Forces baltic air policing. Establishment of a very High Readiness joint task force. Nato and whales made commitments that indicate to me that all of them take that responsibility seriously. The problem we could potentially have is the asymmetric nature of it, where there might be a dispute about whether its actually happening. So were working with our nato allies to work through that. And of course the situation there is with those Large Russian speaking populations in the baltics, especially in astonia, it could give him the same excuse that hes tried to use with regard to crimea. Let me ask you about Mental Health. And ive been enormously impressed with some of our special operations forces. That they are now realizing that the stigma against Mental Health counseling, they are really trying to turn it around because its performance enhancement, not only of the body but of the mind as well. To what degree are you all trying to implement that same thing across the board of the department of defense . To a great degree. Because it actually when it started under bill mccraven when he was so com commander now under joe botell they realize its exactly what you say. So they found a way to turn it into the positive. Its a combat multiplier. So not only something you do after the fact but you build in the services you need right from the start. And all the services are learning lessons with each other. Final question for either of you. Training 500 a month or every three months for the free syrian army, is that really going to be productive . Ill take that first if i may, chairman. That is a small number. That is but grows over time. It is paced by the throughput of the training centers. I think that the its the u. S. Effort needs to be just one effort. There need to be others in the region who participate in this. It gets back to something we were discussing earlier about the need for the defeat of isil to be a lasting defeat and for regional partners to be involved. So the only thing id say is that there needs to be an effort there need to be other efforts besides the u. S. Effort here in accordance with the discussion were having earlier. Senator graham. Oh im sorry. General did you want to no. I just want to say we need a partner on the ground and we need something in which we can have this coalition coalesce around. Senator graham. Thank you. Lets continue that thought. Have you been told, general, by the arab forces in the region, the arab leaders that were not going into syria unless we can get rid of assad . There are some of them that say that and others who dont. But yes ive heard that. Well, the reason they are saying that is they dont want to defeat isil and turn assad syria over to iran that. Assad is a puppet of iran. Do you agree with that . I do. So a lot of arabs are saying i want to destroy both enemies of the region assad wells isil. So i dont see any chance of a Regional Force until you put assad on the table. The authorization to use military force. Ive got a very specific question. The people were training throughout the region to go in and fight isil, the free syrian army, the young men that are going to join this cause, what would happen if the assad air force, the air power through migs and helicopters with barrel bombs, if they begin to attack the people we train because assad knows one day they will turn on him. Under the authorization to use military force can we protect the people we train against an attack by assad . Well first of all i think we have an obligation to those weve trained to protect them. The manner in which that would be done is something that is being discussed. But in my view we have an obligation to do that. It goes with the training part. I do senator. I agree with you both. And ive asked the white house General Council this very question. And he told me very quickly, no. The authorization to use military force would not allow us the United States to engage if air forces of assad. That is not included within the authorization. That to me is a very important point. Could you check with the white house and see where they come out on this at a later time. In f the sanctions were released tomorrow, if the iranians got sanction relief, general, what do you think they would do with the money given their behavior on the ground today. I cant speak to that senator. But heres what i will say. I am under no allusions that ending their Nuclear Program ends the problems weve got with iran in the region, whether processes, arms trafficking, cyber. So this is an adversary as someone pointed out earlier has actually led to the deaths of american servicemen on the battlefield. So i think we have to keep an eye on them in that regard as well. Would you agree with me that the most likely outcome given their behavior today is that they are not going to build hospitals and schools. They are probably going to put the money into their military. You know, senator, i think they will probably distribute their money like we do. I just hope they dont sequester it. Well, i tell you what i just hope we dont give them more cash because i think they are wreaking havoc as it is. Secretary carter do agree with me that the iranians are wreaking havoc throw the region without a nuclear web . Weapon . I do agree. Look at yemen to syria and iraq and lebanon and elsewhere, and that is why i think that it is important that we remain vigilant and prepared. And i think we in the department of defense need to and will be prepared for iran across a very wide front. Would you agree with the following statement. The iranians with a Nuclear Weapon would be the most Significant NationalSecurity Threat that israel faces and the United States would face . The certainly the id let the israelis speak for themselves. I think they have. I think so too. That two things i would say is that we need to be concerned about iranian behavior beyond their Nuclear Program well lets look at it the other way. Can you think of anything off the top of your head that would beat out an iran with Nuclear Weapons . Well that is there may be a close tie with north korea with Nuclear Weapons. Well they have already got Nuclear Weapons. I understand. But in terms of the danger posed by a difficult state possession of Nuclear Weapons. Do you think it is more destabilizing for iran to get a Nuclear Weapon than north korea . In terms of the mideast . In terms of the mideast surely. Have you been told by arab allies that anything you give the iranians on the nuclear front, were going to want the same thing or more . . The iranians get the Nuclear Capabilities do you think the others will want to capability to match the iranians, there are those who have said of that and that is one of the reasons we oppose iran getting the Nuclear Weapon because it could be the beginning of the powder train. And that would just unleash proliferation in the middle east. So the Prime Ministers warning in that regard today is probably well heeded. I did not hear the Prime Minister today. But i certainly think that the danger of a run away Iranian Program stimulating run away Nuclear Programs elsewhere in the mideast is very serious. Thank you both for your service. Senator lee. Thank you mr. Chairman. Thanks to each of you for being here. Thanks for all you do to keep our country safe. Secretary carter the department of defense is calling for a background in 2017, citing it has nearly 20 more infrastructure than it find necessary. Can you give a more detailed explanation as to what the Department Finds within its infrastructure that is unnecessary or in excess and why . And also can you describe to us what improvements you think need to be made to the brak process to avoid the kinds of costover runs that we experienced in the 2005 round . Thank you. We are requesting another run of brak. And the basis for that is a measurement of our infrastructure against our current holds of equipment and our needs. So for example it is aircraft fleets versus apron space. And that kind of analysis that creates that measures the amount of excess infrastructure that were carrying. With respect to brak rounds the 2005 brak round was not what we are seeking, that kind of brak ground. Were looking for the kind of brak that occurred in the 1990s, where true savings occurred. And you might say why didnt savings occur in the 2005 brak ground . It is because when it came time to reconfigure bases, that is a time by the way where the Defense Budget was growing very rapidly. We decided that the the department decided at the same time to modernize a lot offen installations at the same time it was it was consolidating others. And that created far fewer savings than a pure brak ground would. So were seeking brak authority. I know thats not an easy thing to get. But we simply have to reduce tail. Or we have to take it out of tooth. And i dont think anybody wants that okay. A lot of americans became frustrated last summer when we saw the Iraqi Security force ss, on whom we had just spent 25 billion training and equipping over the course of the last decade. Quickly free from a much smaller and less welltrained, less wellequipped isis force in northern iraq, giving up ground and leaving behind a lot of weapons and leaving behind a lot of equipment that had been provided for them. A lot of it by us. So mr. Secretary, you just returned from a visit to the middle east to look into our strategy there and how things are going there. Can you discuss for us with us a little bit the oversight we exercise over the train and equip missions in iraq and in syria . And tell us a little about whats being done to make those forces accountable for the training and equipment that were giving them just to make sure that something similar doesnt happen. Make sure that our veminvestments not in vain. Thank you senator. Let me give that a start and ask chairman dempsey to chime in also. You exactly put your finger on it. What happened last year was an unwillingness of the iraqi forces to fight using the equipment and training that the United States had given them. And the reason for that was a political failure on the part of their government to keep the promise that had been made to the country to keep it a multisectarian state. And that was not what was happening under maliki. And that is the reason why the forces folded. And so the most important thing we do Going Forward is to make sure that iraq doesnt decline into sectarianism. And so that is the most important thing we can do and as the political thing rather than a technical thing involving the training. But it is job one. Insofar as their training is concerned ill let the chairman speak to that. But were giving them training. And were going to give them support when they go into battle. And we are now and we have been now for quite some time conducting a Bombing Campaign against isil in order to blunt their offense and prepare the way for the counter offensive. Let me ask the chairman if he wants to add anything. Just in terms of the oversight senator. Four locations. Ischial and taji and besmaya. The training is oversight. Once the support is built around the supply chain. So this things were giving them, there is a tether that goes out to where they are operating. And to this point, our program is to take and pull some units offline who exist, regrain them put them back out. As well as to help the iraqis manage their own training base. Does that answer the question . I think thats helpful. If i can as my clock is ticking down. Let me just ak one other quick question that either one of you can answer. How are u. S. Defense and intelligence agencies adapting to the collapse of the Yemeni Government and the loss of our primary Counter Terrorism partner against one of the most capable al qaeda off shoots . What are we doing on that front . Well ill start and chairman please add. First thing is that the al qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula which is in yemen is a very serious off shoot of al qaeda. Very serious for us because they are determined to attack us. Let me make that absolutely clear. And therefore our Counterterrorism Operations in yemen are critically important. And therefore the restoration of a government there that will cooperate with us is very important to us. Now were trying to do everything we can to continue to combat aqap in the face of what is going on with the houthis and the government in sana. But it will be much better for us if were able to reconstitute or assist in the reconstitution of a government there in sana. I know our diplomatic colleagues are working on that but it is important to our counterterrorism effort. Chairman. Our diplomatic effort is to to try to keep the country together but counterterror effort is based mostly outside of ayden in the south. We still have a partner there who has an interest in keeping al qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula under pressure. Our fear is that if the country does devolve into civil war weed lose that platform. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you mr. Chairman. Well i want to thank the witnesses for a long afternoon of testimony. And i believe that its important that all of our colleagues as well as the American People understand your message. And that is that sequestration cannot continue. Without, as you responded to senator king, without putting the lives of the men and women who are serving in uniform today in danger. And i thank you for that frank and candid testimony and i thank you for being here this afternoon. Thank you. Thank you. This hearing is adjourned. I know that my speech has been the subject of much controversy. I deeply regret that some perceive my being here as political. That was never my intention. I want to thank you democrats and republicans for your common support for israel. Year after year decade after decade. [ applause ] i know that no matter on which side of the aisle you sit, you stand with israel. [ applause ] the remarkable alliance between israel and the United States has always been above politics. It must always remain above politics. [ applause ] because america and israel, we share a common destiny. The desk nisdestiny of promised lands that Cherish Freedom and offer hope. Israeli is thankful for the support of americans people and americas president s, from harry truman to barack obama. We appreciate all that president obama has done for israeli. Now, some of that is widely known. [ applause ] some of that is widely known, like strengthening Security Cooperation and intelligence sharing, opposing israeli resolutions at the u. N. Some of what the president has done for israel is less well known. I called him in 2010 when we had the carmel forest fire. And he immediately agreed to respond to my request for urgent aid. In 2011 we had our embassy in cairo under siege. And again provided assistance at the crucial moment. Or his support for more missile intercepters last summer when took on hamas terrorists. [ applause ] in each of those moments, i called the president and they was there. And some of what the president has done for israel might never be known. Because it touches on some of the most sensitive and Strategic Issues that arise between an american president and an israeli Prime Minister. But i know it. And i will always be grateful to president obama for that support. [ applause ] gathered with me are colleagues, all of whom opposed the appearance of Prime Minister netanyahu today. Some who attended the event, some who didnt but all of whom have something to say about his appearance. First of all again these remarks are only attributable to me. Everyone can speak for him or herself. First id like to congratulate senator boehner and the Prime Minister netanyahu on their theater. Now they can go home and say they lectured people on apparently things we didnt know. I think the speech validated all of the reasons i said i was opposed to the speech. I expected the Prime Minister to speculate on and mischaracterize the negotiations and a potential deal. For instance, he continually said that the deal ends in a certain period of time and there are no restrictions would be no restrictions on irans Nuclear Program after the deal expired. That is not the case as we have been a advised by the white house. I again this is part to strategy that he used. I resented the condescending tone that he didnt think anybody in congress or the country or the threat that a nuclearized iran presents. I think the president has made it very clear we understand that threat. I dont think there is any doubt that everyone in congress and the administration understands that iran has been a bad actor in the region, that it has sponsored terrorism, that it has done things that we would like to see changed. We all know that. It is nice of him to remind us. And i also resent the fact that he was telling us how to negotiate when the administration and their representatives have been at this for two years now with the cooperation and participation of five other major nations in the world. This speech was straight out of the dick cheney playbook. This was fear mongering at its ultimate. Phrases like nuclear war is inevitable if a deal were to be accepted. Phrases like this would pave the way to iran having a nuclear bomb. These are things that ie1 think are, again part o