Transcripts For CSPAN3 Joint Chiefs Of Staff General Dunford Testifies On Reappointment 20170926

Joint chiefs of staff. General dunford, the Committee Thanks you for your decades of distinguished service to our nation. We are grateful to your wife, ellen, for the support that she has always provided to you, and to all who serve our nation in uniform. I would also like to welcome your son patrick. Patrick, fortunately you look like your mother. Thank you. Who is joining us this morning. I know that your other children, joe and kathleen, send their support from afar. Even as i bet theyre a little relieved that they dont have to sit through your interrogation. In order to exercise its oversight responsibilities its important that this committee and other committees of congress receive testimony and briefings and communications of information. Have you adhered to applicable laws and regulations governing conflicts of interest . I have. Do you agree when asked to give your personal views even if the views differ from the administration in power . I do, chairman. Have you assumed any duties or undertaken actions which would appear to compromise the outcome of the process . I have not. Will you ensure your staff complies with deadlines for requested communications including questions for the record and hearings . I will, chairman. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses and briefers in response to congressional requests . Yes, chairman. Will those witnesses be protected from reprisal for their testimony or briefings . They will be. You agree if confirmed to appear and testify upon request before this committee. I do. You agree to provide documents, including the copies of electronic forms of communication in a timely manner when requested by a dually constituted committee or to consult with the Committee Regarding the basis for any good faith delay or denial in providing such documents . I do, chairman. My colleagues and i are aware that that is a routine but given the the political environment today, especially, and certainly not any reflection on you, general dunford, but those questions need to be asked. And i thank you for your responses. General dunford, my colleagues and i will have a lot of questions for you about the many pressing National Security challenges we face, but this hearing also offers an opportunity to reflect on some broader topics that have historically and more recently been a major focus of this committees efforts. The unique role of the chairman in our National Security structure and the state of Civil Military relations as, quote, principal military adviser to the president , the National Security council, secretary of defense and congress the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff is the most important military duty in our nation. The chairman is the one military officer with the authority to present comprehensive analysis and advice to civilian policymakers, informed by all the military services and combatant commands and spanning every global and functional issue of National Security. This responsibility is now more important than ever. Our country faces a multitude of National Security challenges, all of which cut across the regional and functional organizations that divide up the department of defense. The chairman is the only military officer with a truly comprehensive perspective on the joint force, on all the threats we face worldwide and the interplay between them. That is why this committee acted last year to clarify the chairmans statutory responsibility to advise civilian leaders on the global strategic integration of our military efforts. The chairmans unique role lends extra gravity to the responsibility that you and every military officer possesses. The responsibility to provide best military advice to civilian leaders. This is not a luxury. It is a duty. It is a duty that military officers owe to the American People and to the men and women under their command. Civilian policymakers in both the consecutive and legislative branches rely on military professionals to better understand the military dimensions of the National Security challenges we face and the options at our disposal for wielding military power effectively. But best military advice does not stop there. Military officers, and especially the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, must tell their civilian superiors what action they believe are best and right to take, and they must do so honestly, candidly, respectfully but forcefully, whether civilians want to hear it or not. Best military advice may be disregarded, but it must always be given. Whats more, in my opinion, best military advice should not be narrowly limited to technical military matters. When the chairman offers his best military advice he is not simply offering the best advice about the military but, rather, the best advice from the military. And that extends to issues of National Security policy, strategy and operations. For example, the decision to take our nation to war properly rests with civilians. Its a policy question. But military officers should not be prohibited from voicing their advice on such a matter. Indeed, it is their duty to do so. If you havent seen mr. Burns series on vietnam, i suggest that you Pay Attention to it. And i suggest that you examine the tensions that existed between the civilian superiors and the military. And i believe that you will come to the conclusion that the military advice was not given the weight and effect that it should have, which was one of the factors in leading to 58,000 names on the wall in granite not too far from here. Just as we are clear about what constitutions best constitutes best military advice we must be equally clear about its limitation. Advice is just that, advice. The chairman is the principal military adviser is not in the chain of command. Ours is not a general staff system. It rests with Combatant Commanders who report by law to the secretary of defense. The chairman must adviser civili civilian leaders on the strategy of operations and things. It is his right, indeed, his responsibility to provide competing advice to policymakers when he disagrees with Combatant Commanders. But the chairman is not an operational commander. Similarly, best military advice does not mean independent advice. It occurs in the context of Civil Military relations. I want to say a few words on this in closing. Elliott cohen has described Civil Military relations as an unequal dialogue. The rules are not to bedy c dichotomized and held apart. They must be brought together to refine military strategy operations and plans. A process in which civilian leaders must play an active role and make the major decisions. Best military advice is central to this dialogue, but it can never replace it. Unfortunately, i sense that the Civil Military dialogue has become strained. At times civilian officials have disrespected military leaders, disregarded their advice on Critical Military matters and shirked accountability for their decisions. More recently civilian oversight and control of the military has morphed into meddling and micromanagement of tactical details for political purposes which has harmed military effectiveness. The last administration distinguished itself in this regard. What we must guard against, general dunford, especially now when so many civilian leaders at the secretary of defense are either missing or are themselves recently retired military officers, is an overcorrection. We cannot afford to swing from civilian micromanagement to civilian marginalization. We need to restore balance in Civil Military relations where best military advice is always rendered and received but is done so as part of a dialogue with civilians who participate actively and have the last word on policy, strategy, operations and plans. This Committee Takes its obligations seriously in this regard. The Civil Military dialogue does not only occur within the department of defense. It occurs within the branches of government as well. Thats why the chairman also serves as a principal military adviser to the congress and thats why, as part of the confirmation process, we ask current and future chairman like all military officers, to provide their best personal advice to this committee if asked. It is to ensure that the members of this committee and the full congress are able to meet our independent Constitutional Responsibilities to the americans we serve. At present, this committee, and the congress more broadly, is not receiving the information and respect it deserve as a coequal branch of government. We do not work for the president or the executive branch. We have distinct and equal responsibilities under the constitution, and the Administration Needs to understand its obligation to the congress in this regard. Too often, members of this committee are learning in the media for the first time about major National Security and military activities that we, as the committee of oversight, should be told about and consulted on in advance. Even now, nearly ten months into this year, we are told we have a new strategy for afghanistan, but members of this committee have far more questions than answers. The Administration Must do better, and until it does, the congress and this committee will be forced to use what levers we have to show the administration that we are not and will not be a rubber stamp. We will have many questions for you, general. We look forward to your candid, forthright and best military advice. Senator reed. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. I want to welcome general dunford this morning and thank him for his Outstanding Service to this nation. He is joined by his wife ellen and son patrick. Thank you. Also like to acknowledge the generals other children, joe and kathleen, who were not able to join us today. On behalf of our committee, we thank the entire dunford family for their continued sacrifice and support. It means a great deal to us, but more particularly to the men and women of the armed forces. This committee has maintained a robust hearing schedule. Our committee has heard from the most senior political leaders in the department, highest echelons of the military and distinguished outside experts. Time and again the hearings have underscored the United States is faced with a myriad of challenges offering no quick or easy solutions and require adroit military leadership. During general dunfords tenure as chairman he has provided southbound counsel and demonstrated a deep understanding of the National Security threats our nation must address. As chairman he has made it a priority to keep this committee well informed on the departments policy decisions,iment pacting armed forces and changes to military strategy to counter the risks posed by our adversaries. While the committee may not always agree with general dunfords views he has been honest and conducted himself with integrity. I believe he should be reappointed to serve as the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. As appointed to consider the state of the world today, his professionalism and commitment to duty served him well. This is not the first time in our history that weve had to confront multiple threats from abroad but its an incredibly dangerous and uncertain time. North Koreas Nuclear Missile Program poses an immediate and grave National Security threat and heightens tensions on the peninsula. The global order established by the United States following world war ii is under siege by russia determined to reassert its influence around the world. China continues its sabre ratting by using economic coercion. Iran continues their aggressive Weapons Development activities. Finally, our military has been consumed by two prolonged wars against violent extremist groups like isis that has sapped readiness and precluded our personnel from training. As we grapple with these thre s threats, it had been my sincere hope that the magnitude of the office coupled with the enormous challenges we face would have encouraged the president to be more judicious with his comments and thoughtful with his actions. Unfortunately thats not been the case. Today our Foreign Policy has been predicated on alienating longtime allies. Discounting the value of International Organizations and global commitments and retreating from our leadership role in the world while at the same time decisions on our defense posture and complicated military personnel issues are promulgated by president ial tweet. Such trends lend more uncertainty to already dangerous times, and i believe the risk of miscalculation and unintended consequences has never been higher. Resolute leadership at the highest echelons of our military is a necessity now more than ever. I commend general dunford for the steady hand he has had in guiding the joint chiefs of staff as chairman and for the sterling example he has set for all those who wear the uniform. Thank you for your willingness to serve. General dunford, welcome. Thank you, chairman. Chair mccain, Ranking Member reed, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am honored to be renominated as the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. I would like to begin by thanking the committee for your support of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. This Years National Defense Authorization act is a reflection of your commitment to ensure they remain the most well trained, well equipped and Capable Military force in the world. Today we have a competitive advantage over any adversary and our armed forces are ready to protect the homeland and meet alliance commitments. However the advantage has eroded in recent years. I look forward to working together with the committee to ensure that the chairman testifying in 2025 have the same agree of confidence in our ability to provide for the common defense. This committee is keenly aware of todays complex security environment. Both the chairman and Ranking Member have mentioned it and i dont expect the strategic landscape to improve in the near future. Russia continues to invest in a full range of capabilities designed to limit our power projection. Erode u. S. Influence and undermine the credibility of the Nato Alliance. Similarly china is focused on limiting our ability to project power and weakening our alliances in the pacific. Iron is projecting malign influence across the middle east, threatening freedom of navigation and supporting terrorist organizations. While were focused on north korea and kim jong uns relentless pursuit of a nuclear Intercontinental Ballistic Missile that can threaten the United States we are confronted also by isis and other transregional terrorist organizations. Weve made progress but we are not complacent and much work remains to be done. In afghanistan we are beginning to deploy additional u. S. And Coalition Forces in support of the president s broader south asia strategy. In the context of these and other challenges we need a renewed focus to restore joint readiness and develop the warfighting capabilities well need to defend the nation in the future. As this committee has highlighted in hearings we face real and significant Readiness Challenges today and have failed to adequately invest in the future. I cant state it any clearer. If we dont address this dynamic with sustained, sufficient and predictable funding over the course of several years well lose our qualitative and quantitative competitive advantage. In the end it will have a profound effect on our ability to deter conflict and resuspend effectively if deterrence fails. Ill commit to working with the agrees to address these challenges. Chairman, i listened carefully to your opening statement. I fully understand my responsibilities to provide candid best military advice to the president , secretary of defense and the National Security council and i will be forth right when asked to appear before this committee and other congressional venues. With that i am prepared to answer your questions. Thank you very much, general. I assessed that within five years well lose our ability to project power, as you testified. We still dont have sustained, sufficient and predictable funding. As you mentioned, i am not sure we will for the foreseeable future unless Congress Steps up to do its job. Well start fiscal year 2018 on a continuing resolution with no insight into what the final funding levels will be for the year. What what is the effect of the average First Lieutenant who is out there, captain is it as a Company Command . And they they dont have sufficient funds to carry out their training regimen and their pilots are flying less hours per month than their chinese and russian counterparts . What first of all, what effect does that have on our ability to defend the nation . And second of all, what does it do to the men and women of the allvolunteer force . Chairman, i will answer the first part. When you say what does it do to our ability to defend the nation, and when i in my opening remarks i mentioned competitive advantage. We have done some careful analysis about where are the current threats. Well use largely russia and china to benchmark our capabilities. If you go back to 1999 or 2000. We had what we should have as the United States of america, a nation that thinks and acts globally, we had a Significant Competitive advantage in our ability to project power when and where needed to advance our national interests. I cant say that today. We are challenged in our ability to project power both to europe and in the pacific as a result of those threats. And other nations to include nonstate actor as well, have capabilities on a high end that challenge our ability to project power. So over time that has eroded. With regard to the question about lieutenants and captains, i think i have some insight into that in the sense that i was a platoon commander in the late 1970s. I lived through a period of time when we werent properly resourced, didnt have sufficient money for training. We didnt have sufficient personnel and many times the tasks we were asked exceeded our capability. I think it has to do with the confidence. I would give you an example of a pilot. If you look at a pilot specifically, you know, in the past pilots might have had 30 hours a month to fly. Now they may be as low as 15 hours a month. On a daytoday basis you may not see a difference. But if there is an inflight emergency the pilot with 30 hours will feel much more comfortable to control the physiological response and the situation. You and i my never find out about the incident. On the contrary, if a pilot has 15 hours a month we may well find out about it because its a class a mishap. Our noncombat casualties and fatalities are now higher than in operations than in combat. Chairman, they are. I would attribute that to two things. One, its the material condition that does affect the numbers of hours that a pilot flies, a driver drives, so forth. Its also the size of the force relative to the requirements that we have. Going back to my lieutenant days, if you think about training, whether on a ship, a plane, or infantry as a series of 101, 201, 301, 401 tasks. As a lieutenant we didnt go to 201 until we were confident we were well founded in 101. I would argue, when we may have trained a standard in the past with sufficient time and resources, now were training to time. The ship will go to sea, the infantryman is going to go to war whether or not theyve had an opportunity to train sometimes. Do you believe its possible for the United States to achieve its National Security objectives in afghanistan as long as pakistan provides support and sanctuary to groups such as the taliban and khani network . I do not believe we can attain our objectives in afghanistan, chairman, unless we materially change the behavior of pakistan. Have you got thoughts on how you do that . Chairman, while it will require a broad approach to do it, i think its unacceptable that you hit you hit the key issue, its unacceptable that pakistan provides sanctuary and we ought to bring the full weight of the u. S. Government and our Coalition Partners on pakistan to ensure that they do not provide the sanctuary that theyve provided historically to groups like akhani and the taliban. Are you satisfied now with the rules of engagement which have been changed with the new administration . Chairman, i am. And i had a long conversation with general nicholson in nato over the weekend to make sure he had the same degree of congress. He is confident that he has the rules of engagement that allow him to engage any enemy that is a threat to the afghan government. Our mission, Coalition Forces, or u. S. Personnel. Some of it reminiscent of our rules of engagement during the vietnam conflict . Chairman, they may have been. I can assure you today that we have the rules of engagement necessary to advance our objectives in afghanistan and to protect the force as well. Thank you. Senator reed. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Thank you, general dunford. In response to the committees prehearing policy questions, you indicated that iran is adhering to its obligations under the joint comprehensive plan of action, the jcpao, but you point out that they are engaged in extremely destabilizing activities in the region. Missiles development, activities that cant be tolerated. Going back to the jcpao. Is it your view that it was designed to limit their Nuclear Capacity and is currently achieving that objective . It was designed to address what i describe as one of the five major threats of iran, the nuclear threat. As you point out, what the agreement didnt address was the missile threat, the cyber activity theyve conducted. They are still pursuing those other venues very aggressively, in your view. They are, senator. And we see a physical manifestation of that in yemen. Iraq, lebanon and syria. In this complicated world where there is so much going on, our focus on north korea, if we were to step away from the jcpao would it have an effect, in your professional view, on the ability to negotiate or to come to some type of nonkinetic solution in korea . Senator, it makes sense to me that our our holding up agreements that we have signed unless there is a material breach would have an impact on others willingness to sign agreements. In terms of a force that weve all commented on as searched, is it in reaction to rejecting the jcpao, would you assume that the iranians would step up their activity even more, causing us to at least on a contingency, have forces that would be in that area and not available for korea . Senator, i would. We watch every day. And this is even in addition to the other issues, our relationship with iran. We watch every day for indicators that iranian backed militia forces would pose a threat to the force. We watch the intelligence carefully to make sure our posture every day is in the context of the current threat. You have said it and the secretary of defense have said it and the white house has said it too, is that our major effort against north korea is diplomatic at this moment. Is that accurate . Senator, it absolutely is. The military dimension today is in full support of the economic and diplomatic Pressure Campaign that the secretary of state is leading in north korea. One of the things that is difficult to comprehend is we do not have an ambassador in south korea, do we . We do not. In effect, general brooks is sort of doing double duty informally . We are very proud of what general brooks is doing right now as both he sits at the nexus of the political military. I am very as you have confidence in general brooks, but if we are in a diplomatic mode, we dont have an ambassador. We dont also have an assistant secretary for the area in the state department. We just dont seem to have the team in place to have an allcourt press for a diplomatic solution. Is that an unfair comment . Senator, i certainly probably would comment only because i have clearly heard secretary tillerson also comment on the difficulty he has right now doing all the things the state department has been called upon to do with some of the gaps that continue to exist. In terms of the situation on the peninsula now, can you give us your judgment of where we are today, given the statements back and forth between leaders of both countries, giving our aerial operations off the coast, given the response yesterday that could trigger a reaction by the North Koreans . Can you give us an assessment . I can, senator. While the political space is clearly very charged right now, we havent seen a change in the posture of north korean forces. We watch that very carefully. We clearly have postured our forces to respond in the event of a provocation or a conflict. We also have taken all the proper measures to protect our allies, the south koreans, the japanese. The force as well as americans in the area. But what we havent seen is military activity that would be reflective of the charged political environment that youre describing. Thank you very much, general. Thank you, mr. Chairman. General dunford, i would like to pursue two things. One, intelligence and the other motorization. In doing this, i want to get three statements in the record. To begin with. On sunday, kim jong un released a propaganda video depicting the u. S. Aircraft carrier and bomber being blown up by north korean missiles. He further threatened that a u. S. Attack would see our forces, as he said, head to the grave. I have been very proud of the uniforms coming out talking about how real the threat is. General hyden, the Strategic Command commander said last week he views north koreas ability to deliver a Nuclear Weapon on an icbm as a matter of when, not if. Defense Intelligence Agency assesses that north korea would be able to reliably range u. S. Mainland with Nuclear Icbms by the end of 2018. I remember when 2018 was 2020 and 2019. I would ask you how confident you are in our Intelligence Communitys ability to monitor and detect just where they are and how accurate you believe the end of 2018 is. Senator, from my review of the intelligence i think what general hyden said and what you described reflects the collective judgment of the Senior Leadership in the department. I think something that general hyden said is something ive said in public. Whether its three months, six months or 18 months, it is soon. And we ought to conduct ourselves as though its just a matter of time and a matter of a very short time before north korea has that capability. Yeah. I think its important to get in the record, name a couple of the unique challenges in getting intelligence on north korea. That dont exist in other places. Well, they may exist to some degree in other places, the North Koreans over time have buried much of their capability underground. There are also specific weather challenges in north korea that limits our collection at various periods of time. To be honest with you, senator, part of it also has been, you know, the competing demand for a limited amount of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. Over the last 18 months we have increased our collection against north korea. But for a long period of time we had decreased our collection against north korea because of competing demands elsewhere in the world. I think those are three of the most significant challenges we face. I assume you are equally concerned about their activity in Trading Technology and Missile Technology with other countries such as iran. Senator, we are. We have looked at that nexus quite a bit. I am not sure we have seen any transfer of nuclear technology, but we certainly have seen Missile Technology and a wide range of other Weapons Systems that theyve exported or expertise that theyve exported outside of north korea. On modernization, both of the Army Generals anderson and murray said recently in our subcommittee, given the complex range of threats, the army has a very short window and improve capability and capacity. Mean while, our adversaries are closing the capacity gap. I think you said if i wrote it down correctly, you said if we dont have sustained funding well lose our qualitative and Quantitative Advantage over our adversaries. I think that is accurate. You have expressed your concern that we are getting a very close on that. Is that correct . I have, senator. I think this reflects both the chinese, the russians and others have studied our strengths over the course now of 20 years and have been on a path of developing capabilities to exploit our vulnerabilities. We know what those are and we have a plan to correct those. If we dont correct those our ability to project power, for example, when the army talks about it, our ability to project power within europe and operate within europe to support our forces did logistics bases and sustainment efforts will be challenged. Your statement along with some of the other military, some of the uniforms, are helpful to us because the American People really dont understand the level of threat thats out there, the complexity of how its not something thats happened before and that we need to start prioritizing our military and our defense issues. One last thing, a general testified during the 18 army of posture hearings that we are now outranged and outgunned. Do you agree with that statement . Relative to certain threats under certain conditions, i do, senator. Great. Thank you. Senate gillibrand. Thank you, chairman. Thank you, general dunford, for your sus. The uncertainty facing our transgendered men and women has been deeply unsettling to many members of the committee. We have introduced a bipartisan bill to prevent the department of defense from separating currently serving transgender individuals solely based on gender identity. These men and women were told by the department of defense that they would be allowed to serve openly and continue in their military careers. Many have worked diligently within their chains of command to meet every requirement put forth by the former administration. Now they have been plunged into a career of uncertainty, and their service and sacrifices have been unfairly tarnished. Many of us on the committee are deeply disturbed by the developments of the last few months. Do you agree that our thousands of openly serving transgender men and women have served their country with honor and valor . I do, senator. I would say that i believe any individual who meets the physical and mental standards and is worldwide deployable and currently serving should be afforded the opportunity to continue to serve. Thank you. If reappointed can you promise currently serving transgender individuals who have followed Department Policy and meet every requirement asked of them that theyll not be separated from the Armed Services based solely on their gender identity. That will be my advice. Thank you. Have you had the opportunity to meet with any of the thousands of transgender individuals currently serving in uniform on active duty to hear how the recent developments have impacted their lives . If not, will you commit to doing so . I have not since the since, i guess, august when the announcement was made, but i would certainly do that, senator. Thank you. On the subject of military sexual violence, we have been at this for a while now. Every secretary of defense since dick cheney was secretary of defense have said zero tolerance for Sexual Assault in the military. We have serious issues of climate. Our assault rate is still 15,000 estimated assaults, sexual acts and unwanted sexual contact. We really arent moving the needle in the way we should. During a hearing over the last few years we had general dempsey who said in 2014 that we are currently on the clock, if you will. If we dont make serious progress in a year, we might have to look at legislation. Now, more than half of the senate has voted twice to take the decisionmaking of whether a crime has been committed out of the chain of command and giving it to trained military prosecutors as a way to professionalize our military justice system. This is a reform that our allies have already done long ago. Mostly or defendants rights, whether its the uk, israel, whether its australia, canada, netherlands. And theyve done it purposefully because they believe that, if someone could be sent to jail for life, that the decisionmaker who makes those decisions should be well trained as a criminal prosecutor, have no biases, not know the accused or accuser. Perpetrator or victim, and have that criminal justice background so that they can leave biases at the door. We have done every type of reform thats been recommended by every panel thats been empanelled to look at this. We have special Victims Councils in place to give survivors more legal advice during the process. Weve changed the rules of evidence to make them more similar to the civilian system so there are more protections. Weve done anything we can think of that the department of defense will not oppose. We made retaliation a crime three years in a row. Not one case has gone to Court Martial of retaliation of the hundreds of cases i have looked at. The largest bases for each of the services. I look at all the Sexual Assault cases every year and do a broadbased review. So were not fixing the problem. I would like a commitment from you that you will work with me on ways to fix this problem and to honestly look at this command structure, because more often than not, the decisions that are made are not necessarily the right decisions. Using nonjudicial punishment when going to Court Martial is recommended by those who have done the investigation. Kicking many witnesses out instead of taking them to Court Martial. These are kinds of decisions that are not making our military stronger. So i would like your commitment that you will work with me on this issue, this year, to try to make a difference to solve this problem. Senator, i dont think any of us are satisfied with where we are, and i would commit to work with you to look at this issue. Thank you. General, let me just say that this committee has had hundreds of hours of hearings, input from leaders such as yourself. This issue has been thoroughly vetted by this committee. The secretary of defense is looking at this issue and others. And i am convinced that the one aspect of this issue that this chairman will not tolerate, and that is to undermine or not tol that is to undermine or cause the Commanding Officer not to have both authority and responsibility in this process. I just want to make that very clear to you the position of the majority of this committee we have a lot of work to do. If you take what the Commanding Officers authority and responsibility would be a violation of everything i have ever known about the United States navy for 70 years. Chairman, can i respond to both of you . Im on the record we will not solve the problem. Most are accountable and responsible for command climate and for fixing the problem. What i answer to senator gillibrand to be clear and to be honest today is to continue to look at the issue and find ways to address Sexual Assault. I was not referring to the chain of command not being accounta e accountable. My experience is similar to yours over the last 40 years. Any problem we have had inside of the organization has been sofled when commanders were engaged, responsible and accountable for solving that problem. I thank you for that statement, general. We will continue to debate it. And theres a lot of work that needs to be done, as i think youd be the first to acknowledge. But to say the Commanding Officer is no longer have responsibility for the conduct of those under their command undermines about 200 years of military chain of command and responsibility. If Commanding Officers are not carry canning out those responsibilities, then they should be then their lack of assumption or responsibility should be held accountable to or to take them out of the chain of responsibility, in my view, is a serious, serious mistake. Senator fisher. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here today and tr your continued service. North korea tested a new missile now known as the kn20. Based on the capabilities demonstrated in these tests, numerous press estimate that the missile has a potential range of over 10,000 miles, which would. Put much of the United States within its reach. And while i understand technical hurdles still remain before north korea to assess a reliable, accurate and Nuclear Capable system, whats your assessment of the Ballistic Missile threat to the homeland from north korea . Where do you see that trend line moving . Senator, i think for all planning purposes, Capability Development, we should assume now that north korea has the capability, as you suggest, there are some technical element that havent been tested. But i view all of those as Engineering Solutions that will be developed over time and frankly i think we should assume today that north korea has that capability and has the will to use that capability. The last major modification of our homeland Missile Defenses came in 2013 when in response to the accelerating threat from north korea then secretary hagel announced plans to increase the number of interceptors from 30 to 44. Given what we have witnessed over the past year, do you think the current threat environment requires additional homeland Missile Defense capabilities . I do, senator. And over the last seven or eight weeks, we did a detailed look at increasing Ballistic Missile defense capability for the north korea threat, but for other threats as well. We think an increase is warranted. We support theres an additional 21 interceptors that are in the area that was just passed. Should Additional Resources towards Ballistic Missile defense across the fight. Senator, we should. And the congress and the president have directed us to do that and we have. Id like to follow up on previous questions that i think we were trying to get to. What happens when operational demands arent necessarily met. As you know, we conducted the hearing recently on the naval accidents that are happening in the pacific and we looked at the concern that the navy is trying to do too much with too little. Demands outpacing the supply. Thats away were seeing. And i dont think its just focused on the navy. I think concerns with other services as well. We know the navy is doing its reviews and i think those really focus on the supply side of the equation on that. Can you tell me if the joint staff is e reviewing the operational demands that have been placed on the navy and have these incidents have an impact on the way that we are looking at how to assess a high up tempo how that poses a risk to our forces now. Senator, we have review ed that. And what were making sure now is that a readiness of the force as well as our ability to respond to the unexpected is a key element, even as we meet the requirements. In the past, we are not going into a lot of detail, we had a bottom up process for management meaning they provided us with requirements and we levelled across and met all those requirements. We have now implemented for the first time a top down process where we fence certain number of forces as a result of the services needing those forces to be back in the United States to generate red deness or somewhere elsewhere they are generating and not allocated to sustain a force. We realize that what we have been doing the past is unsustainable moving forward. The demand does exceed the supply and need to make an adjustment to the supply, as you alluded to. Do you anticipate reduce iin the demand . I anticipate managing risk in a different way until we can grow the capacity to meet the demand. I do. Does that put more of a threat on the readiness of our troops then . I mean, they are not just out there on ships doing operations with no strategy in place. They are not. But what we have to do is get to the point where we have a balance between the time that units are at home station training and. Duoing their capabilities in the time they are deployed. If you talk about the navy example, i was aboard the uss barry some months ago. So when we go back now and look at were they able to do all the training necessary and what was their life like during the 12 months. 70 of the time is an ub sustainable rate. Well have to make adjustments in the demand that will incur managing operational and strategic risk, theres no doubt. Thank you. Also incur 100hour workweeks. Chairman, absolutely. When sailors are at sea 70 of the time, they work most of every day. Thank you. I want to thank you for your leadership, your continued service to our nation and to your family, thank you very much. I think you have done an extraordinary job and were privileged to have you in this position. In your written responses to the committees questions, you addressed a few of my questions about improving Mental Health and Suicide Prevention services. You highlighted the growth in embedded Mental Health providers. It offered senator wicker. Mental Health Assessment each year in a past they have said that you believe it would be fully implemented, which is next week. The service is fully implementing the requirements for member tall Health Assessments. Thank you. Its a person for some years and i appreciate your support in that area. The army, National Guard, our components completely compliant and will make the dead line. There are some outliars that havent pet the standard. And that was where i prepare for my testimony. So we will be engaged in cleaning it up. I think the vast majority of the department has become compliant with this act, but there are some outliars and well get the full details for you. I became aware of that as we prepared for testimony. Can you describe your understanding of our strategy to counter north korea ask how youre working with your partners . I can. Very briefly when the secretary came in last year, people said there were two things he couldnt do anything about. Nuclear weapons were linked to survival in north korea. Theyen wouldnt trade away Nuclear Weapons. The second is that chinaen wouldnt cooperate. They are testing those atumgss because the alternatives at the time to not testing those were so dire. So we have now a pressurization campaign applying economic and diplomatic means primarily to force the North Koreans to decluk rise the peninsula. We are working closely with the chinese. They have been relentless in dealing with the chinese to get them to cooperate with the sanctions regime. On the positive side, theres been four u. N. Resolutions pass ed this year. I think the chinese cooperation in passing those sanctions is unprecedent ed. Were at the phase now where implementation of the sanctions is going to determine whether or not we have a peaceful solution to denuclearization on the peninsula. We are supporting the secretarys Pressure Campaign. But also making it clear there are military options available to the president. We think its important china understand that. I personally went to china during the recess to deliver that message to senior. Leadership. When you look at north korea, theres significant speculation about kim jonguns motives, but do you think its about survival of the regime or do you think hes also looking to take over south korea as well. I look back at our experience with north korea and i realize that kim jongun has only been there for a short period of the history since 1953 we have deterred north korea from attacking south korea. My assessment based on the intelligence i have read is that kim jonguns development of Nuclear Capability and his development of Missile Technology is primarily associated with regime survival. Thats not to say they dont pose a threat to south korea and others in the region, but my judgment is is that is what has driven his path of development over the past 18 months. Switching over a little bit to syria. You have had significant success in iraq moving isis out. Theres ongoing battles in the raqqah area. Six months from now, where do you hope to wibe . Six months from now, from experience, its about laying out jo time lines. So i wont for the campaign. But i do believe e we will have completed operations more properly. We will have completed operations in raqqah and well on our way to going after the exterrible operations capability of isis that remains in the river valley. Well also be supporting our partners on the east side of the border to better secure. So i think well have continued to degrade most importantly. They are ability to well have undermined the cred the of the narrative that we will say in existence. I think they will have an impact on the recruiting. So i think well continue to see reduction in territory, reduction in freedom of movement, reduced resources and less credibility in the narrative. Those are the four areas well continue to see progress. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to ask what your take is on the vote in kurdistan. Chairman in the wake of that vote, my primary concern now is making sure that the vote doesnt disrupt. The real challenge in the campaign is that operations in the north, the reason were successful is because of the cooperation between the pesh mer ga and Iraqi Security force ps. If you look at the next area southwest of kikkuk is going to require cooperation. So ooem concerned that the r referendum will disrupt that cooperation. But my focus will be to mitigate the effects. Thats what secretary mattis and general will do is mitigate the effects. Hes made aggressive statements and so have the iran bs. Welcome back. Congratulations on your renomination. Thank you for your decades of service. In your written testimony you state that iran has not changed its activity since it went into effect. Have they increased the pace or scope. You could argue they have in syria. Its been at a high level for some period of time. So in those three areas, i would say a serious in one place its increased. Fds iraq has increased as they look to the end game in iraq. Without going into the content of rules of engagement, have our rules of engage the changed in the last eight months. We have made it clear away our forces were capable of doing. So im confident that an application if our forces are threatened, they are both postured and capable of effectively responding. Thank you. On page 29 and 30 of your written testimony, you restate for the Nuclear Triad and the Airborne Operations command center. The next version will not have inflight refueling capability. That was a decision not made by the air force but made by the white house. It had to do with fiscal constraints on the program that will be a limiting factor and have to plan accordingly. I think we might need to revisit that decision here on capitol hill. The open skies treaty, it allows the United States and russia and many other countries to fly aircraft over each other easter toir and take lots of pictures. Russia has been violating that treaty. I assume that you agree with his testimony earlier this had year . I do. We as a nation declare them in violation in june. Theres a wall street article today saying today we will take steps to curb their flights in response to their actions by limiting our flights in europe. Their eliminatilimitations and r altitude over moscow. Are those steps that were about to take . Those are all part of an overall effort. Let me make sure that we make it clear. We believe that unbalanced it would be best if the treaty continue d to be in place. But we dont believe the treaty should be in place if the russians arent compliant. So theres an aggressive diplomatic effort right now to bring the russians back into compliance, which we think would be the best outcome. Do you expect these steps over alaska and hawaii will bring russia back into compliance . I dont know. But this is the plab to bring them in compliance before considering other alternatives. Given the size and capabilities of our constellation, is it fair to say russia gets more benefit than does the United States . I believe that argument has been made. Its compelling to me. Turn to Missile Defense. Our west coast interceptors. Whats the prospects for a boost phase specifically from unmanned aerial vehicles. Either with hit to kill interceptors or directed energy. Theres been a lot of work done on boost phase, as you know. We dont have that capability right now. I would offer to you a classified briefing at a time of your convenience to walk you through where we think we may be right now. We do not have that capability today. We have that scheduled for later today. We need to look at that. General, the deaths of the sailors in the western pacific has commanded a lot of attention, rightfully so. You had to believe 15 marines that were badly wounded. So some of them are significant injuries. Whats the likelihood that the impact of many years of sequestration budget cuts could have played a role in the level of training or operations and maintenance for that vehicle in this incident . I cant talk to that specific incident, but a a combination of the fiscal challenges have created conditions that actually have led to some of those incidents. Thank you, general. Senator. Thank you, mr. Chairman. General dunn ford, welcome back. It was a pleasure to meet with you not too long ago. With the natural disasters that have been occurring, i want to thank the members of our armed forces including the active National Guard and e reserve personnel who were very instrumental in helping to save lives. And transporting supplies during the recent natural disasters. General dunn ford, in your confirmation hearing, you stated that russia presented the greatest threat to our National Security. You ordered china and north korea and isil has 2 to 4 on dwrr list to National Security. In the intervene iing time, we e we sit here today would you change your threat assessment order . Senator, one thing i have said to my staff is that we dont actually have the luxury of identifying a threat today. Unfortunately. What i would say that in terms of a sense of urgency today, north korea poses the greatest threat today. If i look out the 2025, i look at the demographics and economic situations i think china probably poses the greatest threat to the nation by 2025. You cant look at in terms of capability, but i have to factor in times and condition. I look at all three of those that way. I would agree with you in terms of your assessment and particularly with regard to north korea being an immediate threat. Im always asked hawaii being in the middle of the pacific we feel vulnerable. So it is on the forefront of certainly of my lines of constituents and particularly not just hawaii but guam and alaska. I understand that the results of the Missile Defense review are expected leader this year is that krek . We didnt wait for the review. Also noted that the committee addressed it. I knew its being planned for hawaii. I just had a peting with harris. It was a year or two and i like to put that into your way of thinking. So that we can dpet on with that radar system. We want to make sure they are protected. As we sit is here today are we protected in alaska. I think one of the issues that we all appreciated as the capacity of the threat increases, that is the size. Not just the fact that north korea can reach us, but the numbers and missiles that can reach us ask what we need to be concerned about is ensuring that our Missile Defense capability keeps pace with that threat. I think its very important to have that ongoing assess isment. And in particular if we project three years down the road, as far as north koreas capabilities, i believe theres an assessment occurring as to whether or not hawaii needs. We made some recommendations based on that assessment. Our ability to protect all americans. Guam. Hawaii, the continental United States and alaska. I know you were asked about the jcpoa ask state that briefings you have received indicate that iran is adhering to onbligations. My question is as long as iran is in compliance is it in americas interest to maintain it . Senator, the Intel Community assessment is in compliance right now. Therefore, i think we should focus on addressing the other challenges to missile threat they posed, maritime threat, support of proxies, and the cyber threat they pose. Yes, those are not areas that were covered under the jcpoa. They were not, senator. Is it your intent to advise the president to recertify irans compliance ahead of the dead line . Mindful of the chairmans opening comments, i would ask if i could provide the advice that im providing to the president now prior to his decision to be in private, certainly share that, but not to do that publicly until after the president has made a decision. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Senator . Thank you, mr. Chairman. General, the budget control act is a symptom of a much larger Problem Congress has been avoiding for far too long. National security issue that i hope you could comment on. The Congressional Budget Office reports that by 2025, mandatory spending will be 51 higher than it is today. And interest we pay on the National Debt will nearly double as a percentage of gdp. They project that the impact on Discretionary Spending will result in a 13 reduction it begins to overlap the mid2020s. As the department of defense started to look at how this fiscal picture might change what we can afford and where we invest and has the potential fiscal future been accounted for in any of our future operating concepts or global power projection strategies . Senator, our planning to date first and foremost is highlighted the fact that our capabilities are going to require simply between 3 and 7 . We can debate that and im willing to come over here with my assessment between 3 is and and thats depending on how much risk you want to assume as you build a forest, but between 3 and is required for us to build the capabilities we need. Where did we come up with that percentage . We looked at the capabilities of russia, we looked at the development, where we are today and what investments we need to have to maintain a competitive advantage over those peer competitors. We use them as a benchmark in the 2020s. What i would say and i suppose in spobs to your question is we will have to fundamentally reorder the strategy if we are unable to build the capabilities to deal with those. What we have done is we have ta taken the National Security strategy, we have taken the initial guidance from secretary mattis. He will come out later after the first of the year and we have looked a at the military capabilities and capacities necessary to support those strategies. There will be a disconnect if we dont move on a path that i have just described. At the same time as the senator has just asked, concern right now with regard to the topic of the day, which is north korea. And the threats that they may pose and the additional responsibilities imposed upon our military to respond to this particular countrys current activities and the threats that they suggest with regard to the use of icbms against any part of our country or our allies. In this particular case, you believe or at least you think that right now we have the capabilities. But does that include the ability right now. Both the type of the threat and the amount of missiles we can protect hawaii against an acbm. It seems the public simply assumed that is automatic and we have the resources to not only respond to that, and to still be able to build for the future threats or at least to maintain our ability to defend against those future threats from our other peer kpcompetitors. I guess thats my point. When we look at all of the different threats that are out there, the assumption that we simply have the resources right now and were not just keeping pace, but we are improving is that a fair assumption on the part of the american public. Theres a few things i wouldnt assume in the future. I wouldnt assume access to space and all that means for the economy and military capability. I wouldnt assume our ability to protect our networks. Both for commercial activity and military activity. I wouldnt assume our ability to deal with the warfare threat of our adversaries ask wouldnt assume the capability to deal Cruise Missile threat and adversaries unless we maintain pace. To put it in perspective, the bipartisan that you just passed is more than what the bca level would be. And probably some number less than what some members of the committee thought ought not to be. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Chair. Welcome and congratulations on the renomination. You have done a superb job. My vote is going to be that you continue to do a superb job. Thank you for the service. You have testified often to us about the Readiness Challenges. We had a pretty sobering hearing last week digging into the potential sources of these navy collisions. We have had a recent report from the gao about increased operations and extended maintenance challenges posed real problems on the nae side. I was with a commander this weekend and he described reduction in training hours as being a real challenge. So everything you have testified to us about diminished readiness resulting from the budget is coming true. It wasnt chicken little saying the sky is falling. What we have heard since the sequester went into effect, were seeing it. I think it puts an additional burden on our shoulders to try to deal with that. I want to ask you about something that im worried about is the humanitarian crisis. When theres a crisis anywhere in the world, a tsunami in Southeast Asia that u. S. Military is there projection of americas humanitarian spirit. And i just stunned that this humanitarian challenge in puerto rico was an amazing track record of serving in the military over generations of centuries so and kwoul you talk about current dod and operations to try to prevent this humanitarian crisis from really spiraling downward in a way that would be devastating to the american. One of the last things to do and was go through the Northern Command update, we get those every few hours and as of 8 30 for us, its both professional and personal. These are americans that need support, but people who had their families in puerto rico on my staff and one of the heads of my personal security detail until last night hadnt heard from his family yet. This is something thats been on our minds and our thoughts and prayers are of those in puerto rico. The key thing that we are delivering right now, one of the challenges in getting aid has been the ports in airfield and so step one is were doing all we can do to increase the humanitarian supplies. Thats something u. S. Military can provide. We also have providing some generators for power. We dont expect them to have power for some time. Thats something thats important to provide. And this impacts hospitals . Thats right. We have jgenerators and so fort that cannot afford to be without. Absolutely. Thats why Power Generation and generators are one of the key areas were focused on. Fresh water and food right away and then medical capabilities. Thoez are the key areas that Northern Commander of the leadership have focused on right now. Theres literally hourly meetings between fema and the government officials in puerto rico to make sure that we are doing all we can. The guidance from secretary mattis has been clear. What they need, they get. Just make it happen. And so what were doing is making sure every place we can contribute to the the disaster in puerto rico, were poised to do that. Were anticipating what they might be next week even if they Vice President thought about it. I think i know the answer, but im not sure i do. How was the response to puerto rico organized . The dod has a piece of it, but youre not necessarily the lead. Is that organized through dhs and fema and with the dod taking on an assigned role . Thats exactly right. This is any place in the United States. So we are in support of fema. And general robinson is a supporting agency to fema. So all of the support from puerto rico is being coordinated. But were doing two things. Were responding to the immediate request but then we have a request. I know what the team is doing. Also offering things that they havent asked for today and look around the corner to see what they might need next week. Very important for us to be on this because the scale of it is just devastating. I appreciate your testimony. Thank you, mr. Chair. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And thank you, general dunford. To you both and your family. Thank you so much for your support of our men and women in uniform. I know its a joint effort. So thank you very much. We do agree, general, that properly resourcing a joint force really is a collaborative effort between congress and our military and those military leaders. That is why many on this committee have pushed to repeal bca. Senator rounds brought up the financial implications moving forward. And what sequestration might do in regards to many other issues that were facing with our mandatory spending. But looking at that, we also need to use what we have efficiently and effectively. Im pushing for an audit. Many of us support that. We need to know our taxpayer dollars are being. Spent well. For your part, can you describe the steps that you have taken during your tenure as the chairman. To work to make it more efficient. Are there specific examples you can give the committee today . There are. We are impliementing our overal headquarters by 30 than thats not an insignificant step that we have taken. Also with regard we alluded to global force management. What we have done is done a number of thing s s to integratt the strategic level the allocation of resources to ensure that we are deploying and most effectively. And then theres a number of things that wouldnt be something that i would do in a joibt force, but am familiar with in dealing with the Business Practices across the department are an area where efficiencies are sought. The vice chairman sitting with him on a Defense Management Advisory Group and that involves all the chiefs. Theres a wide range of Business Practices that were looking to be more efficient. We have expertise from souds the department skpo look at it through a different lens. Those are areas theres most promise. But the other thing is that since 2010 we have gone through a litany of efficiency drills. And while we have gained some efficient sis, they never quite realize the savings that you expect them to. So you have to stay after it. But this isnt something we started in the past year. We have in a concerted way been after it since 2010. Very good, general. And i am certain that you will continue that push going on, so i thank you for that. And in your answers to advanced policy questions, you also stressed your concern regarding our near peer overmatch. And i share that concern as well. Unfortunately the department will send mixed messages to congress on one hand our services ask for rapid acquisition of commercial off the shelf systems. And on the other, then they prefer appropriating dollars for the next best and greatest thing. But unfortunately, a lot of times the next best, greatest thing never really materializes. So are we going to prioritize acquisitions moving in the future. Thats a complicated sh. Buying whats available and looking longterm for the most effective capability has been something we struggle with. On the one hand, you might say we ought to buy whats available. I can remember some years ago when we ended up with 16 links to communicate from air to ground but b couldnt communicate with each other, so theres a balance in all this. The key thing in the committee some of the language and that is to make sure the Oversight Council which reports to me and the chiefs is effectively one overseeing the requirements that are existing for capabilities. Also then the process for making sewer we meet those requirements and n a timely manner. Those requirements are validated. I think thats probably a key piece of it is the requirements. If you get the requirements right and Senior Leadership is engaged in the requirements, and i say this in a perspective of my current job and former service chief, validating before e we look at solutions if my judgment is the key to success. Thats something thats happened to a greater degree over the last couple years. With the pressure in part thats been put on by this committee. Thank you very much, general. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Senator king. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I know general dunford you are a reader. Going back to the chairmans statements at the beginning of the relationship between the military and civilian officials, i commend to you, although i suspect you have already read a dereliction of duty of whatnot to do in terms of the relationship between civilian b and military officials. I assume that means you know the book. I have head it. An additional one i would add to your list is a little longer. It takes us from troy to vietnam talking about relationships and how these mistakes are made. Which brings me to korea. I have a feeling were in 1914 stomaumbling towards war and wh worries me is not an instant nuclear confrontation, but accidental escalation based upon the rhetoric thats going back and forth. It was a declaration of war. And e he said, therefore, as a deck ralation of war, we will have every right to make countermeasures including the right to shoot down bombers, even when they are not in the border of our country. Thats what worries me. A misubsing and an event shooting down of a bomber and a strike on a ship that leads to a countermeasure that leads to a countermeasure and the end result is if kim jongun reveals his regime as under attack, then the unthinkable happens. Make me feel either better or worse about where we are. I will make you feel better. I personally, the secretary of defense look at all of our posture in managing risk informed by the need to avoid the risk of miscalculation. The recent operations we conducted, i can assure you even i was on the road we probably personally invested several hours each in reviewing those. Without going into classified information to look at al our capabilities, look at their capabilities, at timing and the probability. What worries me is misinterpretation. Its an exercise they view as a threat. What im suggesting to you is where we conduct these exercises, were informed by the posture at a given point in time, were informed by the need to avoid miscalculation. Do we have communication with north korea with regard to these kinds of situations . This is jug an exercise for you. We dont have military to military communications with north korea right now. Turning to north korea question slightly, you testified earlier and all the Intelligence Community agrees that kim jonguns primary motivation is regime survival. Therefore, it seems to me that statements that suggest regime change or regime destruction only solidify his determination to develop and maintain Nuclear Weapons. Would you agree. I have been very careful at the military level to make no statements that would exacerbate the crisis and i certainly wont comment on things that our Senior Leadership have said. But i certainly can tell you inside the military, we have made no statements. We have had a conscious decision not to make any statements to ensure that the lead is secretary tillerson and the message being delivered is being delivered by the statemestate d. You do agree that the motivation of the development is a kind of insurance policy for regime sur vial. Is that not the case. That would be my assessment. Thank you. What would be the practicality of a e Preemptive Nuclear strike or preemptive military strike on north korea in terms of the military effect. Theres some feeling i hear somebody talked about a strike the other day not in the administration, but on this body. That would not be a short, easy action. Would it not . Senator, you bring up a good point. And part of the advise voois i provided today is when we do something, we shouldnt assume at that point we can control escalation. So we need to think about what might happen. Part of the problem is those artillery that are arranged across the border within seoul, which is about as far from here to fairfax county. It has 25 million people. It would be in seoul and threatened by the rockets and the missiles along the border. So a military, the idea of a socalled Surgical Strike to bring back a term from 40 years ago is really not valid in this situation. This is not something that would be easy to take out the nuclear. Capability of north korea. Thats right. While we could do things from our perspective. It could be less than a full execution of an operations plan. We need to be informed by the potential risk to the greater seoul area no matter what we do, i think thats fair. Chairman dunford, do you support the lethal defense back to ukraine . I do, senator. And have made that recommendation. As i understand it, dod has officially made an affirmative recommendation and the state department, where is that decision and can you enlighten the committee. That decision is at the white house. Do you have any idea when we might be able to get an answer on that . I dont. Ill ask when we get back today. We have been asking, but im not sure. I think its important that the government succeed. In resisting further russian expansion. Why did you recommend im providing lethal aid . From my judgment, the ukraine needed additional capabilities to protect their sovereignty. In 2016, we trained a number of their baa. Ta tallons and provided medical supplies, night vision goggles, but we felt like their ability to stop Armored Vehicles would be essential to them to protect themselves. So we just looked at it as a military gap that existed that if that gap was filled it would increase the probability the ukrainians could defend themselves. With regard to russias threats, such as information operation, i want to ask you specifically about the 173rd airborne brigade, which is said in a report to be underequipped, undermanned and unorganized. Three years after crimea, why is this the case . Is it the case . And what can we do about it . I read the media article and asked a couple questions. They were describing the current character of war and indicating that he believed that we ought to make some organizational changes to make the 173rd basically more competitive. You could make that statement more broadly. This was looking at his unit and you can look at that statement more bodily and say we need to adapt u. S. Military really ask government to be able to compete at that level below war where the russians have so successfully integrated and Information Operations. Its for con vengsal war in needing to make some organizational changes and add different capabilities to be kpeft ty in the space were describing now. So actually this fairly accurate statement about the 173rd could be said about the entire department of defense. Is that what youre telling this committee . I think i would broaden it. What i would say is russians, chinese and others are doing what i describe as they are conducting competition at a level that falls below conflict. They have integrated the entire government to do that. And in my judgment, we need to improve our ability to compete in that space and in the areas specifically from military capability would be our Electronic Warfare and Information Operations capability. Those all have integrated with the things we dont have inside the department of defense. The economic and political tools. But in my judgment, bringing all those together in a daytoday basis more effectively is something we need to do. And finally with regard to the 355 ship requirement, this is a requirement thats been developed by the generals and admirals in consultation with our leadership around the world. This committee in the form has put the ships act in the senatepassed version. It makes the requirement the policy of the United States congress. And the house of representatives has also done that and i expect this will be coming out of conference very soon. This requirement is a serious requirement, is it not. Can you assure us that from the level of the administration, were serious about getting to that number and fulfilling that requirement rather than 276 ships we have in doing it as quick as practical. I dont think theres any question. All of us know the navy is smaller right now than it needs to be to meet all those requirements. The requirement that you have identified is one thats based on analytic rigger and should be a target we shoot for. It would be good to get there as soon as we can. But we certainly appreciate your leadership. Thank you. Senator . Thank you, chairman. Welcome general dunford. I want to follow up on senator kings line of questioning with regard to north korea. As youre aware, all six of north koreas Previous Nuclear tests have occurred under ground. That contains the fallout, but kim jongun has since threatened to conduct a test in the atmosphere. Can you talk a little bit about what the global risks and implications of a Nuclear Weapon detonated would be and they are reportedly considering and if you were speaking to the north korea people right now, what would you say to them regarding the risks of detonating a Nuclear Weapon in your atmosphe atmosphere. I think the best experience we have recently would be the Nuclear Reactor in russia. And even with something that isnt anywhere near what the North Koreans are suggesting, we had Significant Health challenges for many years. Obviously the loss of life. It would be a provocative thing for them to conduct a nuclear test as they have suggested. And i think the people have to realize how serious it would be for the United States and the International Community. I want to just take a quick moment to thank both you and secretary mattis for the sober and serious manner that youre approaching north korea. I think that the sort of temperament we need now more than ever. I want to shift gear. S really quickly. Our commander in special operations has said that the use of weaponized drones by our adversaries was so most daunting problem in 2016. How serious is the threat and can you explain why its so difficult to deal with this threat with conventional weapons and kinetic needs. First, i agree with general thomas assessment and thats the feedback we have from our operational commanders. About three months ago, we sent a team over to sit down to make sure we had a full appreciation of what were deal iing with an send to them every capability we could. We have made some progress but its going to require continued experimentation and. Adaptation to make sure that we stay out in front of technology that the enemy has delivered. So we have seen them deliver chemical weapons, bombs, increased Intelligence Surveillance against our partners on the ground so it does create a significant challenge and we have done all we can do today to deal with that challenge and develop the capabilities. But i can can assure you thats where general thomas suggested it should be at the top o our list. I have olympian pleased to see the response with investments in laser technologies and other systems to address urgent needs like this one. Will you continue to support authorities provided by this committee to field new tech knowledges like laser and high powered microwaves to help counter those drones and swarms . I will. I think having that capability has been one of the bright spots in what has been a largely criticized acquisition process. I would agree. I think that directed energy on both of those fronts is a potential game changer for whats a rapidly. Developing situation with drones in particular. I want to turn to an issue that was brought up earlier with regard to puerto rico. And you mentioned one of the mentions that i understand is a bottom. L neck with Emergency Response is the number of radars that are down and the fact that planes are landing. Does dod have a role in restoring the radar of those airfields . Is that dhs . And what can you tell us about the easing of that bottleneck, which really limits how much we can get in there on a reasonable time period. We do have capability. And right now thats our priority is focused on making sure that the airfields can operate. A piece of their ability to operate will be the radars that we have and we could provide as required on a shortterm basis. The responsibility is is dhs, but at this point, were not trapped in nice tis. Were trying to make sure they are getting the support they need. The key thing that needs to be done now as youre suggesting is they b cant come in until we get the airfields. So thats why its at the top of the list. Thank you very much. On behalf of the chairman. Thank you for being here today. Thank you for your service. I want to remind the committee that the first ship was the uss mercy. Important after the earthquake. I want to thank the military on record here for always being the first in crisis like this in puerto rico. I want to highlight a quote that was already referred to by the chairman. I think in february you called out this crisis. We have a Global Security crisis, but we have a debt crisis. The two right now, and youre the first one, i believe, to call this out. Your quote was, without sustained sufficient, and predictable funding, i assess in five years well lose our ability to project power, the basis of how we advance our interests and meet our alliance commitment. Wow, sir, thats a few months forward. Do you still stand by that assessment . Senator, i do. And if i could just make a quick comment. I know many times the perception is that military leaders will never be satisfied with good enough, and theyll always want more. So somehow maybe people arent looking at those comments with the seriousness that i intended them to be. I would not have made those comments without having gone on a long journey of analytic rigor to really truly be able to quantify exactly what im talking about. I think we shared with you, senator, because of your interest, we have shared with you some of the results of our work. But those words are backed by fairly exhaustive analytic effort that show specific capability areas where were in the process of losing our competitive advantage. And in the aggregate, when you go out four or five years, the loss of our competitive advantage in those specific areas means we will not be able to project power when and where necessary to advance our interests. That does two things, not only affects our response to crisis, but increases the probability there will be a crisis because it will have an adverse effect on a deterrent capability of the u. S. Military. I believe one of the things that deters others today from a conventional conflict is their knowledge that we do have a competitive, conventional advantage over any adversary today and we can project power when and where necessary to advance our interests. Where we could lose that, i believe there could be an increased ability of conflict. Thats the question i have today for you, sir, is if you look at the latest estimate, back in 2011, then chairman gates, secretary of defense then, made the estimate based on a bottoms up estimate from the military on needs. That estimate was in todays dollars for 2016, about 753 billion. Last year, we appropriated 623 billion. This year, its going to be a little greater than that, 677 billion or there about, but were still significantly less than just what secretary gates wanted back then for 2016. That was before isis, crimea, ukraine, syria, iran, north korea, and on and on and on. With russia and chinas growing capabilities. Sir, my question, and oh, by the way, you mentioned 3 to 7 . I dont disagree with that. I dont know what the need is, but i know were at a low point right now historically. I can look at the history, and we have averaged over the last 30 years after vietnam, 4 , were now at 3 . That 100 basis point is 200 billion. Any way you look at it today, my estimate is between 150 and 200 were short today, even with being 89 billion above the bca. My question is, how do you determine the priorities Going Forward with that kind of shortfall . Because every dime that were spending on the military today and on our veterans and on all domestic Discretionary Spending, let me say this again, every dime that we spend on our military and our veterans today, by definition, is borrowed money. In the last eight years and is projected the next ten years will be similar. We borrowed 35 of what we spend as a federal government. 25 of that spending is discretionary and military is part of that. Sir, given all of that, you and secretary mattis have talked about the first step in the strategy is filling the hole. Are we onboard doing that now with the appropriation this year . And what does the next two or three years look like in terms of trying to catch up with a number of years, not just the last six or eight, a number of years, 20 years even, of disinvesting in the military. Thanks, senator. The way we have characterized our recommendations is we have Readiness Challenges. Thats described as filling the holes. We have lethality challenges. Areas like Electronic Warfare, sonic capability, air strike capability that needs to be improved and then a capacity issue. Ideally, we would be addressing all of those. We would be addressing the current readiness of the force we have. We would be improving the capabilities we have for tomorrow, and would be increasing the capacity of the force to meet the overall requirements we have. So the way we have chosen to prioratize it is to make sure we make sure the men and women in the units were deploying have the wherewithal to accomplish the missions. Job one. The second thing were doing and you saw this in the last two years is starting to make increased investments in our nuclear enterprise, because deterring nuclear war is job one for the department, and addressing some of these deficiencies in Electronic Warfare and ballistic defense. What we have not done is come in with a recommendation to increase the size of capacity of the force. In my judgment, we should not do that unless we can do it in a balanced way. Theres no way with the current level of resource and the projected level of resourcing that we can grow the force in a balanced way. Were forced to fill the holes, address the readiness, and do what we have to invest in the capabilities we need to maintain competitiveness today and tomorrow. But i dont see in the near term, our ability to grow the force to get after the dynamic that has been discussed a bit this morning where we have fewer ships than are necessary, even to do Ballistic Missile defense on a daytoday basis in the pacific. Thats the challenge we have, and thats kind of the three ways we think about it. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. On behalf of senator mccain, senator warren, please. Thank you, mr. Chairman. General dunford, good to see you here. I want to ask you about the nuclear deal between the United States, the fivepartner nations and iran that has placed Irans Nuclear program under verifiable limits and unprecedented actions, so that it cannot develop a fucleer weapon. The Trump Administration has already certified twice to congress that iran is complying with this arrangement. If he doesnt certify again, he risks blowing up this agreement, and iran may restart again building a Nuclear Weapon. Now, when asked about the Iran Nuclear Deal in january, secretary mattis told this committee that it is, quote, an imperfect arms control agreement. But he also said, quote, when america gives her word, we have to live up to it and work with our allies. General, do you agree with that . Senator, i do. And my recommendation the previous two times was informed by that and the fact that the Intelligence Community had determined there was not a material breach. So what i recommended is that we focus leveraging our partners that were part of that agreement to deal with those other challenges that we know iran poses, whether its a terrorist threat, the maritime threat, and so forth. This is always the issue. Iran supports terrorism, engages in human rights abuses, works to develop Ballistic Missiles. But i think its easier to counter irans destabilizing behavior if it has no Nuclear Weapons than it would be to keep iran in check if it had access to a nuclear bomb. So the question i have is aside from the Current Nuclear deal, at this time, are you aware of any alternative binding diplomatic agreement that would prevent iran from developing a Nuclear Weapon . I am not, senator. I would highlight, though, the one thing we all have to come to grips with is there is a sunset to the deal, and that needs to be addressed in the near term. It certainly does. But for right now, it appears that the iran deal is working. There is no viable alternative, and it sounds like we need to keep enforcing this deal to keep us all safe. I want to ask you another question, and that is about north korea. You know, most of the time, the Discussion Centers on the role of china. But i want to ask about russias relationship, which is also critical to influencing the north korean regime. Russia has completed a railroad linking the two countries. A ferry now operates between russia and north korea. Vladimir putin wrote off 90 of north koreas 11 billion debt to russia. State department estimates that north korea sends about 20,000 workers to russia annually, which produces foreign currency that kim jongun desperately needs. And while were trying to pull the International Community together to try to persuade north korea to stand down on Nuclear Weapons, reports emerged last week that fuel shipments between russia and north korea are increasing. So general dunford, i want to ask, beyond our existing sanctions and authorities, what more should we be doing to counter russias support for north korea . Senator, i do believe that the solution to whats going on with russia and china is diplomatic at this point. And economic to the degree that sanctions and second and third order sanctions can be implemented. I dont think there is at this point a military dimension to the challenge of Getting Better cooperation from russia and china. But i do believe that the things that secretary tillerson has proposed to do and what secretary mnuchin has implemented over the past couple months may be effecting the calculus of russian and china, although i think were a long way from determining whether or not the path were on will result in peaceful denuclearization, which is what we all want to see. Let me ask you, put this question on a larger frame, you know, russia seems to intervene in a lot of places in opposition to the United States. Syria, afghanistan, north korea. Can you just say a word about how you see putins larger strategy here . I think that theres very few places i could look at in the world, senator, where u. S. And russian interests align. And i think in many cases what theyre trying to do if you start in europe, their primary focus is to undermine the credibility of the Nato Alliance. If you look across the middle east, theyre trying to undermine the partnerships that we have and erode the confidence in our partners of the u. S. Commitment to the region. And i think by the same token, theyre trying to play a spoiler role in achieve undue influence in the issue in the Korean Peninsula you spoke about earlier. I cant think of too many places where russia is playing a helpful role right now, from the northeast to north korea. I think its so critical that we recognize exactly this point, that russia is doing everything it can to break up those alliances, to sow discord and the importance of keeping those together and the importance of keeping russia credible for what its doing with north korea. When we developed the National Military strategy we have right now, we determined that the strength of the u. S. Military was our allies and partners and a network we built up since world war ii. Not only russia but others recognize thats our source of strength, so theres a concerted effort to undermine those allies and partners, so what we should be doing at this point is doubling down our efforts to maintain strong alliances and partnerships because that is the key to success. Good. Thank you very much, general. On behalf of chairman mccain, senator sullivan, please. Thank you, mr. Chairman. General, congratulations to you, sir, and your family. For your decades of exceptional service. I look forward to supporting your swift reconfirmation. I wanted to turn to an issue you and i have talked a lot about in the ndaa. I had a provision in there this year that talked about our policy and how we should be looking at regular routine and if possible with allies, so in some ways our fawn ops particularly in the South China Sea are no longer newsworthy. Can you elaborate a bit on the departments policy and if this differs from the previous administration, for example, you know, it was reported that admiral harris essentially had to get individual fawn ops approved by the nsc one at a time under the obama administration. Whats the strategy right now under the Trump Administration and how does that differ . Senator, thanks. That is a good question. Secretary mattis when he came in in early february, we went to him with a couple of individual freedom of navigation operations that you spoke about. And he said, hey, look, how about giving me a full strategy that lays this thing out now for a long period of time and talks about the strategic effect were trying to achieve. You spoke about partners. You talk about being routine and regular. So those are the things that secretary mattis directed. After that, admiral harris developed a longterm plan for freedom of navigation operations and thats what were implementing now. It supports our overall strategy in the pacific as well as the specific mission which is to insure that we fly, sail, and operator wherever International Law allows and we continue to validate those claims where we see International Air space for that matter or the maritime domain. Those are going well, regular, routine, with our allies if possible. Not micromanaged from the nsc . Thats right. And senator, in candor, we still and always will take into account what else is happening in the strategic environment, whether its a u. N. General assembly or some other event, but what we do have a base plan from which were operating right now in a healthy dialogue, i believe, between the commander and the secretary of defense. Let me turn to Missile Defense. Had a lot of questions today. I think is it safe to say that the administration views are much more robust, Missile Defense as a key part of our strategy with regard to north korea or iran with regard to rogue nations like those two countries that are trying to acquire Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles . No question, senator. You mentioned the ndaa does a lot. We do, but i think theres more we should be doing. Does the administration have plans to at least from a supplemental perspective or working with the congress, beefing up our Missile Defense . I think its something we all agree, its very bipartisan, by the way, that we need to be doing. What are more specifics, general, you could share with us on what we need to be doing and how can congress support you . Senator, we did do exactly as you suggest, and we have submitted it. If you dont have a copy, ill make sure you get one. We looked at additional radar system, thaad systems, patriot systems. In the ndaa, theres additional intercepters, additional 21 is the number i recall that are in there. All of those issues are part of it. We did an immediate kind of supplemental, just as your suggestion, for Ballistic Missile defense. I think it was the first or second week of august to make sure it was in time for the budget cycle. What you have outlined and the ndaa combined with the supplemental that the administration has put together will meet the immediate needs, but of course, we need a longterm strategic approach to Ballistic Missile defense and buying the same capabilities we have today into the future is not going to be the solution as the threat adapts. I know you have received some of the classified briefings on the adaptations of the defense. We want to work with you on that. Its an area of bipartisan cooperation in the congress, which is a new and important development. We want to work with the administration on that. Let me end just a final question. I really want to applaud you and general mattis, the entire administration, secretary tillerson, on the north korea strategy. I think what youre trying to achieve, your focus on it, importantly, your frequent and constructive engagement with congress, asking us to play our part, have also been very, very an important element of that strategy. I also believe that you talk a lot about credible military options. And that, to me, is an effective element of our deploimacy. Effective diplomacy, which i think were starting to see a lot of progress in that realm. If one of the options was a preemptive or preventative ground war on the Korean Peninsula, like the gulf war in 1990 or 2003 that was launched by the u. S. , my view is that would require an aumf from congress and constitutionally and politically, this would help our policy with regard to leverage, with regard to had ability to show the world that the American People were behind it. Do you agree with that . And is that something that the administration has started to talk about . I have raised it with a number of folks. I think its an important issue. We want to be supportive. I think youre getting bipartisan support for what the strategy is. But that kind of issue, to me, is something that we need to be prepared to discuss. Do you have a view on thateri, general . What i would do is narrow my view to the scenario youre describing, i would want to have the full throated support of the American People in the form of the congress if we did Something Like youre suggesting. Right, and i use that language very carefully. I know the president has a lot of authority to react, to take action, particularly if were attacked. But im talking about a ground war a la 1950s. Launched by the United States, although in 1950, as you know, there was no congressional authorization. I think thats an important topic. I think it gives us leverage, and im glad to see that you believe that for Something Like that, you would want that. I dont want to put words in your mouth. Again, we know from history that were going to be much better much better degree of success if we have the fullthroated support of the American People when we go to war. What youre suggesting is going to war. If were going to conduct a major war, then having the full support of the American People in the form of the congress i think is something we need to have. Thank you. Thank you, general. All right, on behalf of chairman mccain, senator nelson. General mattis, general dunford, you have certainly my confidence in you. And the reason i said general mattis, i also have that confidence in general mattis. And i also have that confidence in general kelly. Is there something about marines that inspires confidence . Senator, in my current assignment, i dont think you want me to answer that question, do you . No. Thank you, sir. Vladimir putin cannot beat us on land. He cant beat us on the sea. He cant beat us under the sea. He cant beat us in the air. And he cant beat us in space. But he can beat us in cyber. You want to comment on that, how our forces are organized to deter encounter . Thanks, senator. I would agree with your assessment that the most significant threat in cyberspace we face today, the most advanced capabilities are the russians. Thats our assessment. I would argue, though, that its not only his cyber capability. The one thing that the russians have effectively done is combine that cyber capability with political influence operations, economic coercion, Information Operations, Electronic Warfare and military posture. If you take those four or five things and look at the centralized command control russia has, even playing an overall weak hand, even with an overall weak hand, they have been able to effectively advance their interests without going to war. And i do believe that thats an area that not only should we be focused on in the department, in our recent Global Campaign plans now have added what i call competition adversarial competition short of Armed Conflict as being an area that is included in our campaign plans, but i also believe we need to take a look that from our whole of government perspective as well in order to be competitive. Absolutely. Because you know what he can do in the next election. And the newspapers have reported hes already in several states registration records. All he has to do is particular critical precincts going in and eliminate every tenth voter. You can imagine the chaos that would occur on election day if the voters get there and im sorry, mr. Jones, youre not registerreg regt regtersterred. That would be significantly disruptive to our infrastructure. And to the underpinnings of our country, a free and fair election. The president s budget makes significant funding cuts in the department of state. And usaid. Does that make sense to you . What i can say is, senator, that theres no challenge that im currently dealing with that the primary factors in our success wont be diplomatic, economic, and certainly even in our campaign in iraq and syria, usaid plays a Critical Role in stabilization to secure the gains that our partners make and on the ground in syria and iraq as one example, but every place i have been over the past 15 or 16 years in iraq and afghanistan, a key partner has been usaid. Well, and as you all, as military commanders, you also project American Power in the forms of using so many of our other agencies of government. So that you become not only a warrior, as a military commander. You become a diplomat as well. Utilizing those other levers of power. We have seen that used very effectively by your respective commanders in africa. Likewise, again, in latin america. And if you dont have those other agencies, and i just mentioned two, state and usaid. It clearly clips your wings in being able to function as a military commander. Any further comment on that . Senator, i think i probably would just reenforce the one point that today any of our military commanders to be successful have got to achieve unity of effort with the other Government Agencies that are on the ground. And you mentioned two, but if i think of our afghanistan experience, the fbi was there, the dea was there, the Customs Border police was there. So i agree with the thesis that the challenges that we face today are complex contingencies and they require elements of all of our government to be successful. Trying to draw a distinction between security in one department is not possible today. Theyre all involved in the fundamental task of government which is security. General, thank you also to your family for the sacrifices that they have made over the years in allowing him to continue to serve his country. And for you all continuing to serve the country in the role that you have, which is substantial. Thank you. On behalf of senator mccain, senator graham, please. Thank you, general dunford, for your service. Why should i vote for you . Senator, over the past two years, i think i have provided the best military advice okay, youve got me. In the next two years, dont you agree that sequestration needs to be fixed or were going to go backwards . It does, senator. Do you agree with me if you dont reform entitlements theres no money left to do anything other than entitlements . Senator, i have seen the math, and were headed towards a situation which can be very difficult. Yes, entitlement reform is necessary to keep a strong military. I want to look at the threats Going Forward in the next two years. Do you agree that there must be a credible military option on the table when it comes to north korea . I do, senator. I personally conveyed that to china and to our allies in the region. Do you agree with me that iran has taken the money from the Iranian Nuclear agreement and done more damage with it than good . There are indicators that some money that was freed up as a result of it has been put back into malign activities, and certainly, i would be hard pressed to find anything that iran does that is good. So the goal of the agreement was to get them back into the family of nations. Would you say thus far that has not been achieved . Iran is not part of the family of nations today, senator. Okay. Syria. Do you agree with me that if we leave assad in power, its going to be very difficult to end this war . Senator, i have looked at syria, as you can imagine, pretty hard. I think addressing the grievances of the civil war are going to be necessary to have a stable political construct. Okay. In terms of russia, over the last six months, have they gotten better, worse, or about the same . In syria, senator . Anywhere. Everywhere. They certainly havent gotten any better anywhere. Okay. There may be evidence that russia was more deeply involved in sending out fake news during our last election. Does that trouble you . It troubles me, senator. Although i dont have any unique insight into it. Okay. Afghanistan. The recent decision to add more capability with rules of engagement changes, do you think that is necessary to be continued . I think it is necessary, senator. And i think it will help to get the Afghan Security forces to reverse the trends of the last two years, casualties and lost ground they have experienced. I think what this additional effort will allow us to do is provide more effective advisory effort down to the tactical level with the afghans and also better leverage the air support we have. And we have increased the air support as well. Theres a new emphasis on pakistan where they need to be a better part of the team . Thats exactly right, senator. Its a key assumption in the president s strategy that pakistan cannot continue to be a sanctuary for haqqani, taliban, and others in our success. Would you agree with me that we have to have very skilled ambassadors representing our country in both pakistan and afghanistan and india to get a good outcome militarily . I would agree, senator. And i was very encouraged. I think you were on the committee that we confirmed ambassador bass to go to afghanistan. Ive got a good experience with him in turkey. I have watched him deal with difficult situations, so i think we have the right man headed to afghanistan. Iraq, its just a matter to time before we clear isil out of iraq, do you agree with that . I believe the Iraqi Security forces are on a good trajectory to clear out isis. As you look forward in iraq, if there iraqis would accept a followon force, do you believe its in our National Security interests at this time to leave some troops behind to continue work with iraqis . I do. Theres a large recognition both in iraq and certainly for the Coalition Partners that are there that continue training of Iraqi Security forces is going to be necessary for them to become selfsustaining. Its going to have to be a political decision between the Iraqi Government and u. S. Government, but from a military perspective, i certainly believe thats necessary. Finally, do you agree if the world has seen as capitulating to kim jongun, that the iranians will watch and have a different view of where they should be going . I think all of the nations that, you know, i would consider adversaries or potential adversaries will watch closely whats happening in the Korean Peninsula. Its the policy of this administration to deny the north korean regime the ability to develop an icbm to hit the american homeland. Not contain it but to deny it, is that correct . Thats the articulated policy of President Trump. Do you agree with that policy . I do. Thank you, and i look forward to your service over the next two years. Our men and women in the military could not be in finer hands. On behalf of chairman mccain, let me recognize senator blumenthal. Thank you, mr. Chairman. General dunford, first of all, thank you for your service, and to your family as well. I would like to focus just briefly on puerto rico. You asked about the earlier. Is there more that the department of defense can do to provide assistance in the midst of this humanitarian crisis, which involves not only human suffering but also the interruption for some period of time of communications, of travel, logistics, the life blood in terms of infrastructure of the island. Is there more that the military can do . Senator, if there is, well be doing it. Were in a constant first, i couldnt agree with you more. We watched the tragedy unfold over the last few days. The last update i had, not to come over here, but adjujust bee thats how constant, were getting updates on puerto rico, to date, they would allow us to open air fields, open ports and get fresh water and food to the people in puerto rico. But if there is more that needs to be done, i can assure you that secretary mattis has placed puerto rico as a priority for all of us, and general robinson is in Constant Contact with fema as well as officials in puerto rico to make sure the department is leaning forward and providing all the support they need. The national gaurld of connecticut, and i think of other states have been involved in transportation, the air fields are now open to military aircraft and relief flights. Do you anticipate that military aircraft can and will be use more extensively in this effort . I do, senator. Thats absolutely part of the plan, particularly again for generators, water, food, those kinds of immediate needs. Would you anticipate that the corps of engineers could play a role in opening some of the ports, perhaps some of the other means of transportation that could be involved . Senator, i dont know whether it would be specifically the corps of engineers or some of our combat engineers, but i do believe that the military is w uniquely capable of helping clear the debris and repair the air fields and get them up and operating. I can assure you whatever capabilities are required in that regard, whether theyre a resident inside the corps of engineers or other units, well make sure the right capability is at the right place. The department of defense is indeed leaning forward and prepared, ready, able, and willing to provide whats assistance is necessary . Absolutely, senator. These are americans, and were going to do everything we can to help them out. They are americans. They are americans, senator. Let me ask you about the recent exercises conducted by russia. I think they were called zapad west with those. Are there any sort of lessons or other intelligence that weve gained that you can discuss in this forum from having observed those exercises . Senator, probably would be, if you dont mind, reluctant to discuss it in public. I was just with a meeting of all 29 nato chiefs of defense last weekend. This, as you can imagine, was one of the topics. And i came back out through norway with my norwegian counterpart to talk more specifically about challenges in the northern flank of nato and some of the things we have seen in the exercise. But i can assure you we watch very carefully what the russians have done during the operation zapad to make sure we understand where they are in terms of Capability Development and what the implications are for nato security and u. S. Security. Despite the russian efforts to drive wedges in our Nato Alliance among our allies, would you say that the Nato Alliance is in good health right now . Senator, i would. And i certainly now have probably a fiveyear perspective from two out of my last three assignments directly involved with nato. And i would even say in the last year a year ago, there was a strong debate inside of nato, about 360 degree security and almost a different view from those nations that viewed the south and the terrorist threat as being the priority in those nations that viewed russia as being a priority, and i think over the past year with very strong leadership and i think the secretarygeneral has been a part of that, i feel much better today about the cohesiveness of nato and about the recognition that its not either or of those threats. Its both. And that nations need to make the significant contributions to prepare us for both of those challenges. So i think the Overall Health of nato is actually, i would assess to be very strong. Thank you. My time has expired. I just want to say i will be strongly enthusiastically supporting you for another term. And again, my thanks for your service as well to your family. Thank you. Thank you, senator. On behalf of senator mccain. Senator shaheen. Thank you. I think im the last one so hopefully were going to be quick. General dunford, thank you to you and your family for your willingness to continue to serve in this role. I think its fair to say that theres a lot of support on this committee for your nomination. On friday, it was reported that the kc46 arrow refueling Tanker Program was hit with three category one deficiencies, including one that was reported as possibly jeopardizing the willingness of the air force to accept the aircraft from boeing. How concerned are you about those deficiencies and are you worried that we wont be able to take delivery of those aircraft by the scheduled time of spring of 2018 . Senator, what i am concerned about is the delivery of the tankers and the capability that that would imply capability gap. I think if you had the transportation commander here, general mcdue, today, he would talk to you about tankers as being one of his more significant challenges in meeting all of our choirments. Im not familiar with the details of these deficiencies, and it hasnt been translated into time for me at this point. But i think with regard to the capability itself, that is one of the more critical capabilities in a joint force, and all of our plans are based on our ability to meet this requirement. Well, absolutely. And im sure, i assume you would give us your commitment that you will follow up and find out how serious those deficiencies are and whether they jeopardize the scheduled timeframe for delivery. I will, senator. Thank you. You talked about the importance of Electronic Warfare and coordinating those efforts, and also there have been several back and forths about russia and its hiknrd capabilities and how important that is to its current capacity to engage. Can you talk about how the military is looking at our electronic and cyber tools and how were working with other departments within the federal government, treasury, state, to coordinate those efforts . Right. Senator, you know, obviously, primarily focused on defending the Information Technology of the department as well as select industrial pieces that support the department. So thats our primary focus. And then defending the nation, which includes a suite of offensive capabilities. So being able to exploit in cyberspace, being able to conduct offensive operations and defensive operations are all a piece of it. With regard to collaboration and cooperation, one area admiral rogers and his team are focused on is when a vulnerability is identified, the sharing and the action taken to address those vulnerabilities is an important piece. Thats going to require not only as you suggest great cooperation within the government, i think were in a pretty good place in that regard, but its also going to require a great Public Private cooperation as well. So that when that assistance is offered, its accepted and theres a degree of trust that what were trying to do is actually help them mitigate the risk of vulnerabilities. Thats probably one of the key areas of cooperation. As you know, senator, youve paid close attention to this issue, theres always a debate about what Agency Within our government is best capable of performing what mission. I think that dialogue will go on for many years to come. And were always refining it, and we should be. We shouldnt be comfortable or compl complacent that we have it exactly right. That dialogue is ongoing, not only about the organizational construct of Cyber Command itself, but also the departments role within the broader government effort. I certainly agree with that. However, i do think its important for us to have someone within the administration who is the point person on cyb cyber activities. Is there somebody that youre aware of who is actually the person in charge of those activities . Senator, i cant say that there is. It doesnt mean that there isnt. Im not aware of somebody right now in the administration who is designated, probably and incorrectly have a decidedly dod perspective right now, but ill certainly find out. Thank you. I think it says something that as the chairman of the joint chiefs youre not aware of who the person is whos in charge. You also talked about the importance of our alliances and partnerships and how that contributes to how russia and our other adversaries view the strength of the United States. Do you have any sense of what the reaction would be among our partners with the jcpoa if the United States were to abrogate our commitments under that treaty . Senator, i dont have any unique insights into that, but i certainly know what everybody else knows from the open source, and i dont think there would be unanimity of those who are part were we to walk away. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and again, thank you for your willingness to continue to serve. On behalf of chairman mccain, senator peters please. Thank you, senator reed. General dunford, again, thank you for your testimony here today. Thank you for your service to our country. But i also want to thank you for your thorough answers that you always give to our questions. Theyre very candid and not only your willingness to answer those questions in a formal setting but you have also been accessible to us on a oneonone basis to answer specific questions. I appreciate that immensely. I know that the department is concerned about the geopolitical implications of mega cities, including the growth of cities of over 10 million people. I spoke with admiral harris about this when he testified earlier this year. Admiral harris testified there are ten mega cities in the world with eight in the Pacific Command area of responsibilities. And these locations are ripe to become geopolitical hot spots given the number of people involved and some of the unique political context that they are associated with them. So the ability of the services to operate in these very dense urban environments are going to become increasingly important, both in contingency and conflict as well as humanitarian assistance. We have particular concerns about seoul given the threats that are now associated with north koreas actions and seoul is one of those mega cities that we need to be concerned about, and also raises a host of other issues when it comes to dealing with that. If you could address plans that we have for dealing in mega cities, how you plan to deal with that issue, and are there needs for us to invest additional training and not only of soldiers and marines but also developing tactics and procedures that we need to go forward that we should be assisting you in from a congressional perspective . Senator, i could. I think the core of what were doing to prepare for that is found in our exercise and our Experimentation Program and the authorities we have for innovation. So if you take a look at our exercise and Experimentation Program, it is focused on our ability to deal in a very complex dense urban terrain. I think all of us have looked at the demographics, we looked at where people will live, where the sources of conflict will be, in preparing ourselves accordingly to do that. Theres some unique challenges in mega cities. Command and control is one of those challenges. Intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance is one of those challenges. Minimizing Collateral Damage while delivering effective fires are one of those challenges. And those are all areas within the department that we are working on. Please let us know if theres anything else we can do to help you provide the resources necessary, because i think its obvious thats an area were going to have to be dealing with in the future without question. Thanks, senator. When you were asked a question about things not to assume in a future war, the top of the list was the ability to dominate in space. I would like you to talk a lilt bit about that, and particular, what were seeing with the chinese, that seemed to be developing at least evidence suggests theyre developing as many as three different capabilities and have conducted multiple tests in space of direct asap systems and they established a new service a few years ago to make that capability even more robust. If you could address how concerned we should be and from a congressional perspective, do we need to put more resources into this critical area . Senator, thanks. When we fielded the Current Space capabilities, we didnt field them with resilience to the current threat in mind. So they are vulnerable to the threat you spoke about, and not only the chinese but the russians and others recognize that, Even North Korea as a nation antispace program thats there. If you look at our democrapende in space, whether its global positions or command and control systems militarily or the dependence on our economy on Space Capabilities, the vulnerabilities in space which we really identify in the budget as a need for increased resilience in space to those threats, the vulnerabilities have significant implications not only from a military perspective but from a commercial perspective as well. Certainly, part of our budget is designed to enhance our resilience in space and also enhance the redundancies and access we have to a wide range of Space Capabilities so we minimize the threat that you have identified. As a result of that analysis and recognition, probably the last three years you have seen increased requests from the department for space related capabilities. Again, my priority at this point would be on space resilience, but theres a wide range of other capabilities we need as well. And that again is informed by the developing threat, military threat, to Space Capabilities that we have. And if i may add, the point that you made is not just our military satellites. We need to be working with some of our commercial suppliers of communication satellites and other space technologies. We should be stepping up our activities working with the commercial sector, i assume . Absolutely, senator. In fact, one of the areas we believe is prudential is to better leverage commercial activities, for example, to expand our Intelligence Surveillance recognizance capability. Thank you. Appreciate it. General, thank you for your service. Selfless service in the marine corps and to the nation. And thank your family for their service alongside you. And on behalf of chairman mccain, i would declare the hearing adjourned. Thank you. Thank you, senator. This afternoon, President Trump holds a News Conference with spanish president mariano rajoy. Theyll speak to reporters in the white house rose garden live on cspan3. Later today, former National Intelligence director James Clapper talks about his career in the Intelligence Community. Hell speak at George Washington university, and that begins live at 6 00 p. M. Eastern also here on cspan3. And you can watch online at cspan. Org or listen on the free cspan radio app. Little stunned when i found out this was this book was, the origins for the cspan school bus. I think its a wonderful idea, and i have been following your school bus on television as i prepare for my 1994 trip on a soybean fueled bus, alternative fuel going to 44 different states, leaving this august. 23 years and over 140 cspan appearances later, were joined once again by douglas brinkley, and on this 25th anniversary year of the cspan bus as we set out to visit all 50 state capitols, i should say once again, we thank you for that idea. Well, it reminded me of how invaluable the cspan archive is that you can go back and just pull up all these interviews that cspans done over all these years. Now theyre tools for historians, if you want to interview somebody, you know, or do a paper or something in school and need a primary source, you can tap into that cspan archive and get real quotes for your paper. So congratulations on keeping the archive intact all these years. For the past 30 years, the video libraries is your free resource for politics, congress, and washington public affairs. So whether it happened 30 years ago or 30 minutes ago, find it in cspans Video Library at cspan. Org. Cspan, where history unfolds daily. Next, scholars and a former iranian diplomat discuss the 2015 iran Nuclear Agreement and the future of the joint comprehensive plan of action. A look at the hopes and expectations of the United States and whether the u. S. Will recommit to the terms of the agreement. This discussion was held yesterday by the atlantic council