Transcripts For CSPAN Defense Secretary Mattis On National Defense Strategy Nuclear Posture 20180207

Next, defense secretary james mattis and general paul seldom the before the armed Senate Armed Services community. Secretary mattis stressed the need for Stable Funding for the military to be fully trained and ready. This is a 90 minute portion of the hearing before members went to the closed session. The committee will come to order. The Committee Meets today to hear testimony on the nationalations Defense Strategy and Nuclear Posture review. We welcome back the secretary of defense and vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff to discuss these important documents. I cannot count the number of times i have heard members of this Committee Talk about the importance of having a Defense Strategy to help guide decisions the executive branch have to make. Now we have one. It is a component of the Broader National Security strategy released in december, and it has within it the Nuclear Posture review, the first of its kind since 2010. A lot has changed since 2010. And both documents come at a critical time. As the National Security strategy points out, americas military remains the strongest in the world. However, u. S. Advantages are shrinking as rival states modernize and build up their conventional and nuclear forces. There will undoubtedly be criticism of both documents. Some of it will be based on valid shortcomings, some may spring from more ideological differences. Debates about the particulars are fair and to be expected. Think, toalso fair, i commend the administration for bringing structure and rationality to our National Security efforts, in what is a dangerous and volatile world. One last point. We must never forget that with any strategy, the heart of our Nations Defense, our most valuable asset remains the people who serve. It is morally wrong to send brave men and women out on missions under any strategy in which they are not trained for the best this country can provide. That support should not be conditioned on any other issue, and we cannot forget there is a real human cost to failing to fully support them. Strategy is important, but nothing is more important for congress than for us to do our job, to support the men and women who protect us, fully and unconditionally. Yield to the ranking member. Thank you mr. Chairman. Thank you secretary mattis and general, i appreciate you both being here. I appreciate that you put out the National Security strategy, obviously a crucial important step in figuring out how we put together our budget. And also have the department of defense does its job how the department of defense does its job. I will start by agreeing with the last point the chairman made, whatever we do in our military, this is what we expect you to do. It is our paramount obligation to make sure that we fund that. To make sure that we dont have a situation where we give them so many tasks, but not enough resources to train for them. That is the definition of a hollow force, when we send them into battle unprepared for what we told them to do. Unfortunately due to budgetary challenges in the last six and seven years, that has happened far too often. We have lurched from continuing resolution to Government Shutdown to continuing resolution its very difficult , for both of you and your predecessors to plan what you are going to do when you dont know how much money you are going to have one week to the next. I think that is a very significant problem, so i appreciate the strategies put together. My biggest concern is, does it match the likely resources we will have to fund it . We are 21 trillion in debt and counting. The deficit laughter was close to 700 billion and its going up, not down. So how do we make this fit . How does this work . You look at the broader picture. And we just cut taxes. We cut them by what is going to amount to 2 trillion. We will hit the debt ceiling sooner than we expected to, because less revenue is coming into the treasury. So in the face of the 21 trillion debt, and all of the needs the chairman outlined, and your strategy lays it out. And all of us in this committee are aware of the list. It is sort of up on the wall over there. Those are the threats we face. How do we meet them . In the face of all of that, we decided to give away 2 trillion. I could make the argument that in so doing, the congress made a Public Policy decision that we will not fund the government at levels that we should. We decided not to fund it and then ok, there are other places we can get the money. The president said he is not for mandatory spending at all. The state of the Union Address promised more money than i could have ever imagined. As a side note i think we ought , to ban the state of the Union Address. I say this for republicans and democrats alike. The main thing that it does is executive thethe chance to go up there and promise things that are impossible to deliver, and the American Public comes to expect it like magic, and is surprised when it does not happen. Every state of the Union Address i have seen, i have walked out of there thinking, we dont have that money, what is he talking about . I worry greatly about how the strategy will be implemented in the face of our debt and deficits. If Interest Rates go up, we have been incredibly lucky we have been able to borrow this money on the cheap. If Interest Rates go up to 3 , you can forget about this stuff. I dont blame that on the Defense Budget. I understand it is aps of it, it is 17 of the budget, the a piece of it, it is 17 of the budget, but our overall budget picture doesnt add up. I worry that ultimately will cost the men and women we serve, cost them to carry out the missions we all hear that we need. Last thing i want to hear we have the list china, russia, north korea, iran, violent extremist groups how can we protect our country . I just want to make a couple of quick comments on that. There is a Common Thread between all of those threats. That is a threat to representative democracy, freedom, and capitalism. All of those groups want to make the country safe for autocratic dictatorships. Each one of them has a slightly different viewpoint on what that dictatorship should look like, but it is a fundamental threat to democracy and representative government. I think we have to understand in that context and push back comprehensively to try and create a world that is safe for freedom and democracy. I think that is critical in keeping a peaceful and prosperous world. Lastly, i am interested from hearing from you. We hear a lot from the military about what you dont have, about where we are not spending enough money, the threats we are not meeting. If we get to where we need to go, where can we save money . What part of our National Security strategy can we not spend money on . If we dont hear places where we can save money, there is no way we we can spend what we need to meet it. I think your leadership and under ash carter and the chairman has gotten at procurement reform, employing commercial technology, ideas that can enable us to get more for less money. That is never going to be more important than it is going forward, given the fiscal situation we are in, and given the environment as described. How do we meet that . We have to be smarter about how we spend our money. With that, i yield and look forward to your testimony. The committee is pleased to welcome the secretary of defense and device chairman of the joint chiefs of staff the vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. Gentlemen, thank you for being here. Secretary, you are recognized for any comments you like to make. Sec. Mattis thank you distinguished members of the committee. Im here at your invitation to testify on two subjects, the 2018 national Defense Strategy, and Nuclear Posture review. I am joined by the vice chairman joint chiefs of staff. In the midst of our ongoing counterterrorism campaigns, my role is to keep the peace for one more year, one more day, giving secretary tillerson and diplomats time to resolve crises through diplomatic channels. The department of defense does this by providing the commanderinchief with military options that ensure diplomats negotiate from a position of strength. Up front, i will visit our nations First Security Assistance Brigade in georgia, as they prepare to deploy to afghanistan. To advance the security of our nation, these troops are putting themselves in harms way, and in effect signing a blank check payable to the American People with their lives. They do this regardless of congress obligation to provide Stable Funding. Our military has been operating under debilitating continuing resolutions for over 1000 days over the past decade. These men and women hold the line for america while lacking this most fundamental congressional support, a predictable budget. Congress rightfully mandated this national Defense Strategy, then shut down the government the day of its release. Today we are again operating under a disruptive continuing resolution. It is not lost on me that as a as i testify before you this morning, we are again on the verge of Government Shutdown, or at best, another damaging continuing resolution. I regret that without sustained predictable appropriations, my presence here today wastes your time, because no strategy can survive without the funding necessary to resource it. Yet we all know that america can afford survival. Nations as different as china and russia have chosen to be strategic competitors. They seek to create a world consistent with their authoritarian models, and pursue veto power over other nations economic, diplomatic, and security decisions. Rogue regimes like north korea and iran persist in taking outlaw actions that undermine and threaten regional and global stability. Violent extremist organizations continue to sow hatred and murder innocents. Across the globe, democracies are taking notice. We recognize Great Power Competition is once again a reality. We will continue to prosecute the campaign against terrorism by, with, and through our allies. But in our new Defense Strategy, Great Power Competition is now the primary focus of u. S. National security. Our military remains capable, but our Competitive Edge has eroded in every domain of warfare. Air, land, sea, cyber, and space. Under frequent continuing resolution and sequestered budget caps, our advantages continue to shrink. The combination of rapidly changing technology, the negative impact on military readiness resulting from the longest continuous stretch of combat in our nations history, and insufficient funding have created an overstretched and under resourced military. During last weeks state of the Union Address, President Trump said weakness is the surest path to conflict. For those who might suggest that we should accept a yearlong continuing resolution, it would mean a disastrous sequestration funding level for the military. In a world of change and increasing threats, there is no room for complacency. History shows that no country has a preordained right to victory on the battlefield. President Trumps National framed within President Trumps National Security strategy and align with the departments of state, our 2018 national Defense Strategy provides clear direction for americas military. A longterm competition requires the seamless integration of multiple elements of National Power diplomacy, information, economics, law enforcement, and military. The departments principal priorities are longterm strategic competitions with china and russia. Given the magnitude of the threats they pose to u. S. Security and prosperity today, Congress Must commit to an increased sustained investment in capabilities. Currently the department will the department, will sustain its efforts to deter and counter rogue regimes, and consolidate our gains in iraq and afghanistan while moving toward a more resources sustainable approach. More than any other nation, america can expand the competitive space. We can challenge our competitors where we possess advantages. We can restore a competitive military edge. Our first line of effort emphasizes that everything we do must contribute to the lethality of our military. In war, an enemy will attack a perceived weakness. Therefore we cannot adopt a single preclusive form of warfare. Rather we must be able to fight across the spectrum of combat. This means the size and composition of our force matters. The nation must field a sufficient capable force to deter conflict. If deterrence fails, we must win. To defend our way of life, our military will embrace change while holding fast to proven attributes that make us the most Formidable Force on any battlefield. Those who would threaten americas experiment in democracy must know, if you threaten us, it will be your longest and worst day. To implement this strategy, we ,ill invest in key capabilities recognizing that we cannot expect success fighting tomorrows conflicts with yesterdays strategies. Driven by this strategy, next week you will see in our fy19 budget investments the following space and cyber, Missile Defense, advanced autonomous systems, and professional military education to provide our high quality troops what they need to win. We will prioritize rebuilding readiness while modernizing our existing force. We will also be changing our forces posture to prioritize readiness for war fighting in major combat, making us strategically predictable for our allies and unpredictable for any adversary. To second line of effort is strengthen alliances while building new partnerships. Histories clear that nations with allies thrive. We inherited this approach from the greatest generation, and it has served the United States well for 70 years. Working by, with, and through allies, who have carried their fair share, as a source of strength. Since the costly victory in world war ii, americans have carried a disproportionate share of the Global Defense burden while others recovered. Today, the growing economic strength of partners has enabled them to step up. As demonstrated by more than 70 nations and International Organizations participating in the defeat places campaign, and defeat isis campaign and in the 40some nations standing in natos mission in afghanistan. Nato allies are increasing their budgets, giving credence to the value of democracy standing together. Our third line of effort serves as the foundation for our militarys Competitive Edge. Reforming the Business Practices of the department to provide consultancy and security, and security,lvency and and thereby gaining full benefit from every dollar spent. Every day we will earn the trust of congress and the American People. We must be good stewards of the tax dollars entrusted to us. We will deliver our departments full financial audit this year. Because results and accountability matter. Historyt audit in dods will reveal how we can be better stewards. The culture is transitioning to a culture of performance and affordability that operates at the speed of relevance. We will prioritize speed of delivery, continuous adaptation, and frequent modular upgrades. With your critical support, we will shed outdated processes while adopting american industrys best practices. If current structures inhibit our pursuit of lethality, i i expect my Service Secretaries heads tose agency consolidate, eliminate, and restructure to achieve the mission. One of the key elements of the 2018 national Defense Strategy is to ensure americas military provides a safe, secure, and Effective Nuclear deterrent. Last january, President Trump directed a Nuclear Posture review to ensure the u. S. Nuclear deterrent is robust, modern, flexible, resilient, ready, and appropriately tailored to deter 21st century threats and reassure allies. I recently received a letter from senators concerned that the 2018 Nuclear Posture review would undermine the existential threat posed by Nuclear Weapons. To the contrary, the Nuclear Posture review reaffirms the mutually reinforcing role of a complexterrence in security environment, while underscoring the u. S. Commitment to nonproliferation to Counter Terrorism and arms control. Specifically, the review reflects the department of defenses priority to maintain a safe and Effective Nuclear deterrent that will successfully deter nuclear and nonnuclear strategic attacks, assure partners, respond effectively should deterrence fail. The United States remains committed to its Global Leadership role to reduce the number of Nuclear Weapons, and to fulfill armed treaty obligations. Leadership that has reduced our Nuclear Weapons stockpile 85 from its cold war high. Yet we must recognize deterrence and arms control can only be achieved with a credible capability. A review of the Global Nuclear situation is sobering. While russia has only reduced a number of its Strategic Nuclear force, as agreed upon, at the same time russia has been modernizing these weapons along with other nuclear systems. Moscow advocates a theory of Nuclear Escalation for military conflict. China is also pursuing entirely new nuclear capabilities. It is also modernizing its conventional military to challenge u. S. Military superiority. Despite universal condemnation in the united nations, north Koreas Nuclear provocations threaten regional globally Nuclear Terrorism remains a tangible threat. As senator mccain said last week, since the end of the cold war, we have let our capabilities atrophy under the false belief that the era of great competition is over. As the new offensive strategy rightfully acknowledges, we now face the renewed threat of competition from russia and china, and we cannot ignore their investments in Nuclear Weapons, in addition to conventional forces. The 2018 Nuclear Posture review reaffirms the findings of previous reviews that the Nuclear Triad, comprised of silobased intercontinental the most missiles sound means of ensuring Nuclear Deterrence. To remain effective, we must recapitalize our cold war strategy, continuing Modernization Program initiated during the previous administration. To quote my predecessor secretary carter, we have been in a Nuclear Arms Race for two decades now, but the u. S. Has not been running the race. As demonstrated in this chart in the corner of the room, that gives credence to my predecessors observations. The Nuclear Delivery system over the last eight years shows numerous advances by russia, china, and north korea, with near absence by the United States. With competitors and adversaries developing 34 new systems in that time, and compared to one for the u. S. Nuclear deterrence will play a Critical Role in preventing Nuclear Attack and largescale conventional warfare between Nuclear Armed states for the foreseeable future. U. S. Nuclear weapons assure and defend our allies against conventional and nuclear threats, furthering our nonproliferation goals and increasing Global Security. The national Defense Strategy and Nuclear Posture review align with the president s strategy. As i said earlier, no strategy can survive without the necessary stable, predictable funding. Failure to modernize our military risks leaving us with a force that can dominate the last war, but be irrelevant to tomorrows security. We need to lift its funding caps billion for next fiscal year. As hard as the last 16 years of war have been on our military, no enemy in the field has done as much to harm the readiness of u. S. Military than combined spending caps, worsened over the last 10 years over continuing resolutions of varied and unpredictable duration. The budget control act was purposely designed to be so injurious that congress would pass budgets. It was never intended to be the solution. For too long, we asked our military to carry on stoically with a success at any cost attitude. Our troops work tirelessly took office every mission with increasingly inadequate resources, simply because congress has not maintained regular order. The fact that our volunteer military has performed so well is a credit to their dedication and professionalism. We expect the men and women of our military to be faithful in their service, even in going in harms way. We must remain faithful to them. Chairman, as you said in january, if congress does not come together to find a way to fund this strategy, secretary mattis must explicitly inform congress and the American People of the consequences of failure. The consequences of not providing a budget are clear. Even though we are protecting Ongoing Operations from continuing resolution disruptions, each increment of funding and support of her partners in afghanistan, iraq, and syria, requires a 15 day congressional notification. My commanders in the field write to me for help in getting timely and predictable funds as they strategyxecute our against the enemy in the field. Additionally, should we stumble into a yearlong continuing resolution, the military would not be able to provide pay for our troops by the end of the fiscal year. They will not recruit the 15,000 soldiers and 4000 air force to fill critical shortfalls. We will not maintain the balance between operations and time important for maintenance. We will ground aircraft due to a lack in spare parts. We will delay contracts for vital acquisition programs necessary to modernize the force. Further, i cannot overstate the impact to our troops morale from all this uncertainty. As i say here, we are engaged in prudent planning in the pentagon for another disruptive Government Shutdown. I cannot care more about our countrys defense. It is congress alone that has the Constitutional Authority to raise and support armies and to provide and maintain a navy. We need congress back in the drivers seat, not in the spectators seat of the budget control act. I know that in time of a major war, congress will provide our military with all that it needs. Money at a time of crisis fails to deter war. You know we would be at that point to have no time to prepare, as it takes months and years to produce the munitions and readiness required to fight well. To carry out the strategy you rightly directed we develop, we need you to pass a budget now. If we are to sustain our militarys primacy, we need predictability. Congress must take action to ensure our lethality defends our way of life, to preserve the promise of prosperity, and pass on the freedoms we enjoy to the next generation. I ask that you not let disagreements on domestic policy continue to hold our Nations Defense hostage. Gen. Silva thank you for the opportunity to join secretary mattis. General dunford and i along with the joint chiefs of staff fully support the strategy. Both documents are the product of significant consultation and collaboration between members of the joint staff. And the osd staff. The national Defense Strategy detailed strategy, planning, and operations. Therefore the chairmans 2016 pacified strategy will require an update to maintain complete consistency with the national Defense Strategy and the president s National Security strategy released in december. Immediately upon release, published last month, general dunford directed a revision. That process is underway. Other subsequent guidance and plans will be revised in turn to support the lines of effort outlined in the national Defense Strategy and to operationalize the concept of Dynamic Force employment. Additionally we have begun to refute the processes to determine if we need to make adjustments to support the responsibilities and to better positioned the chairman to support the echo carries decisionmaking process. Refining the organization and processes are a step toward requesting the joint force. In light of the reemergence of great power. The Nuclear Posture review also reflects the realities of todays security environment as well as projecting the future environment and its potential impacts on Nuclear Weapons, policy, and strategy. More specifically the Nuclear Posture review pays attention to russian, chinese, and north korean activities to develop, modernize, and integrate them into strategies and doctrine. The Nuclear Posture review takes into account irans capability to participate in the future. The review has determined that our strategy must be tailored to each potential adversary. This tailored strategy requires that the u. S. Maintains a credible mix of nuclear and conventional capabilities. It should not be lost on this committee that the Nuclear Posture review conducted its assessment across a 30 year swath of the future. It reaffirms it as the bedrock of our ability to deter aggression, and hedge against an uncertain future. As the secretary has mentioned, it reaffirms the need to recapitalize each component of our legacy systems remained ready, secure, able, and credible now and into the future. Two capabilities recommended in the posture review include the modification of a small number of Ballistic Missile warheads. They would enhance deterrence by ensuring that no adversary can perceive an advantage through the use of a limited Nuclear Escalation or other strategic attack. Fielding these capabilities will not lower the threshold at which the u. S. Would employ Nuclear Weapons, rather it would raise it. Making the use of Nuclear Weapons less likely. Nuclear weapons pose the only existential military threat to our nation. Therefore there is no higher priority for the joint force than fielding all of the components of an Effective Nuclear deterrent to deter potential adversaries from a Nuclear Attack on any scale. It is important to note that the national Defense Strategy and posture review both make the assumption that the military will receive timely, predictable, and sufficient funding to execute these strategies. As general mattis has emphasized, we in uniform appreciate the support of this committee and the congress. We trust you will provide the funding needed to provide these into reality. Thank you for your time. We look forward to your questions. Thank you. Let me take a moment and get give members a heads up on what our schedule looks like today. We are going to have votes on the floor at about 11 30. The secretary and general silva were gracious enough to move this up to 930 a. M. To get in give us more time to get in questions before the vote. But we are still not going to have time to get to everybody. We will do the best we can until we have votes. We will break and go to the floor and then we will reconvene after votes in a closed, classified session so that we can get further details about the National Security strategy. Secretary still has to be over in the senate later today. But i think that is the best combination of things to give us the most useful information in both public and in a classified session. Mr. Secretary, i was sitting here thinking i believe the statement you just gave is the clearest, most direct, bluntest statement i have heard about any from any administration witness about the importance of congress doing its job and in a way that mr. Smith and i have both talked about in our opening statements. You were very clear about crs and the damage they do to the military. Later today the house will vote on an appropriations bill for the department of defense for the rest of the fiscal year. It is consistent with about 700 billion of total spending for our National Defense account. My question to you is, is that bill, that level of funding, consistent with the national Defense Strategy that you have talked about today. If for whatever reason that level of resources does not happen, what does that do to the strategy . That is sufficient. I would tell you serve that with it we can restore the competitive advantage or begin down the trail for restoring the competitive advantage that has been eroded. Without it, we will be put into the position where if the strategy would have to be changed, we would have to accept greater risk especially in terms of deterring adversaries who might think that we are weaker because they can register where our readiness is being eroded. Let me ask one other thing in the interest of time so we can get to other members. When you assumed this office, there was speculation that you were a skeptic on some aspects of our Nuclear Triad, our Nuclear Deterrence. You spent a year looking through the Nuclear Posture review. Is the result of the study that you and the department have put into it. Can you just tell us what, as you have looked at our Nuclear Deterrence, how has your thinking evolved . I dont know if you want to say if you were a skeptic or not, but it looks like there was a change or at least some evolution. Why . Sec. Mattis i think that is a fair statement. I was confident that when i received the waiver from the house and senate to go into this job that you expected me to exercise my judgment. I came in, wanting to challenge just about everything. I wanted it to be proven to me that we needed to spend every cent. That every time we had a troop in harms way it was for the American People. In this case, i looked at the triad and the elements of each leg of the triad. I was especially attentive to the intercontinental Ballistic Missile force. After talking with a lot of people and visiting the missile fields, and doing a lot of study, i believe it is a stabilizing element that would be a strong deterrent to anyone who decided they wanted to employ Nuclear Weapons against us. There was another Weapon System that i was concerned would be destabilizing, and air launched Cruise Missile. You can see it on the chart that clearly russia does not consider that destabilizing. Look at the number they have developed and fielded. How do we keep us in a position where this is a deterrent. It has got to have those capabilities to be most persuasive. Deterrence is in the eye of the adversary. That was the journey i embarked on. It was rough on the staff and those who came in promoting it at first. I think they were compelling by the time we were done. Sen. Thornberry thank you. I think you are quite correct that we entered a era where great power rivalry is back on the table. Obviously china and russia have become more active in a variety of ways. What disturbs me about the direction of this conversation is that i dont believe great power rivalry equals endless arms race. Basically whenever you have a great power rivalry all that is , involved is military power. It goes up and up and up and up. Would you agree, mr. Secretary, that there are other important elements of dealing with great power rivalry, starting for instance with the state department, with diplomacy . With the idea that dialogue between our adversaries is important . Sec. Mattis i would agree 100 and i would point out, we are not developing nuclear torpedoes. Our nation is quite capable of developing new weapons and unlike russia, for example, we have chosen not to do that to give opportunity but the question is, deterrence is also your diplomatic stance. Deterrence is dialogue. This is what concerns me. Yes, we have to be able to deter russia and china from moving forward, but part of the way you do that is to have a dialogue. To do what Ronald Reagan did with gorbachev. Not just arms reduction, but an open discussion so that you dont miscalculate. A lot of what we are building into is we are assuming the russians, gosh if we dont have low yields Nuclear Weapons the russians will think they can get away with a low yield strike. Part of the way you make sure they dont think that, is to let them know. You have a dialogue. Im very concerned right now that we dont have much in the way of a dialogue with russia or china. We did get something in the dod bill that would mandate that, but we mandate in a lot of things that the executive branch does not do. We need to do that. But we are presented with, is that we have to tax cut taxes of course. We have done that. Now we have a massive increase in defense. You will got Everything Else. You look at Everything Else. Lets forget infrastructure, education, things that are also important to actually having a just and prosperous society. Defense is important, but if you gut Everything Else. If we pass this budget, the state department will continue to be destroyed. As we all know, career and diplomats are leaving. There have been massive cuts in their budget and now we are proposing no budget for the state department. We will give them a cr. It becomes a selffulfilling prophecy. How do we know we have to build massive weapons to deter russia and china . Well we are not talking to them, so we have to presume the worst. We will give up on diplomacy and focus on having as many weapons as humanly possible to make sure they are deterred. Dialogue is incredibly important. Not just dialogue with russia and china. We need allies. If we are in a great power rivalry in this world with both russia and china, even our given our massive debt and chinas economic might. That will be a tough hill to climb. We need allies, we need friends. Vietnam, south korea, japan, we still dont even have an ambassador to south korea. We are degrading diplomacy at an incredibly rapid. We are also degrading development. We talk about all that stuff on the chart over there that china is doing, one of the biggest things china is doing, is they are spending a lot of money all across the world to try to curry favor with countries and also build their own economic might. They are doing it in a crass and terrible way because they dont care what the government does. They will not pull money out of a country because of a human rights dilation. They are doing it and we are pulling back. Again this budget is being , proposed, guts. Development. About the department of security. It is part of the nondefense discretionary budget. We will leave it in the wind in the cr because defense takes priority and we do nothing else. The Justice Department has played an enormous role in stopping terrorist attack and also bringing to justice those who have committed them. It too gets gutted by this budget. I always bristle a little bit when i hear, how can we hold defend domestic political priorities, as if they were some kind of luxury that we engage in for fun and enjoyment and are not really important. All of those things are important. The state department is really important. In fact, i think it was your predecessor who said if you are going to cut the state department you had better give me five more divisions. Because that is what i will need to defend this country or is it was either you or general dunford. I apologize. To sit here and say we will spend money on defense because it would be wrong to prioritize other things, it is patently absurd and insulting. Defense is incredibly important. It is not the only thing important in keeping the peace. This is more a speech that i question. But i think it is important heard there are other things important than keeping the peace. If we do what is being proposed, we say they dont matter. Department of justice does not matter. The state department of the matter. That matters. Doesnt that make your job vastly more difficult . That was a question. Sec. Mattis congressman smith, i take no issue with the fact that we need to have regular order across all government expenditures. Unfortunately, right now what we are doing is creating security abilities that can no longer be denied. One look at the chart and you he where we are at. We cannot do neustar its. We cannot get into Cyber Attacks in. We do not have the ability to do so under a cr. Nine of the last 10 years. I dont think there is anything contradictory in the way you and i look at this right now. Secretary tillerson and i have a close working relationship. Our military operations are wrapped firmly inside our foreign policy. The president has directed secretary tillerson and i to find ways to engage on nonproliferation. Right now we have constant communications with the russians for operational matters. Counterterrorism. North korea. Some of these are on pretty big issues. I agree that we need more communication with russia, china, along the level of almost philosophical engagement as well as operational matters. So the country can do all the other things that you are referring to. Foremost is ok. Only, exclusively, while ignoring Everything Else, not ok. That is what we are about to do this afternoon. The only contradictory thing is to completely ignore the rest of the budget. Massively cut taxes and fund defense. Act like you have provided for security for the country. I have made my point. I appreciate you answering the question. I yield back. Sen. Thornberry just for the record, i hope we get a complete budget agreement and we do it this week for all aspects of the government. We can do that. And we should. Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to talk about the graveyard of empires. I think that is what they say about afghanistan. A few headlines from the last two weeks. Kobul attacks fail at u. S. Strategy. We are still shutting our soldiers blood for pedophiles. Another headline. The taliban and is gaining strength and territory in afghanistan. Another headline. Taliban threatens 70 of afghanistan. Last headline. Pentagon blocks release of key data on afghan war. The pentagon has restricted the release of critical information on the progress being made in the war in afghanistan and move a move that will limit transparency. In your prepared remarks, you very kindly said we need to build the trust of the American People. How can we build the trust of the American People after 16 years of a 2300 americans killed over 20,000 wounded. And we spent 1 trillion. I dont have to add to mr. Smiths comment. But this country is headed for bankruptcy. Mr. Trump campaigned. I have 30 of his comments and tweets. He was opposed to being in afghanistan. He wanted to pull out. He was critical of those who wanted to stay. We are now increasing the number of troops in afghanistan and after 16 years, the American People have a right to know of the successes. Some of that im sure is classified. Which i can understand. But i also know that we are not getting the kind of information that we need to get to know what successes we are having. After 16 years, i do not think we are having any success. I would love to have a classified hearing. Maybe that will happen in a couple of hours and you would be able to tell us of some benchmarks that we have made after 16 years. A friend of yours is a friend of mine. The former confident of the. Arine corps he has been my source in afghanistan for five years. Previous secretary of defense have gotten questions he asked me to ask during hearings like this one. Not today did i get that from him. But three or four months ago, when you talked about increasing the number of troops in afghanistan, he sent me a wife five paragraph email. I am only going to read one sentence. Then i want to ask you a question. No one has ever conquered afghanistan and many have tried. We will join the list of nations that have tried and failed. Mr. Secretary, how can we, with this budget situation we have got and the economic collapse in this country, how can we continue to go on a policy after 16 years when the secretary of defense that follows you and the congressman that follows me or congresswoman if we are still talking about afghanistan in the future and nothing is changing. I think there has got to be a time that you would say to President Trump we have done all we can do. Blood and treasure is lost and we have nothing to show that we have gained except we still have trouble with the leaders of afghanistan having sex with little boys. Give me a Quick Response if you can. Sec. Mattis congressman, if we were engaged in conquering afghanistan, i would agree 100 with what you just stated here if that was our sense of empire. In fact, what we are doing to the trust of the American People is to ensure another 9 11 hatched out of there does not happen during our watch. Further, the strategy we put together and President Trump challenged every assumption. It took months to put it together to answer every question he had and the gravity of protecting the American People caused him to change his mind based on what the Intelligence Services told him was the vulnerability we would have if we pulled out of there. That strategy did permit a more regional approach. It has been embraced by nations as diverse as those in nato and india. We have now declined 39 nations fighting in the campaign from 50 years ago. It has gone now 241. It has started growing more allies. They are there because they believe in the strategy, which means the afghan boys continue to carry the load for the fighting. But now, with advisers that bring the nato air support and fire support to help them. The taliban have not made their pitch to the Afghan People in a positive way by murdering innocent people. They are not incurring the support of the Afghan People whereas nato does have that support. It has been a long, hard, slog. I recognize that. I would also tell you that any attempt to keep information from the American People it was a nato decision at that point. It was a mistake, i might add. That information is now available. A number of those headlines are selected by their editors in order to make the storyline they have. We believe that the regionalized strategy will draw even more allies and it puts the enemy on a path toward accepting reconciliation. We are not out to conquer it. The gentlemans more than expired. You can ask whatever you want to, but if you ask a question for four minutes, and let the answer, i will not cut him off. Ms. Davis. Ms. Davis thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you both of you for being here this morning. I would like to associate with myself with the rankings members comments. I know that secretary mattis you have mentioned that we must negotiate from a position of strength so that our military capability should be clear and send that message, but at the same time, we know how long it takes to develop high ranking officers who can provide our country with the best of advice. We must have that same timeline for the state department and for those individuals that inotiate, whether it is congress or whatever realm it is. I wanted to just go to the issue of lowering the threshold in terms of Nuclear Capability. There is a question whether or not the Nuclear Posture review is clear on what it considers to be lowering the threshold versus some of the comments that general silva made. It is possible to modernize Nuclear Capability and at the same time lower that threshold as it is perceived by our adversaries. Can you speak to that more . I think we are all concerned about the russian doctrine of escalating to deescalate. Where are we and how can we make that clear to the American People . Sec. Mattis i think part of it can be addressed through the continuity of our Nuclear Deterrent. Again, i never state nuclear Nuclear Deterrent. How we manage it and how we talk about it. If you look at the 2010 Nuclear Posture review, in which it said we would only use Nuclear Weapon s in extreme circumstances, i would refer to 2018 where we say in the most extreme circumstances would we use those weapons. You see the continuity between two different administrations and political parties. In regards to the lower yield weapon, it is to make certain that no one thinks that they could use a low yield weapon and put us in a position where we could only respond with a high yield weapon with the supposition that maybe we would not. We can say well we know we would, but what matters in deterrence is what does the adversary think . In this regard, deterrence is dynamic and we must recognize that todays deterrent must keep pace with the thinking of todays adversaries or competitors. Ms. Jones could you respond to the belief that a Nuclear Weapon is a Nuclear Weapon. That no matter what that size may be, it may still signal that we are using Nuclear Weapon. And perhaps even changing the rules of the game. Sec. Mattis i would agree. I dont think there is any such thing as a tactical Nuclear Weapon. Any weapon used is a strategic game changer. That said, we do not want someone else to miscalculate and think that because they are going to use a low yield weapon, that somehow we would confront what dr. Kitchener calls surrender or suicide. We do not want even an inch of daylight to appear in how we look at the Nuclear Deterrent. It is a Nuclear Deterrent and must be considered credible. Ms. Jones thank you. General silva as well, looking at that modernization, 700 billion. 1. 5 trillion, is that something that given the whole scope in terms of our budget does it make sense today . Gen. Silva my response is yes, it does make sense. It makes sense in the context that we are talking across a 40 year time span. The cost of about 700 million to modernize the three legs of the triad to make available to future secretaries of defense and commanders in chief. A credible, secure, reliable, Nuclear Triad that allows those individuals 20 or 30 years into the future to be able to stay a cash tailor Strategic Responses as well as support the possibility of negotiating away and tire types and classes of weapons. That process will have to continue over a long time span. The arsenal and weapons we have today are ready, secure, and credible. But they must be modernized over the span of time to keep those options available to our commanders in chief. Ms. Jones thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you so much for your service. I especially appreciate what you are doing as a veteran, myself. Particularly as the grateful dead. Ive had four sons and a nephew serve overseas in iraq, afghanistan, egypt, army, navy, air force. I am very grateful for your service and leadership. It is so reassuring as a military parent. Secretary mattis, your unusual Nuclear Posture review recommends to supplemental capabilities. First, a low yield submarine. Launched Cruise Missile. Why are these needed for deterrence and assurance and following on that, some are arguing that they lower the threshold for the u. S. To use Nuclear Weapons. Do you believe the addition of these capabilities is an increase or decrease in likelihood of a nuclear war . Another angle. Why should we need a low yield bm when we already have a low yield Nuclear Gravity bomb. Are these capabilities redundant . Sec. Mattis congressman, i dont believe it lowers the threshold at all. What it does is make very clear that we have a deterrent. If the russians choose to carry out what some of their people have promoted which would be to employ a low yield Nuclear Weapon in a conventional fight in order to escalate to deescalate. In other words, to escalate to victory and then deescalate. We want to make sure they recognize that we can respond in time. We dont have to go with a high yield weapon. Thus the deterrent stays primary. It is not to in any way lower the threshold. To use Nuclear Weapons. On the seas launch, Cruise Missile as you know we have an ongoing issue with russias violation of the inf. I want to make certain that our negotiators have something to negotiate with. That we want russia back into compliance. We do not want to forgo the inf. But at the same time, we have options if russia continues to go down this path. The idea is, once again to keep our negotiators negotiating from a position of strength. I dont believe you can go into a negotiation and get something for nothing. I dont think the russians would be willing to give up something to gain nothing from us in terms of reduction. Well if there is any negotiation i have faith in your capabilities. We look forward to working with you. Another issue that is so important and, mr. Secretary needs to be restated. You referenced it in your opening statement. Is there any stronger indication of congresses resolve . Supporting our military with adequate and reliable funding . Sec. Mattis nope there is not, congressman. The u. S. Congress speaks for the American People. It would send the most stabilizing and sobering message that this democracy will stand up for itself. An issue that chairman thornberry has been speaking. As we are here just two days away from a Government Shutdown, can you tell, in your view, if congress does not do its part to turn this crisis around, can we expect to see further impacts to the military and should we anticipate more accidents, tragic accidents as we saw in the pacific this year with the fitzgerald and mccain. Sec. Mattis congressman, we are doing Everything Possible to avoid any such repeats of those accidents. However, there are a number of areas where, when time is lost if you have pilots who are not taking in their flying time now, five years from now when they are majors or lieutenant colonels, they will not have a level of expertise we would expect because they did not get the opportunity that they lost during continuing resolutions or during budget shutdowns or governmental shutdowns. It impacts us. It is not like we maintain even the status quo if we go into one of these situations yet again. We actually lose ground, and i could go on for a number of examples in all the forces. Thank both of you for your service. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Secretary, thank you your service. I also want to associate myself with the comments of the ranking member. When it comes to taking a whole government approach to funding our National Security priorities. But i want to turn to another aspect about the security challenge that faces our country today. Mr. Secretary, it is an accepted fact that our planets climate is changing. You have acknowledged this yourself to our committee and you have shown leadership in this regard as your confirmation hearing that you will and i quote, ensure that the department continues to be prepared to conduct operations today and in the future and that we are prepared to address the effects of a changing climate on our threat assessment resources and readiness. I want to commend you for those statements. However, both the president s National Security strategy and the departments national failed to notey Climate Change as a threats. I am perplexed by that and, certainly ask why was that omitted, but as these changes occur, how will you ensure the department is prepared to respond. What steps will the department take to mitigate the challenges to ensure americas emission resiliency . Sec. Mattis on a military level, every base we have has what we call extreme weather plans. We acknowledge any type of environmental impacts from the weather. Whether it be drainage systems or whatever we need to keep the base operating. Airfield, seaport, marshall in marshaling bases for deployment. This is a normal part of what the military does. Under any strategy, it is part and parcel. I find it perplexing that it was left out of the national Defense Strategy. General silva, let me turn to part of your testimony. You say Nuclear Weapons boast the only existential military threat to our nation. I would add Cyber Weapons as also posing and existential and asymmetric threat to our nation as well. In your assessment, both you and the secretary, how well resourced and trained are our forces to deal with threats of Cyber Security . Gen. Silva congressman, we have established the u. S. Cyber command as the work for the military networks that we operate on. Cybercrime and consultation with the National Security administration. My point in saying that Nuclear Weapons represent the only military existential threat is because they would be used uniquely for military purposes. There is no question. Cyber is an asymmetric capability and this nation has vulnerabilities in both Critical Infrastructure and civilian infrastructure. We will continue to do the work of normalizing our ability to defend those and provide the kinds of advice we can from the nsa as well as doj and the department of Homeland Security to defend those networks. Do you feel our training is meeting its expectations as to where we need to be at this time to deal with our cyber challenges . Gen. Silva collaboration between the military and department of Homeland Security and nsa to defend national networks, the training is as good as we can possibly make it and we are reacting to the threats we can see. The national Defense Strategy states that interstates cap competition rather than terrorism is the primary National Security concern. It also notes our eroding competitive military advantage. While i agree that we must increase our military edge in the event of conflict, today our competitors are launching political, economic, information and Cyber Operations targeting us. Where do you believe we are in respect to these activities that do not rely rise to the level of conflict. To what extent do you feel we should be compared to increase our proficiencies in these areas . Gen. Silva it is a great question sir, because this is what i was alluding to when i mentioned that we have the potential to enlarge the competitive space and it is right into the areas you are we are talking about. We have to remember we are a revolutionary pact, this country. The kind of democracy we stand for. You can practice all the predatory economics you want. You can send your military into syria to prop up if you wish to. But the fact is, we have areas education thatf go far beyond what other nations tend to reach back and find strength in. We can use that to build modern partnerships. Not abandon our traditional partnerships, for example, native, but extend to a broader array of partners who do not want to be made tribute states to someone elses economic or political system. Thank you both. Thank you both for being here. Mr. Secretary, thank you for your strong statements here today. Have two thank yous and a question. Thank you for your strong statements on the budget. I voted against the budget control act because i believe that sequestration would be damaging to our military and that it would happen. Certainly, everyone in this committee has fought since it has been implemented to try to lift that burden on our military your strong words are important to let people know the effects of that. It is very sad that in your comments you have a whole section on the impact of congressional in action. The house has not really been inactive. We passed a budget. The National Defense authorization act. We have passed Appropriations Bills three times. We are dealing with a handful of those in the senate who are causing an action. In action. I certainly call the democratic leadership to dislodge the defense funding. Because of the damage that is occurring by connecting defense to other items. Secondly, thank you for your strong words and the nuclear in the Nuclear Posture review. It assigned dod the responsibility of reducing the alsoof strategy, while modernizing. Your chart is important as it certainly on the right shows that those who say we need to reduce our Nuclear Weapons because others will follow is folly. Our reducing our Nuclear Weapons does not reducing anyone else. It is not based on reality or history. On the bottom right of your chart, you say our lunch that is on paper. To my question, you have indicated that the inf treaty was violated i russia. In russia. We also know that they violated the territory treaty with ukraine. They have violated the open skies treaty. How do we have a dialogue when they show no indication that treaties even matter . Sec. Mattis sir, i have had extensive discussions with our nato allies and the secretarygeneral at nato on this issue. I have made clear that our approach is that we do not want to withdraw from inf, but we are going to have to see effort by russia to get in line with it. The state department is engaged on this with the russians as we speak right now. Also, we are going to stay inside the inf compliance requirements. Were going to do research and development of an alternative weapon that should put russia in a position to see the value to returning to an inf compliance. I will yield to mr. Gallagher. Mr. Gallagher thank you for your hard work on the national Defense Strategy. Particularly your focus on Great Power Competition. As we try to operationalize the focus, i am particularly interested in second order consequences. You recently endorsed the Foreign Investment risk review modernization act. You have talked about chinas pursuit of veto authority. Why in your view is this legislation and a hard look needed . Sec. Mattis we have made keen observations of the amount of intellectual property that has been basically under industrial espionage. It has been rifled through in our country and and textile traded. What are the most critical National Security industries that may not be covered under the current act that we need to broaden and deepen the protections for this advantage that we have available . Whether it be silicon valley, seattle, or elsewhere in the country. Mr. Gallagher. General silva, what advice do you have on our ability to protect the supply chain in our Industrial Base given current tools practice. Gen. Silva the supply chain in the Industrial Base speed directly to the timeliness of actions in our ability to control who invests in those key capabilities. So the notion that we would not Pay Attention to who is investing in the companies that allow us to move and mobilize our force is folly. The refinement and renewal of the powers within the capabilities to determine who is doing that investing and for what reason put us in a position of being able to understand the potential vulnerabilities of those investments. Thank you both, my time has expired. Mr. Larson in the response to a question earlier, you said that we need to slip them in the sl bm to have the stand up for themselves. You are not suggesting that if anyone of us dont support the development of that we are not sitting up for democracy . Sec. Mattis that would never be the way i characterize someone spoke, sir. Mr. Larson you also argued that in the Nuclear Posture review it provides a bargaining chip in dealing with inf treaty violations. The that correct . Sec. Mattis thats correct. Mr. Larson is it a logical extension then that if we saw a change in russian behavior the administration would stop the development of either one or both . Sec. Mattis i dont want to say in advance of a negotiation and undercut our negotiators position what we would or would not do. The point i would make is that deterrence is dynamic. We have to deal with it as it stands today. As we see it on the chart and in that regard, i believe that we have to get our negotiator something with which to negotiate. Mr. Larson give any indication there would be a change in russian behavior . Sec. Mattis i can only tell you that we go into this with capabilities to make certain the russians understand that we have a capability a deterrent capability and based on not just the two nations, but the broader deterrent portfolio as well. Mr. Larson does the u. S. Currently have the ability to deliver a Nuclear Response without this investment . Do we have the ability without this investment . Sec. Mattis are you referring to a seat launched Cruise Missile . Mr. Larson time talking about a Strategic Response . Sec. Mattis i would be cautious about saying any Nuclear Weapon is not strategic. If you mean a low yield, yes we do. Mr. Larson what is the difference between that capability and the sea watch . Sec. Mattis the gravity bomb that is low yield means the bomber would have to penetrate. But today, air Defense Systems are altogether different than 10 or 20 years ago. Mr. Larson is this the development of the new capabilities the only solution . Sec. Mattis no, sir. We are certainly working on air defense penetration capability. Again, we have to deal with where we are today. We are working on the issue. Mr. Larson its kind of where we at question. It is something im not going to bore you with and details. We will get to it in subcommittee hearings. At the cbo estimate of 1. 2 trillion over 30 years, which the department would say is only 6. 4 of the budget, when it was higher in the past. I dont know if that means the rest of the Defense Budget is out of control, or the fact that we dont have an accounting of what the 1. 2 trillion is. We are now looking at an npr that presumes Additional Development capabilities which i , presume would be on top of this current cbo estimate. You can address that briefly, but we are going to have plenty of time over the next couple months to explore that. The money question. Which is a big concern of all of our spirit can you tell us about the assurance since Nuclear Deterrence is an assurance of allies. Any response from our specifically our nato allies at this point . Sec. Mattis sir, we engaged in extensive consultation with our nato allies. I was on the phones morning with one of my counterparts. She expressed a deep appreciation of her country for the amount of collaboration that went into the Nuclear Posture review. Right now, the deterrence posture we have and we have outlined in the review has gained a great deal of support from our allies. Mr. Larson i get thanks for collaboration all the time and then people work against me. Has nato then yet taken a position and i will follow up later. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Rogers the last Nuclear Posture review published eight years ago said russia is not an enemy and is increasingly a partner. At that time there were many of us that did not believe that statement. We certainly dont today. Russia continues to brazenly violate the inf treaty. Continues to conduct Dangerous Nuclear exercises against the u. S. , nato allies and partners. China clearly demands being a global influenced her with that backdrop, secretary mattis, how would you characterize the changes weve seen in Global Security environment since the 2010 npr and why do these changes matter, and how is your identity policies . How is adapting . Sec. Mattis i believe what we have seen is that russia and china, from ukraine and mucking around in the elections in the case of russia, to chinas militarization. We have seen them choose to become strategic competitors with us where a one time we had hoped would be some level of partnership. Mr. Rogers do you believe the 6 or 7 of the Defense Budget were devoting to Nuclear Enterprise is an adequate level of spending to do our nations number one priority . Sec. Mattis i do believe it is and i would point out that it is around 3. 5 for many years climbing to 6. 5 or 6. 7 at its top percentage in 2029. At that point, it would go into a more measured maintenance of what we have built in the columbia class and this sort of thing. Mr. Rogers thank you. With that i yield back. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary and general silva, thank you for your testimony. Mr. Secretary, in the national Defense Strategy you noted we are a resilient joint force in regards to our Forward Deployed forces. I am concerned regarding the u. S. Navys ability to remain resilient during a conflict with a pure adversary. Specifically, with ship repair capability in the pacific. In the fleet comprehensive review, the navy identified capacity issues. Section 10. 47 requires the secretary of the navy to submit a report on the ship maintenance capability in the western pacific. It further requires the secretary of defense to certify to conventional defense committees whether or not the current ship depo maintenance capability and capacity including drydocks, are sufficient to meet both peacetime and contingency requirements. So, my question is where is the department in terms of meeting these requirements and how are you going about determining if there is sufficient capability and capacity . Sec. Mattis congresswoman, where we are at right now is we are examining the sufficiency of it in terms of raw capacity, the anticipated need if we go into conflict, and the distribution over a number of locations for obvious reasons. Right now, we are still in the assessment. We obviously know what we have right now. But whether it is sufficient for the future is where we are concentrating the study. I will make certain that the secretary of the navy follows up with this as we get more mature in our output. Thank you, mr. Secretary. The next question i have is that the people of walmart proud to host there proud to continued bomber presence. With the recent addition of the b2 and b52 commerce. Considering the bomber presence westernmost territory, guam holds vital strategic aces. I am happy to see that the army aid in its defense. However, in your strategy, you call for investment on layered Missile Defense from north koreans threats. Considering our strategic importance, is guam adequately defended from theater missile threats and how do you intend to bolster these Defense Systems in the future . Sec. Mattis we will continue bolstering them to keep pace with the threat out of north korea as you know. Besides that system we keep the Ballistic Missile defense u. S. Navy warship in the waters out there and we can always reinforce that. We also have several of those ships in japanese waters. They can move back and forth to include coverage of one. Way ofuam in the mobile our navy. We are looking at all the systems to include a sure as we look to the protection of our pacific area. Thank you, mr. Secretary. I think weve talked about this. Sick to your position in a secure position. Keep the bombers and Everything Else you have therefore a wild. I thank you again. I yield back, mr. Chairman. Votes have come early. We do not have time to get to more members in. So, as soon as votes are completed on the floor, we will come back in classified session up in 2212. At this point, the open hearing is adjourned. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2018] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] announcer current government thursday. Ns out on the house voted to fund the government through march 23. The legislation now headed fraction in the u. S. Senate. Wednesday on the cspan networks, the house returns at 9 00 a. M. For legislation. At 10 00 a. M. On cspan2, the senate Homeland Security committee looks at the operations of the department of Homeland Security. The Senate Returns at 11 30 a. M. Up antinue work and take measure to keep the governmentfunded past thursday. 9 00 a. M. , at dealing with senior military leader misconduct. 230 p. M. , looking at the role of the department of defense and countering weapons of mass distraction. Now, a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on u. S. Strategy in afghanistan. Witnesses include deputy secretary of state John Sullivan and assistant defense secretary randall schriver. This is just under two hours