliless on oco and more on base. From a military perspective, i can just tell you what i need, and you all have to decide how to provide what i need. But the base budget is an important component of readiness, because its the foundation on which we build. Thank you very much. And i yield back. The gentle lady yields black the balance of her time. We understand you recently had to postpone your trip to vietnam and burma to prepare for this hearing. I know were concerned with senior officials postponing travel to a region, but i hope they can understand that our government does have the ability to walk and chew gum at the same time. While we are focused on this hearing, we remain committed to the interests in the indo pacific area. I also hope you will reschedule your trip and continue your strong record of engagement in asia, and thank you for being here. The last time you were here, we asked a question about a strategy to cut off the finances for isil, and i think you were kind enough to acknowledge that we needed to develop that, and i was just wondering if you could outline for us a little bit, about the strategy that we have now in trying to cut off the finances of isil. Congressman, thank you for your your thoughts on the asia pacific emphasis and rebalance. As you have accurately noted, i unfortunately had to make a decision, and i didnt want to have to do that for the reasons you mentioned. As you probably know, since i have been secretary of defense, i have had six major trips to the asia pacific. This would have been my seventh. I will reschedule. We are planning on that rescheduling. I have talked to all of our asia pacific partners, explained to them why i was having to reschedule, and i get the emphasis i agree with you completely, but at the same time to your point about the administration being able to walk and chew gum at the same time, as you know the president is there now, and will be in that area for a few more days in the different countries. Well have other followup visits as well. But i am rescheduling, it is important. There is no less emphasis on the importance of the rebalance. On your question on financing on isil, i alluded to a couple of things in my statement when i talked about cutting off their more obvious oil sales as they have as you know, taken control of some of the oil fields in Eastern Syria as as and and they did have some in western iraq. We have been able to take back some of that. The iraqis have and most all of it, Beiji Oil Refinery and so on. Thats one thing we are doing and been pretty effective to not only disrupt that, but stop that oil flow out of there that gets into the borders, and they were they were getting a few Million Dollars a day from that. Now other things, our Treasury Department is taking the lead on this. With partners all over the world, united nations, european partners, middle eastern partners. Were trying to shut those those money markets off any way of funding and resourcing isil has, continues to have. We had made a global effort that we lead. As you know, they also get funds from contributions inside. We try to stop that through our intelligence communities, so this is as much of a focus as it was when i was hear two months ago, has to be for the reasons that i mentioned, and as i always said in our comprehensive strategy, cutting off those funds is a very big part of what were doing and attempting to do you are listening to Al Jazeera America continued coverage on the hearing on isil and the administrations efforts to continue the campaign in both iraq and syria, that campaign according to the chairmen of the joint chiefs of staff costing u. S. Tax payers 8 million a day. We are going to take a brief break and be back with more on the continuing coverage. Hello, im del walters in new york. You are watching our continuing coverage of the House Armed Services committee hearing, on the administrations new plans for isil, the strategy to deal with the terrorist group in iraq and syria. I want to go now to Jamie Macintyre who is watching the hearing along with me. The big area of contention seems to be that 1. 6 billion that the administration is asking to retrain iraqi troops. I think if you step back and look at the big question here, the u. S. Spent over 25 billion in ten years training and equipping an iraqi army that when it came time to fight just melted away. The congresswoman from california put her finger on it when she said what is different this time. They tried to make the point that the real question here is the unity government in iraq which is crucial to making this work, general dempsey said look, we wouldnt be standing up and fighting ourselves if we didnt have the support of congress and the American People. We cant hold the iraqi forces to a different standard. And secretary hagel said what gives troops the will to fight is confidence in their leaders. So they are putting a lot of hope in this change of 3 dozen iraqi commanders who were sacked and replaced with people who are supposed to be more professional and able to lead and more inclusive, plus the concern that the u. S. Isnt all in this fight. The outgoing chairman referred to the Obama Administration policy as minimalist. And he said he thought some of the best options had been taken off of the table, and but ruling out the use of american troops in a combat role in iraq, but the plan that they have outlined is a longterm plan that they said is going to take time, patience, and also going to take some will of the iraqi people to stand up for themselves and actually form a unity government, and at this point a lot of those things are still unknown. I was curious that it was the congressman from North Carolina who pointed out the statements of then secretary Donald Rumsfeld, pointing out that as a nation we have been here before. Did that surprise you . Well, no, i think there are a lot of people who in reck troe speck looked at the u. S. Intervention in iraq and decided it was a big mistake. And if we had known the outcome, it wouldnt have embarked on this adventure. But thats i think a question for historians to debate for a long time. The administration, though, has conceded that the authority to wage war technically rests with the legislature, the congress, not the president , and thats why the Obama Administration is requesting this authority for the use of military force in order to move forward. So there is no question about whether the president is acting within the constitution. And by way of a brief housekeeping note. Aumf does stand for the authorization for use of military force, which is why the defense secretary and the secretary of excuse me, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff are on capitol hill seeking that approval from congress. Lets listen in. Two of my sons served in iraq, they developed a great appreciation for the people of iraq who do want to live in a democratic society. I have four sons now serving in the military, and i believe in peace through strength. Im counting on you, and so are my constituents, the American People. In this regard, does the Islamic State does it still pose an imminent threat to the United States and is it an eminent threat to our allies. Thank you congressman. Thank your sons again. As i said in my statement, and i think in some of the comments i made here this morning, it is a threat. It continues to be a threat, a significant threat to the United States, to our interests, to oural our allies. And we have seen that play out. And say the seizure of an extraordinary city, mosul, that enhances the threat, doesnt it . It does. And were very honest about that as i said in my statements. I think that there is Good Progress being made by the Iraqi Security forces, peshmerga. Over the weekend you may be aware of this, there was a ceremony in Anbar Province where about 2,000 sunni tribesmen were there, and are preparing to be sworn in through the iraqi sewer security forces. This is in the general area of mosul, and the areas that will have to be taken back. The isf forces have taken much of that back. Not mosul yet. They will, but the mosul dam i mentioned in my comments, zumar, beiji oil field, a lot of good news there. But, yes, any time they hold specific identifiable cities or pieces of geography it makes it more difficult. And we should remember that Osama Bin Laden operated from a cave, a say safe haven in the middle of afghanistan and was able to conduct mass murder around the world. Achieving a stable iraq, can this be done with t