Transcripts For CSPAN3 Gen. Dunford Joint Chiefs Of Staff Reappointment 20171006

Nominations . So moved. Second . Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. The motion carries. The Committee Meets this morning to consider the nomination of general Joseph Dunford for reappointment as chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. General dunford, this Committee Thanks you for your decades of distinguished service to our nation. We are grateful to your wife ellen for the support she has always provided to you and to all who serve our nation in uniform. Id also like to welcome your son patrick. Patrick. Fortunately, you look like your mother, patrick, who is joining us this morning. Joe and kathleen send their support from afar even as i bet they are a little relieved they do not have to sit through your interrogation. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight responsibilities its important this committee and other appropriate committees of the congress are able to receive testimony, briefings and other communications of information. Have you adhered to applicable laws and regulations governing conflicts of interest . I have, chairman. Do you agree when asked to give your personal views even if those views differ from the administration in power . I do, chairman. Have you assumed any duties or undertaken any actions which would appear to presume the outcome of the confirmation process . I have not, chairman. Will you ensure your staff complies with deadlines established 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, chairman. Do you agree if confirmed to appear and testify upon request before this committee . I do, chairman. Do you agree to provide documents including the copies of electronic forms of communication in a timely manner when requested by a duly constituted committee or to consult with a Committee Regarding the basis for any goodfaith delay or denial in providing such documents . I do, chairman. My colleagues and i are aware that that is a routine but given 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 and our National Security structure and the state of Civil Military relations. As quote principal military adviser to the president the National Security, the secretary of defense and the 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 combat and 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 office we are a truly comprehensive perspective on the joint force out of 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 a global strategic integration of our military efforts. The chairmans unique role lenlds extra gravity to the responsibility that you and every military officer propo sayses. 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. Policymakers in both the executive and legislative branches rely on our military professionals to better understand the military dimensions of the National Security challenges we face and the options a 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, hes not simply offering the best advice about the military but rather the best advice from the military. And that exe tnds 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 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. Civilian and military rules are not to be die cot miezed 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 department 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. Thank you. Under leadership of chairman mccann, 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 sound material 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, impacting 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 we pause 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 are a deep cause for concern. 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. Including ballistic of Missile Development efforts as well as other destabilizing activities in the region. 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 threats we must also be mindful that our president has lacked an indepth knowledge. It is my 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 i can say with confidence that our armed forces are ready to protect the homeland and meet alliance commitments. However the advantage has eroded in recent years. If reconfirmed, 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. Iran is projecting ma lien influence across the middle east, threatening freedom of navigation and supporting terrorist organizations. In syria, iraq and yemen. 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 respond effectively if deterrence fails. Ill commit to working with the congress to address these challenges. To ensure our men and women in uniform never find themselves in an unfair fight. 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. In june you testified. Without sustained efficient and predictable funding. 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. Between pilot a and b. 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. On the contrary if a pilot has 15 hours a month we may very well find out about it because its a class a mishap. And our thon combat 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. When i was a lieutenant, we didnt go to 201 until we were confident that we were founded in 101 and we didnt go to 301 until we were well founded in 201. 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 Haqqani 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 haqqani 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. Secretary mattis has spoken to general nicholson in the past week to make sure hes confident that he has the rule 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 maritime threat and the cyber activity that they have 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. We see it in iraq and 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 stretched, if 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. Which creates new challenges. 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 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. I can promise that will be my advice. Ive just provided in public. 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 cause the commander 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. To take away the Commanding Officers authority and responsibility would be a violation of everything i of ever known about the United States navy for 70 years. Chairman, can i respond to both of you . Im on the record having said we will not solve the problem unless Commanding Officers or personally accountable and responsible for command climate and for fixing the problem. What i answer aed to the senator is to look at the issue and find ways to address Sexual Assault. I was not referring to the chain of command not being accountable. My experience is yours over the last 40 years. Problem we have ever had inside of the organization has been solved when commanders were engaged, responsible and accountable for solving that problem. Well, i thank you for that statement, general. We will continue to debate it. Theres a lot of work that needs to be done as i think youd be the first to acknowledge. But to say the Commanding Officers no longer have responsibility for the conduct of those under their command undermines about 200 some years of military chain of command and responsibility. If Commanding Officers are not carrying out those responsibilities, then they should be then their lack of assumption of responsibility they should be held accountable to. But 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, general, for being here today and for your continued service. On july 4th and july 28th, north korea tested a new missile now known as the kn 20. Based on the capability demonstrated in these tests, numerous press reports estimate that the missile has the potential range of over 10,000 miles which would put much of the United States within its reach. While i understand technical hurdles still remain before north korea possess a reliable, accurate and Nuclear Capable icbm missile, whats your assessment . 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 elements of the program that havent been fully tested from a reentry vehicle to some of the ability to stabilize a missile in flight, but i view all those as Engineering Solutions that will be developed over time. Frankly, i think we should today that north korea has the capability and has the toll use that capability. The last major modification of our home land Missile Defense came in 2013 when in response to a threat from north korea secretary increased the amount of intercept ors. Given what weve witnessed over the past year do you believe that the current threat environment requires additional homeland Missile Defense capabilities . I do, senator. Over the last seven or eight weeks we did a very detailed look at increasing Ballistic Missile defense capability for the north korean threat and other threats as well and we do think an increase is warranted. And i believe theres an additional 21 interceptors that was in the nda that was just passed. Should the Department Program Additional Resources towards Ballistic Missile defense across . Senator, we should. Both the congress and the president have directed us to do that and we have. Thank you. We were trying to get to when operational demands arent necessarily met. As you know, we conducted a hearing recently on the naval accidents that are happening in the pacific. We looked at the concern that the navy is trying to do too much with too little. Demands outpacing the supply. Thats what were seeing. I dont think its just focused on the navy. I think theres concerns with other services as well. We know the navy is doing its reviews and i think those really focus on the supplied side of the equation on that. Can you tell me if the joint staff is 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 reviewed that. What were making sure now is that 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, without going into a lot of detail, we had a bottom up process for Global Force Management meaning each one of the commanders provided us with all their requirements and then we kind of leveled across and met all those requirements. We have now implemented in this year well implement it for the first time a top down process where we fence certain numbers of forces as a result of the services needing those forces to be back in the United States to generate readiness or somewhere else located where they are generating readiness and not allocated so we can continue to sustain the force. We realize that what weve been doing in the past is unsustainable. Moving forward the demand does exceed the supply and we need to make an adjustment to the demand as well as the supply as you alluded to. Do you anticipate reducing 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, theyre not just take the navy. Theyre not just out there on ships doing operations with no strategy in place. They are not, senator, 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, developing their capabilities in the time theyre due to deploy. If you talk about the navy example, i was aboard the u. S. S. Barry some months ago. U. S. S. Barry had been at sea 70 of the time in the previous 12 months. So when we go back now and we look at were they able to do all the training necessary and what was their lifelike during those 12 months, 70 of the time under way is an unsustainable rate. So were going to have to make adjustments in the demand that will incur managing operational and strategic risk. Theres no doubt. Thank you. Then also incur include 100 hour workweeks. Chairman, absolutely. When sailors are at sea, 70 of the time theyre at work most of every day. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. General dunford i want to thank you for your leadership, your continued service to our nation and to your family. Thank you very much. I think youve done an extraordinary job and weve privileged to have you in this position. In response to the committees questions in advance of this hearing you addressed a few of my questions about improving Mental Health and Suicide Prevention services. The fy 15 ndaa included bipartisan provision that i authored with senator wicker. It requires every Service Member to get a confidential Mental Health assessment each year. In the past unit Service Chiefs have said you believed it would be fully implemented no later than october 1 of this year which is next week. General, have the Services Fully implementing the requirements for robust annual Mental Health assessments . Senator, thank you. As you know, ive worked that issue personally now for some years. I appreciate your support in that area. The army, the National Guard, several of our components are completely compliant and theyll make the deadline. There are some out liars that havent met the standard and i was aware that as i prepared for my testimony so i can assure that the secretary and i will be engaged in cleaning it up. I think the vast majority of the department has become compliant, but there are some that can you describe your understanding of our strategy to counter north korea and how youre working with your partners across interagency. I can. Very briefly, when secretary tillerson came in last year, people told him that there were we think thats important that north korea understand that. Also that china understand that. And i personally went to china in the middle of august during the recess to deliver that message to chinese Senior Leadership. When you look at north korea, and theres significant speculation about kim jonguns motives, but do you think its about the survival of the regime, or do you think he is also looking to take over south korea as well . I look back at our experience with north korea. I realize kim jongun has only been there for a short period of history. Since 1953 we have effectively deterred north korea from attacking south or attacking into south korea. My assessment based on the intelligence ive 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 that they dont pose a threat to south korea and to others in the region, but my judgment is that that is what has driven his path of development over the past 18 months. Switching over a little bit to syria, youve had significant success in iraq moving isis out. Theres ongoing battles in the raqqa area. Six months from now where do you hope to be . Six months from now, senator, with the i guess from experience always is about laying out timelines, so i wont for the campaign, but i do believe that we will have completed operations more properly. Our partners will have completed operations in raqqa and well be well on our way to going after the external operations capability and the media capability of isis that remains in the river valley. And well also be supporting our Iraqi Security forces partners on the east side of the border to better secure the border between iraq and syria. I think well have continued to degrade most importantly the ability they have to plan and conduct operations. I think well have undermined the credibility of the narrative. I think that will have an impact on the recruiting. Weve seen the numbers drop, the numbers of individual whose are inspired to join the isis movement. 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 where i think well continue to see progress. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ask what your take is on the vote in kurdistan . In the wake of that vote, my primary concern is making sure the vote doesnt disrupt the cooperation we have seen. The real challenge in the campaign is that operations in the north, the reason why we were successful in mosul, the reason were successful in the north is because of the cooperation. If you look at the next area that the iraqis are focused on, which is southwest, its going to require cooperation between the kurdish and Iraqi Security services. My focus from a military perspective will be to try to mitigate the effects. I know thats what secretary mattis are also try to do is mitigate the effects. And president erdogan has mate some pretty aggressive statements. President erdogan has made some very aggressive statements and so has the iranians, chairman. Senator cotton. General, welcome back. Congratulations on your renomination. Thank you for your many decades of service. In your written testimony you say on page ten that iran has not changed its malign activity since the jcpoa went into effect. Have they increased the scope of their malign activities . I think you could argue that they have certainly in syria. I think its been relatively constant in yemen with regard to their support, clearly their support for lebanese has been high. I would say syria is been the one place its probably increased. I would say iranian activity inside iraq has certainly increased as they look into the end game. Without going into the rules of engagement which are classified, have our rules of engagement changed in the last sit months since President Trump took office in the persian gulf. What weve done is weve gone back at every level from the fifth street to the United States Central Command and made it very clear what our forces were capable of doing were they to be threatened. Im confident that in application and rules of engagement, if our forces are threatened, they are postured and capable of effectively responding. On page 29 and 30 of your written testimony you restate your support for our Nuclear Triad as well as the Airborne Operations command center. Strangely to me the air force Just Announced that the next version of air force one will not have in Flight Refuelling capability. What do you make of that . Senator, i think that was a decision that was not made by the air force but made by the white house and i think it had to do with fiscal constraints. It will be a limiting factor and well have to plan accordingly. I think we might need to revisit that decision on capitol hill. The treaty that allows the United States and russia and many other countries, but primarily those two countries to fly aircraft over each others territory and take lots of pictures. Russia has been violating that treaty as secretary mattis testified earlier this year. I assume you agree with his testimony earlier this year . I do, senator. We as a nation declared them in violation back in june. Theres a wall street journal article today saying that we will take steps to curb their flights and response to their actions by limiting our flights over their enclave in europe where they held most of the europe at risk. And also their altitude over moscow. Are those steps that were about to take . Those are all part of an overall effort, senator. Let me probably just make sure that we make it clear, we believe that on balance it would be best if the treaty continue to be in place but we dont believe the treaty would be in place if the russians arent compliant. There is an aggressive diplomatic effort right now to bring the russians back into compliance which we think would be the best outcome. Do you expect some of these reported steps, restricting flights over russia and hawaii to bring russia back into compliance . I dont know but this is the best plan we have to bring them in before we discuss other alternatives. Is it fair to say russia gets more benefit from these flights than does the United States . I believe that arguments been made and its compelling to me. Turn to Missile Defense in north korea. We focus a lot on systems liked that thad or west coast interceptors. Whats the 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 but we do not have that capability today. I think we have that scheduled for later today. It would be a hell of a thing if we could put one up over the north korea peninsula is shoot down as it was taking off. Finally, generally, the deaths of the sailors in the western pacific has commanded a lot of attention, rightfully so. You had i believe 15 marines that were badly wounded a couple weeks ago out on the west coast in a fire involving an assault vehicle. How are those marines doing today . Senator, i dont know how each one of them individually is doing but weve been getting routine reports about their progress and they are making progress. Some with significant injuries. I know the marine corp is conducting a review of the matter. Whats the likelihood that the impact of many years of budget cuts could have played a role in either of the level of training or operations and maintenance for that vehicle in this instance . I cant talk to that specific incident, but i am confident that a combination of fiscal challenges and high operational tempo have created conditions that actually have led to some of these incidents. Of that im confident. Thank you, general. Thank you, mr. Chairman. General dunford, welcome back. It was a pleasure to meet with you not too long ago. With the natural disasters that have been occurs i also want to take this opportunity to thank the many members of our armed forces, including the active National Guard and reserve personnel who were very instrumental in helping to save lives and transporting supplies during the recent natural disasters. General dunford, in your 2015 confirmation hearing, you stated that russia presented the greatest threat to our National Security. You included their Nuclear Capability ability to interfere with our sovereignty of our allies. Of course we can add involvement in the elections to the list. You then rank china, north korea and isil as two to four on your list of threats to National Security. In the intervening time we have north korea. My question as we sit here today, would you change your threat assessment order . Is north korea still third on your list . We dont have the luxury of identifying a single threat nor necessary to look at it in a linear fashion. What i would say is that in terms of a sense of urgency today, north korea certainly poses the greatest threat today. In terms of overall military capability, i believe china russia poses the greatest threat because of the Nuclear Cyber Electronic Warfare and the activity that weve seen from the crimea to the ukraine. If i look out the 2025 and i look at the demographics, i think china probably poses the greatest threat to our nation by about 2025 and thats consistent with much of our analysis. In other words, i cant look at it just in terms of overall capability but ive got to factor in time and conditions and i look at all three of those threats in that way. I would agree with you in terms of your assessment particularly with regard to north korea being an immediate threat. Im always asked of course hawaii being in the middle of the pacific, we feel quite vulnerable, so it is on the forefront certainly of my minds of constituents and particularly of course not just i had but guam and alaska. I understand that the results of the Ballistic Missile defense review are expected later this year. Is that correct . Senator, they are, but we didnt wait for the refuse to increased Missile Defense capability. Also noted in the ndaa the Committee Also addressed that. Well, i know that a large new radar system is being planned for hawaii. I just had a meeting with admiral harris and this will take a few years. He indicated that it would be good to move up the radar for hawaii a year or two and id really like to put that to your way of thinking so that we can get on with that radar system. I certainly want to ensure that hawaii, alaska and the rest of the United States are protected. As we sit here today, are we adequately protected . Alaska, hawaii, the rest of the United States . We are adequately protected against the current threat. I think one of the issues that we all ought to appreciate is that as the capacity of the threat increases, that is the size. Not just the fact that north korea can reach us. But the numbers of missiles that they may possess they can reach us. What we need to be concerned about is ensuring that our Ballistic Missile defense capability keeps pace with that. I think its important to have that ongoing assessment. If you project maybe three years down the road, as far as north koreas capability, i believe there is an assessment occurring as to whether or not hawaii needs a system in place besides the radar. So that is my understanding. Absolutely, senator. We are constantly assessing and again as recently as the last several weeks where we made some recommendations based on that assessment, our ability to protect all americans, guam, hawaii, con continental United States and alaska. You state briefings you receive you indicate that iran is adhering to the obligations under the jcpoa. My question is as long as iran is in compliance, is it in americas National Security interest to maintain the jcpoa . The Intel Community assessment is that they near compliance right now and therefore i think we should focus on addressing the other challenges, the missile threat they pose, the maritime threat they pose, the support of proxies, terrorist and the cyber threat they pose. 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 october 15th deadline . Senator, mindful of the chairmans opening comments, what i would ask is 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 rounds. Thank you, mr. Chairman. General, first of all, thank you for your service to our country. General, the budget control act is a symptom of a much larger Problem Congress has been avoiding for far too long. A looming National Security issue that i hope you can 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. Cbo projects that the impact on Discretionary Spending will result in about a 13 reduction to defense spending as a percentage of gdp. My question is, as the future Years Defense Program begins to overlap the mid 2020s, has 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 somewhere between 3 and 7 . We can debate that and im perfectly willing to come over here with an analytic foundation for my assessment and thats depending on how much risk you want to assume as you build the force. Between 3 and 7 is going to be required for us to build the capabilities we need. We looked at the capabilities of russia and china. We looked at where we are today and what investments we need to have to maintain a competitive advantage over those peer competitors. We used them as a benchmark, if you will, in the mid 2020s. What i would say i suppose in response to your question is that we will have to fundamentally reorder the strategy if we are unable to build the capabilities and capacities to deal with those peer competitors. Right now weve taken the National Security strategy. Weve taken initial guidance from secretary mattis. Hell come out later with a Defense Strategy after the first of the year. Weve looked at the military capabilities and capacities necessary to support those strategies. There will be a fundamental disconnect if we dont move on a path that ive just described. At the same time, as senator just asked, the 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. So in this particular case as youve indicated, you believe or at least you think that right now we have the capabilities. But does that include the ability to protect hawaii against an icbm attack by north korea and was that planned in and what happens when that occurs . Do we do that and do we place our resources on that and does that change the overall planning for the next seven to ten years . Senator, based on the current capacity of the North Koreans, the current threat, so both the type of the threat and the amount of missiles that they possess, we can protect hawaii today against an icbm. We can protect the continental United States against an icbm. Seems as though the American Public assumed that was automatic and were got the resources to not only respond to that and 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 competitors. 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 that 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 were we not to make investments. I wouldnt assume access to space. 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 growing Electronic Warfare threat of our adversaries and i wouldnt assume the capability to deal with the growing Ballistic Missile and Cruise Missile threat of our adversaries unless we maintain pace with Capability Development. Those would be bad assumptions. That requires more than what we would otherwise find under the 2011 budget control act. Theres no question. In fact, to maybe put it in perspective, senator, the bipartisan ndaa that you just passed is 89 billion more than what the bca level would be. And probably some number less than what some members of the committee thought it ought to be. Thank you, general. Thank you, mr. Chairman. General, welcome and congratulations on the renomination. My vote is you will continue to be a superb job. You have testified often to us about the readiness challenge. We had a pretty sobering hearing last week digging into the potential sources of these Navy Collisions and readiness issues and the extent of training as something that was on the table. Weve had a recent report from the gao about increased operations and extended maintenance challenges have posed real problems on the navy side. I was with the commander of the Langley Air Force base this weekend and he described to me reduction in training hours as being a real challenge. 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 weve heard from military leaders since the budget cap went into effect, were seeing it. It puts an additional burden on our shoulders to try to deal with it. I want to ask you something im worried about which is the human tear crisis in puerto rico. When theres a humanitarian crisis anywhere in the world, the u. S. Military is there. A projection of americas humanitarian spirit. I am just stunned at this humanitarian challenge in puerto rico. Puerto rico, american citizens with an amazing track record of serving in the military over generations, centuries really. Could you talk a little bit about current d. O. D. Operations to try to prevent this humanitarian crisis from spiraling downward that would be devastating to american citizens. One of the last things i did before coming over here was go through the Northern Command update. For us its both pressure and personal. These are americans that need support. Ive got people who have their families in puerto rico. 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. Our thoughts and prayers are with the people in puerto rico. The key thing that i think we are delivering right now, one of the challenges is the ports and airfields isnt accessible. Were doing all we can do to increase the supplies. We also are providing generator for power. We dont expect them to have power for some time. Thats something important we can provide. This impacts hospitals. Longterm care facilities that cannot afford to be without power. Absolutely. Thats why Power Generation and generators are one of the key areas were focused on. Fresh water and food clearly right away. And then medical capabilities. So those are the key areas that Northern Command are 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 matt tis has been clear. What they need they get. Make it happen. What were doing right now is making sure that every place that we can uniquely contribute to the disaster in puerto rico were poised to do that. Were anticipating what they might need next week. For purposes of Committee Members and the public, how is the response to puerto rico sort of organized . The dod has a piece of it but you are not necessarily the lead s. That sort of organized through dhs and fema and then with the dod taking on an assigned role . Is that sort of how its being led . Thats exactly right. This is anyplace in the United States. So we are in support of fema and general robinson as a reporting agency to fema. So were doing all of the support for puerto rico is being coordinated as you suggest through the department of Homeland Security and fema specifically. But again, were doing were responding to the immediate requests. But then we have a little experience in these kind of operations, soy know what general robinson and her team are doing also is offering things that maybe people havent asked for today and also looking 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. Chair. Thank you, general dunford. 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 the military leaders. That is why many on this committee have pushed to reveal 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 within the dod. Many of us support that. We need to know our taxpayer dollars are being spent well. For your part, can you describe the steps you have taken during your tenure as the chairman to work with that joint force and make it more efficient . Are there specific examples you can give the committee today . There are, senator. The first one is that were implementing the direction that we have from the congress to reduce our overall headquarters by 30 . That in itself is not an insignificant step that we have taken. Also with regard we alluded to it with Global Force Management, when we have done is done a number of things to integrate at the strategic level the prioritization and allocation of resources to insure that we are deploying them most effectively into the context of our strategic objectives. And then theres a number of things that wouldnt be something that i would do in a joint force, but certainly am familiar with in dealing with the chiefs, Business Practices across the department are also an area where efficiencies are sought. The leader for that is the deputy secretary of defense and on the joint staff the that involves all the vice chiefs and theres a wide range of Business Practices that were looking to be more efficient. Fortunately we do have some expertise now from outside the department that has come in and looked at us through a different lens. Those are areas where i think they are most promised. The other thing i would say is that since 2010 we have gone through a litany of efficiency drills. While we have gained some efficiencies, they never quite realized the savings that you expect them to, so youve got to stay after it. This isnt something we started in the past year. We have been after it since 2010. Very good. I am certain that you will continue that push going on as we hope to see you continuing in this position. So i thank you for that. And then 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 as a solution and on the other then they prefer appropriating dollars forward for the next best and greatest thing. But unfortunately a lot of times the next best greatest thing never really materializes. So how are we going to prioritize acquisitions moving in the future . Senator, that as you know is a complicated issue. I think getting the balance right between moving out right now and buying whats available and looking long term for the most effective capability has been something we struggle with. On the one hand you might say we ought to be able to go out and buy whats available. I can remember some years ago when we ended up with 16 links that could community from air to ground but they couldnt necessarily communicate with each other. I can also remember when we all went out and bought our own software only to find out that we couldnt effectively communicate with each other. There is a balance in all of this. I think the key thing is in the committee insert the some of the language in the ndaa and that is to make sure that the joint requirements oversight council, which is led by the vice is the one overseeing the requirements that are existing for capabilities and also then the process for making sure that we meet those requirements in a timely manner. Those requirements are actually validated. I think thats probably a key piece of it, too, is the requirements. I think if you get the requirements right and Senior Leadership is engaged in the requirements, and i say this from the perspective of my current job, Service Leader engagement with the requirements, validating those requirements before we look at material and nonmaterial solutions to those requirements, in my judgment is the key to success. That is something that i think has happened to a greater degree over the last couple years with the pressure in part that has been put on by this committee. Absolutely. Thank you very much, general. Thank you, mr. Chair. Senator king. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Beginning with i know general dunford, youre a reader. Going back to the chairmans statements at the beginning of this hearing about the relationship between the military and civilian officials, i commend to you, although i suspect you have read it, dereliction of duty by your colleague, a stunning analysis of what not to do between the relationship between military and civilian officials. You nodded so i assume you know the book. I have read it. An additional one i would add, march of folley which takes us from troy to vietnam talking about relationships and how these mistakes are made. Which brings me to korea. I have a queasy feeling that were in 1914 stumbling and what worries me is not an instantaneous nuclear con 41 transportation but an accidental escalation. Based upon the rhetoric thats going back and forth. The Prime Minister of korea characterized our president s comments as a declaration of war and he said therefore as a since the United States has declared war in our country, we will have every right to make counter meshes, including a right to shoot down United States strategic bombers even when they are not in the air space border of our country. Thats what worries me. A misunderstanding, an event, a shooting down of a bomber, a strike on a ship that leads to a Counter Measure that leads to a Counter Measure and the end result is if kim jongun feels his regime is under attack, then the unthinkable happens. Make me either feel better or worse about where we are. I will make you feel better. I can tell you that i personally, the secretary of defense, look at all of our posture and managing risk on a daytoday basis informed by the need to avoid the risk of miscalculation. The recent operations that we conducted i can assure you that even i was on the road. We probably secretary matt tis and i probably personally invested several hours each in reviewing those to manage those and without going into classified information here, to look at all of our capabilities, look at all their capabilities, look at timing, look at the probabilities. What worries me is misunderstanding. What we view as an exercise they may view as an imminent threat. I guess what im suggest suggest where we conduct these exercises, were informed by the north korea posture at a given point in time, informed by the need to avoid miscalculation. Do we have communication with north korea with regard to these kinds of situations . This is just an exercise for example. We do not have military communications with north korea right now. Turning the north korea question slightly, you testified earlier and all the Intelligence Community agrees that kim jonguns primary motivation is regem 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 . Senator, i have been very careful at the military level to make no statements that would exacerbate the current crisis. I certainly wont comment on things that are senior Political Leadership have said. I can say inside the military weve made no statements and have had a conscious decision not to make any such statements that ensure that the lead right now is secretary tillerson and the message being delivered is primarily being delivered by the state department. But dow agree that the primary motivation for the development of the Nuclear Weapons is a kind of insurance policy for regime survival. Is that not the case . That would be my assessment, senator. Thank you. What would be the practicality of a Preemptive Nuclear strike in terms of the military effect . Theres some feeling i hear some talked about a preemptive strike the other day, not in the administration, but on this in this body. That would not be a short easy action, would it not . Senator, you bring up a good point. Part of the advice that ive provided the data is when we do something, we shouldnt assume at that point that we can control escalation. So we need to think about this in terms of what might happen as well as what we would want to happen. Part of the problem is those artillery that are ranged across the north korean border which is within seoul, which is about as far from here to fair fax count. Seoul would certainly be threatened by the rockets and missiles along the border. So the idea of a socalled Surgical Strike to bring back a term from 40 years ago is really not valid in this situation. It would not be this is not something that would be easy too take out, for example, the Nuclear Capability of the North Koreans. No. Thats right. While we could do things from our perspective 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 on the peninsula. Chairman, do you support providing lethal defensive air to ukraine . I do and have made that recommendation. As i understand it, dod has officially made an affirmative recommendation and state department also. So where is that decision and can you enlighten the committee . Senator, my understanding is that decision is at the white house. And do you have any idea when we might be able to get an answer on that . I dont, senator. I will ask when we get back today. Were been asking for the last couple weeks, but im not sure. Well, i think its very important that the Ukrainian Government succeed in resisting further russian expansion. What why did you recommend yes on providing lethal aid . In my judgment from a military perspective, the ukraine needed additional capabilities to protect their sovereignty. As you probably know, in 2016, we trained a number of their battalions. In 2017 trained additional battalions. We provided medical supplies, night vision goggles, and other things. We felt like their ability to stop Armored Vehicles would be essential to protect themself. We just looked at it as a military gap that existed. If that gap was filled, the ukrainians could defend themselves. I would encourage members of the administration to move forward on that. With regard to russias asymmetric threats such as Information Operations, cyber tax and jamming, i want to ask you specifically about the 173rd Airborne Brigade which is said in a report to be underequipped, undermanned and inadequately organized. According to an army review, three years after crimea, why is why is this the case . Is it the case and what can we do about it . Senator, i read the media article and asked a couple questions after i saw it. I think what the leader was doing was describing, you know, the current character of war and indicating that he believed that we ought to make some organizational changes and some equipment changes to make the 173rd based in italy more competitive. I think you could make that statement more broadly. That was a leader looking at his particular unit. I think you can look at that statement more broadly and say that we need to adapt the u. S. Military, really the entire u. S. Government to be able to compete at that level below war where the russians have so successfully integrated Information Operations, cyber, political influence, economic coercion and Information Operations. So really i think what the 173rd was describing is a force that is designed for conventional war and in needing to make some organizational changes and add different capabilities to be competitive in the space that were describing now. So at large actually this fairly accurate statement about the 173rd actually 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 today, russians, chinese and others are on a daytoday basis doing what i describe as they are conducting adversarial competition in a level that falls below conflict. They have integrated the entire government to be able to do that. In my judgment, we need to improve our ability to compete in that space and in the area specifically i mentioned from military capability would be our Electronic Warfare capability, our cyber capabilities, and our Information Operations capabilities. But those all have to be integrated with those things that we dont have inside the department of defense. Of course the economic and political tools. But in my judgment, bringing all those together on a daytoday basis more effectively is something that we do need to do. Finally, general, 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 of the ndaa has put the ships act in the Senate Passed version. It makes the 355 ship requirement the policy of the United States congress. The house of representatives has also done that and i expect this will be coming out of conference very soon. This requirement is in fact a serious requirement, is it not . And can you assure us that from the level of the administration were serious about getting to that number and getting and fulfilling that requirement rather than the 276 ships we have and doing it as quick as practical . Senator, i dont think theres any question at all to know that the navy is smaller right now than it needs to be to on analytic rigor and it should be a target that we shoot for. It would be good to get there as soon as we can. And of course many of the conversations were having the budget will inform our ability to do. A we appreciate your leadership in that regard. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, chairman mccain. 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 underground. That obviously contains the radio active fallout. But kim jongun has since threatened to conduct a test in the earths atmosphere. Active f. But kim jongun has since threatened to conduct a test in the earths atmosphere. Can you talk a little bit about what the global risks and implications of a Nuclear Weapon detonated in the atmosphere would be as kim jongun is considering . And if you were speaking to the north Korean People what would you say to them regarding the risk of detonating a Nuclear Weapon in the earths atmosphere . Senator, i think the best experience we have recently, of course, would be the Nuclear Reactor in russia some years ago and the incident that took place in japan. And even with something that isnt anywhere near what the North Koreans are suggesting, we had Significant Health challenges for many, many years. And obviously the loss of life. It would be an incredibly provocative thing for them to conduct a nuclear test in the pacific as they have suggested. And i think the north Korean People would have to realize how serious that would be not only for the United States but for the International Community. I want to take a quick moment to thank both you and secretary mattis for the serious and sober matter youre approaching north korea. I think that is the sort of temperament we need now more than ever. I want to shift gears real quickly. Our Commander Special separations general thomas has said the use of weaponized available donees was the 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 means . First senator, i agree with general thomas assessment. And thats the consistent feedback we have from our operational commanders. In fact, about three months ago, four months ago, we sent a team over led by my Lieutenant General to sit down with the commanders to make sure we had a full appreciation of what they were dealing with and we could send to them everything we could. Weve made some progress and the ability to deal with this threat. But its also going to require continued experimentation to make sure we stay out in front of the technology the enemy is delivering. We have seen them deliver chemical weapons. Weve seen them deliver bombs. Weve seen them be able to provide 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 as well as develop the capabilities well need more. But i can assure you personally that has been exactly where general thomas has suggested it should be at the top of our list for current emerging threats in the current fight. I have to say ive been pleased to see the pentagon respond so quickly with investments in laser technologies and other systems to address urgent needs like this one. Will you continue to support the pentagons use of rapid acquisition authorities provided by this committee to field new technologies like laser and high powered microwaves to help counter those drones and swarms . I will, senator. I think that having that capability has been one of the bright spites 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 cha ge changer whats a rapidly developing situation with drones in particular. I want to return real quickly to an issue that senator kaine brought up earlier with regard to puerto rico. And you mentioned through put. One of the things i understand is a bottle neck with throughput right now and that Emergency Response is the number of radars that are down and the fact that planes are landing, c130s, et cetera, if there are not radar at various air fields. Does dod have a role in restoring the radar at those airfields . Is that dhs . And what can you tell us about hopefully the easing of that bottleneck, which really limits how much we can get in there on a reasonable time period . Senator, we do have the capability and right now our priority is focused on making sure the air fields can operate. A piece of their ability to operate is that radar and we can provide on a short term basis. The responsibility is primarily dhs but at this point were not trapped in bureaucratic niceties. What were trying to do is make sure we get the people of puerto rico to support the need when they need it. The key thing that needs to be done right now as youre suggesting is all the other support they need cant come in until we get the ports and airfields open. Thats why Northern Command has placed that at the top of the list of support were providing. Thank you very much, general. On behalf of chairman mccain, senator purdue, please. Thank you for being here today. Thank you for you and your family for your service. I want to remind the committee that the first ship was i believe was the uss mercy in portauprince after the earthquake. I want to thank the military on record for always being the first in crisis like this in puerto rico. I want to highlight again a quote that was already referred to by the chairman this morning. 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 that within five years we will lose our ability to project power, the basis of how we defend the home land, advance u. S. Interest and meet our alliance commitments. Wow. Sir, thats a few months forward. 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. Were we to lose that, i believe there would be an increased possibility of conflict. Particularly against our peer competitors. Well, thats the question i have for you today, sir. If you look at the latest estimate, back in 2011, thenchairman gates or secretary of defense then, made the estimate based on a bottoms up estimate from the military on needs. And that estimate was in todays dollars for 2016 about 753 billion. Last year we actually appropriated 623 billion. Thats all of category 050, i believe. 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 weve 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. By that we mean areas like Electronic Warfare, cyber capability, 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 prioritize it is to make sure we make sure the men and women in the units were deploying have the wherewithal to accomplish the missions. With minimum loss of life or equipment. 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 and cyber war fair and electronic war fair and ballistic defense. Which were spoken about. 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 can 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 inspections, so that it cannot develop a Nuclear Weapon. The Trump Administration has already certified twice to congress that iran is complying with this arrangement. If President Trump does not certify again by october 15th, 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 i 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 affecting 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 Holding Russia accountable for what its doing with north korea. Senator, if i could just make a quick comment on that. Please. 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 fon 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 fon 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. Is a strategic approach to freedom of navigation operations that does, in fact, support our overall strategy in the pacific as well as the specific mission, which is to ensure that we fly, sail and operate 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. So i think what you have outlined in the ndaa, combined with the supplemental that the administration has put together will meet the immediate needs, but, of course, we need a long term strategic approach to Ballistic Missile defense and buying the same capabilities that 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. Our missile capabilities also have to adapt. 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 s 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 diplomacy. 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 that, 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 1950. 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 registered. 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. Many departments in our government are 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. I think theres a large recognition both in iraq and certainly for the Coalition Partners that are there that continue training of the 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. Thank you ask your family. 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 were asked about it 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 just because thats how constant, were getting updates on puerto rico, to date, they would allow us to open air fields, open ports and get that immediate electricity, 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 Guard 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 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. With belarus. 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 requirements. 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 hybrid 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 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 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 dependencies in space, whether its the timing of our systems, the 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 the potential 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. Tomorrow night on cspan, former First Lady Michelle Obama is interviewed by shonda rhimes, creator and executive producer of the Television Shows scandal and greys anatomy. She talks here about the standards of success for men and women. Do you think that women in general have less chances to fail . You know, you fail once, people start labeling you faster than theyd label a man ever. Absolutely. You know, i think thats true for women, minorities. I think the bars are different. You know . I mean, we experience that all the time. We experience that over the last eight years. I joked when i was on the campaign trail that the bar just kept moving, you know . Its like, just like, whoa, whoa. You meet it, then the bar would change, you know . Switch it on you. Were seeing that now, quite frankly. The bar is i mean that bar is going places. It is amazing, amazing to watch. The former first lady also talks about women as vocal participants in the workplace. The event took place tuesday in front of a crowd of about 12,000 at the annual pennsylvania conference for women in philadelphia. See the entire interview saturday at 8 00 p. M. On cspan. Next week, book tv is in primetime on cspan2. Monday night at 8 30 eastern, finalists for the 2017 National Book awards with Francis Fitzgerald author of the evangelica evangelicals, david graham tuesday night at 8 00 eastern. Cyber warfare with territory and john yu and Jeremy Rabkin with their book. Wednesday night at 8 00, a look at the 2016 election with Hillary Clinton and her book what happened. Jonathan allen and amy parns author of shattered. And douglas shone and america and the age of trump. Thursday night, books made into movies featuring author of hidden figures. The book 13 hours. And the book the immortal life of henrietta lax. And the National Book festival, mississippi congressman greg harper at the mississippi book festival, and james okeefe at freedom fest. Next week watch book tv in primetime on cspan2. Cspans cities tour takes book tv and American History tv to pierre, south dakota, with our midco Cable Partners well explore the history and literary life of the States Capital city. Saturday at noon eastern on book tv. Author Nathan Sanderson talks about ed lemon in his book controlled recklessness. He was involved in the expansion of that cattle ranching industry which was essential along with mining and the expansion of the railroad into the growth of our state in the early part of the 20th century. And director of the pioneer girl project explores the memoirs and inspiration of Laura Ingalls wilder. The pioneer girl project is a research and Publishing Program of the south Dakota State Historical society that is designed to study and publish a comprehensive edition of Laura Ingalls wilder pioneer girl which is her autobiography. Well tour the south dakota state capitol. If you look up, there are also four corner areas with flags. Obviously the south dakota flag. There is a flag from dakota territory. Theres a flag for the United States, of course. There are also flags for spain and france, because they controlled this territory at different times. And then each corner has one corner has a white flag, one a red flag, one black and one yellow. And those are the native american colors that symbolize the four directions of the compass. And hear about lewis and clarks encounter with members of the lakota sioux, and why that meeting was so important to the area. Watch the city tour of pierre, south dakota, saturday at noon eastern on cspan 2s book tv and sunday at 2 00 p. M. On American History tv on cspan3. The cspan cities tour, working with our cable affiliates and vi