Transcripts For CSPAN3 Defense Secretary Mattis On National Defense Strategy Nuclear Posture 20180226

Review. This is about 90 minutes. The meeting will come to order. The Committee Meets today to hear testimony on the Administrations National Defense Strategy and Nuclear Posture review, both of which were recently released. We welcome back the secretary of defense and the vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff to discuss these important documents. I cannot count the number of times i have heard members of this Committee Talk about the importance of having a Defense Strategy to help guide decisions that we, in the executive branch, have to make. Now, we have one. It is a component of the Broader National Security strategy released in december and it has within it the Nuclear Posture review, the first of its kind since 2010. A lot has changed since 2010 and both documents come at a critical time. As the National Security strategy points out, quote, americas military remains the strongest in the world. However, u. S. Advantages are shrinking as rival states modernize and build up their conventional and Nuclear Forces, end quote. There will you dont undoubtedly be criticism of both documents, some of it will be based on valid shortcomings, some of it may spring from more ideological differences. Debates about the particulars are fair and to be expected. But its also fair, i think, to commend the administration for its attempt to bring structure and rationality to our wideranging National Security efforts in what is surely a dangerous and volatile world. One last point. We must never forget that with any strategy the heart of our Nations Defense, our most valuable asset, remains the people who serve. It is morally wrong to send brave men and women out on missions under any strategy for which they are not fully trained, equipped, and supported with the best that this country can provide. That support should not be conditioned on any other issue. And we can never forget that theres a real human cost to failing to fully support them. Strategy is important, but nothing is more important for congress than for us to do our job to support the men and women who protect us fully and unconditionally. Yield to the Ranking Member. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And thank you, secretary mattis, general selva, i appreciate you both being here. And i very much appreciate the fact that as the chairman said you put out the National Security strategy that is obviously a crucially important step in figuring out how we put together our budget and how the department of defense does its job. And ill start by agreeing with the last point that the chairman made. I think it is the most important one. It is whatever our strategy is, whatever it is that we tell the men and women who serve in our military, this is what we expect you to do, it is our paramount obligation to make sure we fund that. We dont have a situation where we give them so many tasks but not enough resources to train for them. I think that is the definition of a hollow force, when we send them into battle unprepared to do what we told them to do. Unfortunately due to a lot of budgetary challenges weve had in the last six or seven years, thats been happening far too often because we have lurched from continuing resolution to Government Shutdown, to continuing resolution to sometimes an appropriations deal. Its very difficult for both of you and your predecessors to plan what youre going to do when you dont know how much money youre going to have one week to the next. I think that is a very serious problem. I appreciate the strategies put together. My biggest concern is, does it match the amount of resources that we are likely to have to fund it. We are 21 trillion in debt and counting. The deficit last year was close to 700 billion, and its going up, not down. So how do we how do we make this fit . How does this work . And then you look at the broader picture and we just cut taxes by what is going to amount to 2 trillion. The immediate shortterm impact of that is that we are going to hit the debt ceiling sooner than we had expected to because less revenue is coming into the treasury so well have to do that. So in the face of a 21 trillion debt, and all of the needs that the chairman outlines, and your strategy lays it out and i think in this committee certainly we all know the list, its sort of up on the wall over there, minus iran and the threat from radical islamist extremisms, those are the threats that we face and how do we meet them . In the case of all of that, we decided to give away 2 trillion. I could make an argument that in so doing this congress made a Public Policy decision that we were not going to fund defense at the levels that this committee thinks they should. We decided not to fund it and then, okay, well theres other places we can get the money. But the president has said he is not going to reform mandatory spending at all. The state of the Union Address promised more money than i think i can possibly imagine. As a side note, i think we ought to ban the state of the Union Address, and i say that for democrats and republicans alike because the main thing it does is it gives the executive a chance to stand up there and promise things that are absolutely utterly and completely impossible to deliver, and then the American Public comes to expect it and rightfully gets a little bit irritated when magic doesnt make it happen. And again, thats bipartisan. Every state of the Union Address ive seen since ive been here ive walked out of there thinking we dont have that money, what is he talking about . So we need to make improvements on that, to be sure. And i worry greatly about how this strategy is going to be implemented in the face of our debt and our deficits. And if Interest Rates go up, i mean, weve been incredibly lucky that weve been able to borrow all this money on the cheap. If Interest Rates go up to 3 , you can forget about all this stuff. And i dont blame that on the Defense Budget. I understand its a piece of it, its 17 of the budget. But our overall budget picture doesnt add up and i worry that ultimately that will wind up costing the men and women who serve, costing our ability to give them the training and equipment they need to carry out missions that we all hear that we need. Last thing id say and what i want to hear is as ive said, we have the list, china, russia, north korea, iran, violent islamist extremist groups. How do we confront those threats and protect our country . I want to make a couple quick comments on that. Theres a Common Thread between all of those threats, and that is a threat to representative democracy, freedom and capitalism. All of those groups want to make the world safe, i guess, for autocratic dictatorships. Although each one of them has a slightly different view on what that dictatorship should look like. But its a fundamental threat to democracy and representative government. I think we need to understand it in that context and push back comprehensively to try and create a world thats safe for freedom and democracy. Because i think thats incredibly important in keeping a peaceful and prosperous world. Lastly im interested in hearing from you. We hear a lot from the military about what you dont have, about where were not spending enough money, about the threats that were not meeting. If were going to get to where we need to go, we need to hear where can we save money . What part of our National Security strategy could we not spend money on. If we dont hear places where we can save money, theres no way were going to have enough money to meet all the places were being told we need it. We want to hear that. I think your leadership at dod and the leadership that came before under ash carter has really done a good job at getting at procurement reform, getting at trying to get more out of the money that we spend, employing commercial technology. Bunch of different ideas that can enable us to get more for less money. But that is never going to be more important than it is Going Forward given the fiscal situation we are in and given the threat environment that is as described. How do we meet that . So were going to have to be a lot smarter about how we spend our money given the situation that we are in. With that, i yield back and i look forward to your testimony. Committees pleased to welcome the secretary of defense, honorable james mattis and vice chairman of the chiefs of staff, general paul selva. Gentlemen, thank you for being here. Without objection your full written statements will be made part of the record. Mr. Secretary, youre recognized for any comments youd like to make. Thank you chairman thornberry, Ranking Member smith and distinguished members of the committee. Im here at your invitation to testify on two subjects, the 2018 National Defense strategy and the Nuclear Posture review, and im joined by the vice chairman of the joint chiefs, general selva. Even in the midst of our ongoing counterterrorism campaign, my role is to keep the peace for one more year, one more month, one more day, giving secretary tillerson and our diplomats time to resolve crises through diplomatic channels. The department of defense does this by providing the commander in chief with military options tha that ensure our diplomats negotiate from a position of strength. Up front, i need to note three days from now i will visit our nations First Security Assistance Brigade in georgia as they deploy to afghanistan. To advance the security of our nation, these troops are putting themselves in harms way in effect signing a blank check payable to the American People with their lives. They do so despite congresss abrogation of its constitutional responsibility to provide sufficient, stable funding. Our military has been operating under debilitating continuing resolutions for more than 1,000 days during the past decade. These men and women hold the line for america while lacking this most fundamental congressional support of predictable budget. Congress rightfully mandated this National Defense strategy, the first one in a decade, and then shut down the government the day of its release. Today, we are again operating under a disruptive continuing resolution. It is not lost on me that as i testify before you this morning we are, again, on the verge of a Government Shutdown or at best another damaging, continuing resolution. I regret that without sustained predictable appropriations, my presence here today wastes your time, because no strategy can survive without the funding necessary to resource it. Yet we all know america can afford survival. Nations as different as china and russia have chosen to be strategic competitors. They seek to create a world consistent with their authoritarian models and pursue veto power over other nations economic, diplomatic and security decisions. Rogue regimes like north korea and iran persist in taking outlaw actions that undermine and threaten regional and global stability. And despite our successes to date against isis physical caliphate, violent extremist organizations continue to sow hatred, incite violence and murder innocents. Across the globe democracies are taking notice. We recognize Great Power Competition is once again a reality. We will continue to prosecute the campaign against terrorism by, with, and through our allies, but in our new Defense Strategy, Great Power Competition, not terrorism, is now the primary focus of u. S. National security. Our military remains capable, but our Competitive Edge has eroded in every domain of warfare, air, land, sea, cyber, and space. Under frequent continuing resolutions and sequesters budget caps our advantages continue to shrink. The combination of rapidly changing technology, the negative impact on military readiness resulting from the longest continuous stretch of combat in our nations history, and insufficient funding have created an overstretched and underresourced military. During last weeks state of the Union Address, President Trump said weakness is the surest path to conflict. To those who might suggest that we should accept a yearlong continuing resolution, it would mean a return to a disastrous sequestration level of funding for the military. And in a world awash in change and increasing threats, theres no room for complacency. History makes clear that no country has a preordained right to victory on the battlefield. Framed within President Trumps National Security strategy and aligned with the department of state, our 2018 National Defense strategy provides clear, Strategic Direction for americas military. A longterm strategic competition requires the seamless integration of multiple elements of national power, diplomacy, information, economics, finance, intelligence, law enforcement, and military. The departments principal priorities are long term strategic competitions with china and russia. Given the magnitude of the threats they pose, u. S. Security and prosperity today. Congress must commit to both an increased and sustained investment in our capabilities. Concurrently, the department will sustain its efforts to deter and counter rogue regimes such as north korea and iran, defeat terrorist threats to the United States and consolidate our gains in iraq and afghanistan while moving to a more resource sustainable approach. More than any other nation, america can expand the competitive space. We can challenge our competitors where we possess advantages and they lack strength. To restore a competitive military edge, the Defense Strategy involves three primary lines of effort, to build a more lethal force, to strengthen traditional alliances while building new partnerships, and reform the departments Business Practices for performance and affordability. Our first line of effort emphasizes that everything we do must contribute to the lethality of our military, in war an enemy will attack a perceived weakness. Therefore, we cannot adopt a single precl chlussive form of warfare. This means the size and competition of our force matters. The nation must field a sufficient capable force to deter conflict. If deterrence fails, we must win. To defend our way of life, our military will embrace change while holding fast to traditional proven attributes that make us the most Formidable Force on any battlefield. Those who would threaten americas experiment in democracy must know if you threaten us, it will be your longest and worst day. To implement this strategy, we will invest in key capabilities, recognizing we cannot expect success fighting tomorrows conflicts with yesterdays weapons and equipment. Driven by this strategy, next week you will see in our fy 19 budget investments the following. Space in cyber, Nuclear Deterrent forces, missile defense, advanced autonomous systems, Artificial Intelligence and professional military education to provide our high quality troops what they need to win. We will prioritize rebuilding readiness while modernizing our existing force. We will also be changing our forces posture to prioritize readiness for war fighting and major combat, making us strategically predictable for our allies and operationally unpredictable for any adversary. Our second line of effort is to strengthen traditional alliances while building new partnerships. History is clear that nations with allies thrive. We inherited this approach to security and prosperity from the greatest generation and it has served the United States well for 70 years. Working by, with and through allies who carry their fair share is a source of strength. Since the costly victory in world war ii, americans have carried a disproportionate share of the Global Defense burden while others recovered. Today, the economic strength of allies and partners has enabled them to step up, as demonstrated by more than 70 nations and International Organizations participating in the defeat isis campaign, and again, in the 40 some nations Standing Shoulder to shoulder at natos Resolute Support mission in afghanistan. Most nato allies are also increasing their Defense Budgets, giving credence to the value of democracy standing together. Our third line of effort surges the foundation for our militarys Competitive Edge, reforming the Business Practices of the department to provide both solvency and security and thereby gaining full benefit from every dollar spent. Every day we will earn the trust of congress and the American People. We must be good stewards of the tax dollars entrusted to us. In this regard we will deliver our departments full financial audit this year, because results and accountability matter. The first audit in dods history will reveal how we can be better stewards. The department is transitioning to a culture of performance and affordability that operates at the speed of relevance. We will prioritize speed of delivery, continuous adaptation and frequent modular upgrades. With your critical support, we will shed outdated management and acquisition processes while adopting american industrys best practices. If current structures inhibit our pursuit of lethality, i expect my Service Secretaries and Defense Agency heads to consolidate, eliminate and restructure to achieve the mission. One of the key elements of the 2018 National Defense strategy is to ensure americas military provides a safe, secure and effective Nuclear Deterrent. Last january, President Trump directed a Nuclear Posture review to ensure the United States Nuclear Deterrent is modern, robust, flexible, resilient, ready and appropriately tailored to deter 21st century threats and reassure allies. I recently received a letter from senators concerned that the 2018 Nuclear Posture review would undermine decades of u. S. Leadership on efforts to reduce and eventually eliminate the existential threat posed by Nuclear Weapons. To the contrary, the 2018 Nuclear Posture review reaffirms the mutually reinforcing role of Nuclear Deterrence in a complex and Dynamic Security environment while underscoring continued u. S. Commitment to nonproliferation to counter Nuclear Terrorism and to arms control. Specifically, the review reflects the department of defenses strategic priority to maintain a safe and effective Nuclear Deterrent that will successfully deter nuclear and nonnuclear strategic attacks, assure our allies and partners respond effectively should deterrents fail and hedge against uncertain future dangers. The United States remains committed to its Global Leadership role to reduce the number of Nuclear Weapons and to fulfill existing treaty and arms control obligations. Leadership that has reduced our Nuclear Weapons stockpile by over 85 from its cold war high. Yet we must recognize that deterrence and arms control can only be achieved with a credible capability. A review of the Global Nuclear situation is sobering. While russia has reduced only the number of its accountable Strategic Nuclear force, as agreed upon in the new s. T. A. R. T. Treaty, at the same time russia has been modernizing these weapons as well as other Nuclear Systems. Moscow advocates a theory of Nuclear Escalation for military conflict. China, too, is modernizing and expanding its already considerable Nuclear Forces pursuing entirely new Nuclear Capabilities. It is also modernizing its conventional military to challenge u. S. Military superiority. Despite universal condemnation in the united nations, north despi despite universal condemnation in the united nations, north korea threatens global peace and iran remains an unresolved concern. Globally, Nuclear Terrorism remains a tangible threat. As senator mccain said last week, since the end of the cold war we have let our Nuclear Capabilities atrophy under the false believe the competition was over. As the new National Defense strategy rightfully acknowledges we now face the renewed threat of competition from russia and china. We cannot ignore their investments in Nuclear Weapons to conventional forces. The 2018 Nuclear Posture review reaffirm the findings of previous reviews that the Nuclear Triad, comprised of silo based Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles and bomber aircraft submarine is the most strategically sound means of Nuclear Deterrence. To remain effective we must rec rec rerecapitalize our Nuclear Forces taken during the previous administration. To quote my predecessor, carter, we have been in the nuclear race for two decades now and the u. S. Hasnt been running the race unquote. You can see demonstrated in this chart in the corner of the room that gives credence to my predecessors observation, the Nuclear Development System Development over the last eight years shows numerous advances by russia, china and north korea versus the near absence of such activity by the United States. With competitors and adversaries developing 34 new systems in that time compared to only one for the u. S. We have 35 aircraft. Nuclear deterrents will continue to play a Critical Role in preventing Nuclear Attack and large scale kepgsconventional we for the foreseeable future. Nuclear weapons assure to defend our allies against Nuclear Threats furthering nonproliferation goals and increasing global security. The National Defense strategy and Nuclear Posture review align with the president s Nuclear Strategy efforts. As i said earlier no strategy can survive without the necessary stable predictable funding. Failure to modernize our military risks us with a force that could dominate the last war but irrelevant to dominating security. We need congress to lift the budget fof 700 billion for this fiscal year and 715 billion the next fiscal year. Let me be clear, no enemy in the field has done as much to harm the readiness of the u. S. Military than the combined impact of the budget control acts spending caps worsened for ten of the last 11 years under continuing resolutions of varied and unpredictable duration. The budget control act was purposely designed to be so injurious it would force congress to pass the weather, never intended to be the solution. Our troupes work tirelessly to accomplish every mission with increasingly inadequate and misaligned resources simply because congress has not maintained regular order. The fact that our volunteer military has performed so well is a credit to their dedication an professionalism. We expect the men and women of our military to be faithful in their service even when going in harms way. We must also remain faithful to them. Chairman, as you said in january, if congress does not come together to find a way to fund this strategy, secretary mattis must explicitly inform congress and the American People of the consequences of failure. The consequences of not providing a budget are clear. Even though we are protecting Ongoing Operations from continuing resolution disruptions, each increment of funding and support of our partners in afghanistan and iraq and syria requires a 15day congressional notification. My commanders in the field write to me for help in getting timely and predictable funds for their efforts as they work to execute our strategy against the enemy in the field. Additionally, should we stumble into a yearlong continuing resolution your military will not be able to provide pay for our troops by the end of the fiscal year. They will not recruit the 15,000 Army Soldiers and 4,000 air force airmen required to fill critical man in shortfalls. We will not maintain our ships at sea with the proper balance between operations and time in port for maintenance. We will ground aircraft due to a lack of maintenance and spare parts. We will deplete the ammunition, training and manpower required to deter war and delay contracts for vital acquisition programs necessary to modernize the force. Further, i cannot overstate the impact to our troops morale from all this uncertainty. Today, were planning in the pentagon for another Government Shutdown. You know i cannot care more about this countrys defense than this congress. It is congress alone which has the Constitutional Authority to raise an support armies and provide an maintain a navy. We need congress back in the drivers seat not in the spectator seat of the budget control act of indiscriminate automatic cuts. I know in time of a major war congress will provide our military with all it needs but money at the time of crisis fails to deter war, and you know we would be at that point to have nothing no time to prepare as it takes months and years to produce the munitions, training and readiness required to fight well. To carry out the strategy you rightly direct that we develop we need you to pass a budget now. If we are to sustain our militarys primacy, we need budget predictability. Congress must take action now to ensure our military lethality is sufficient to defend our way of life and preserve the promise of prosperity and pass on the freedoms we enjoy to the next generation. I ask you not let disagreements on domestic policy continue to hold our Nations Defense hostage. General selva will now discuss the military dimensions of the 2018 National Defense strategy and our Nuclear Posture review. Thank you. General selva. Thank you, mr. Chairman, Ranking Member smith and distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for joining secretary mattis on the Defense Strategy and military posture review. We fully support the strategies outlined in the National Defense strategy and Nuclear Posture review. Both documents are the product of significant consultation and collaboration between members of the joint staff and the osd staff. The National Defense strategy provides detailed defense policy guidance for military strategy, planning and operations. Thereforey the chairmans 2016 classified National Military strategy will require an update to maintain complete consistency with the National Defense strategy and the president s National Security strategy released in december. Immediately upon release of the National Defense strategy published last month, general dunford directed the joint staff to commence the revision of the National Military strategy and that process is now under way. Other subsequent guidance and plans will be revised in turn to support the lines of effort outlined in the National Defense strategy and to operationalize the concept of Dynamic Force employment. Additionally we have begin to review the joint staffs organizational process to determine if we need to make adjustments to support the global responsibilities and better position the chairman to support the secretarys decisionmaking processes. Refining the National Military strategy and joint staffs organization and processes are a step towards increasing the lethality and flexibility of the joint force in light of the reemergence of great power and competitions. The Nuclear Posture review also reflects realities of todays security environment as well as projecting the future environment and its potential impacts on u. S. Nuclear weapons policy and strategy. More specifically the Nuclear Posture review paid particular attention to russian, chinese and north korean activities intended to develop, modernize and expand their Nuclear Weapons capabilities and integrate them into their military strategies and doctrine. The Nuclear Posture review takes into account the potential for iran to renew its pursuit of Nuclear Weapons and capability in the future. Our strategy must be tailored to each of these strategies to implicate the cost of aggression and this tailored strategy approach requires the United States maintain flexible credible mix of Nuclear Capability to address a spectrum of adversaries and threats over a period of time. It should not be lost on this committee the Nuclear Posture review conducted its assess. Over a 30 year swath of the future. It affirm the Nuclear Triad of the ability to deter aggression, assure our allies and hedge against and uncertain future. As the secretary mentioned it reaffirms need recapitalize each component of our legacy Nuclear Systems to insure our Nuclear Capabilities remain ready, secure, capable and credible, now and into the future. Two supplemental capabilities recommended in the Nuclear Posture review nuclear arms cruz missile and modification of a small number of submarine launched ballistic warheads would serve as deterrents that no adversary can perceive an advantage of Nuclear Escalation or strategic attack. Fielding these capabilities would not lower the threshold the u. S. Would employ Nuclear Weapons rather it would raise the Nuclear Threshold for potential adversaries making theees of Nuclear Weapons less likely. Nuclear weapons pose the only extensional military threat to our nation. Therefore there is no higher priority to our joint force than fileding the Nuclear Deterrent from our adversaries from Nuclear Attack on any scale. It is important to note the Nuclear Posture review and strategy both make the assumption the military will receive timely, predictable and sufficient funding to execute these strategies. As general mattis emphasized, we in uniform support this academy aacademy this committee and congress and that they will provide the funding for realtime and strategies. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Let me give members a look ahead what our schedule looks like today. We will have votes on the floor about 11 30. The secretary and general selva were gracious to move the start time for this hearing up to 9 30 to try to give us more time to get in questions before the votes. We will still not have time to get to everybody. We will do the best we can until we have votes. We will break and go to the floor. And then we will reconvene after votes in a closed classified session so we can get further details about the national strategy. The secretary still has to be in the senate but thats what will give us the most useful information in both public and classified session. Mr. Secretary, i was sitting here thinking i believe the statement you just gave is the clearest most direct bluntest statement i have heard from any administration witness about the importance of congress doing its job, in a way that mr. Smith and i both talked about in our opening statements. You were very clear about crs and the damage they do to the military. Later today, the house is going to vote on an appropriation bill for the department of defense for the rest of the fiscal year. It is consistent with about 700 billion of total spending for our National Defense account. My question to you is, is that bill, that level of funding consistent with the National Defense strategy that you have talked about today . And if for whatever reason that does not that level of resources does not happen, what does that do to the strategy . Chairman, that is sufficient. I would tell you, tier, that with it, we can restore the xfinity advantage or begin down the trail of the competitive advantage that has been eroded. I would tell you without it we would be put into the position where the strategy would have to be changed and we would have to accept greater risk especially in terms of deterring adversaries who might think we are weaker because they can register where our readiness is being eroded. Okay. Let me just ask one other thing in the interest of time so we can get to other members. When you assumed this office there was speculation perhaps that you were a skeptic on some aspects of our Nuclear Triad, our Nuclear Deterrents. You spent a year looking through the Nuclear Posture review, is the result of the study you and the department have put into it. Can you just kind of tell us, what as you have looked at our Nuclear Deterrents, how has your thinking evolved . I dont know if you want to say if you were a skeptic or not at the beginning, but it looks like there was a change or at least some evolution. Why . I think thats a fair statement, chairman. I was confident when i received the waiver from the house and the senate to go into this job, that you expected me to exercise my judgment. I came in wanting to challenge just about everything. I wanted it to be proven to me that we needed to spend every cent, that every time we had a troop in harms way, it was for the wellbeing of the American People. In this case, i looked at the triad piecebypiece and the elements of each leg of the triad. I was especially attentive to the Intercontinental Ballistic Missile force. After talking to a lot of people, visiting the missile fields and doing a lot of study, i believe it is a stabilizing element that would be a strong deterrent to anyone who decided they wanted to employ Nuclear Weapons against us. There was another weapons system i was concerned could be destabilizing. An air launch cruise mitt sill y missile you can see on the chart they have developed and fielded. How do we keep ourselves in a position where this is a Nuclear Deterrent . It has to be the most persuasive in the eye of the adversary. It was a little rough on the staff and those who promoted it at first but i think it was compelling by the time we were done. Thank you. You, mr. Chairman. I think you are quite correct we have entered an era where quite power rivalry is back on the table. Obviously china and russia have become more active in a variety of different ways. What disturbs me in this conversation is i dont believe the great rivalry equals endless arms race, bully when you have a great power rivalry, all that is involved is great military power, you have build as much as you can build and they build and it goes up and up and up. Would you agree, mr. Secretary, there are other elements of dealing with great power rivalry with the state department, the idea of dialogue between us and our adversary is important . Congressman, i would agree 100 and i would pointer out we are not developing nuclear torpedos. Our nation is quite developing of developing new weapons, as you know. Unlike russia, for example, we have chosen not to do that, to give opportunity for our diplomats to do what is recommends. My question is deterrence is also your diplomatic stance, deterrence is dialogue. This is what concerns me, is, yes, we have to be able to deter russia and china from moving forward. Part of the way you deter them, particularly in the nuclear arena, is to have a dialogue, do what Ronald Reagan did with gorbachev and others, not just arms reduction but at least have an open discussion so you dont miscalculate. A lot of what were building into here is were assuming that the russians, gosh, if we dont have low yield Nuclear Weapons the russians will think they can get away with a low yield nuclear strike, part of the way you make sure they dont think that is you let them know, you have a dialogue. Im very concerned right now we dont have much in the way of a dialogue with russia or china. We did get something in the dod bill that we passed this year that would mandate that happening. Wiman date a lot of things the executive branch doesnt do. We need to do that. The larger point, essentially what were presented with, what the chairman has presented we have to cut taxes massively, of course. Weve done that. We have to fund defense. When you go back through those numbers on a 21 trillion debt and 700 deficit growing, we have the massive increase in defense and we had the massive tax cut, you are going to gut Everything Else. Lets forget for moment, our infrastructure, education, things i think are also important to having a just and prosperous society. Defense is important without question. If you gut Everything Else you create problems. Lets focus on security. If we pass this budget that the republicans want to put before us today, the state department will continue to be destroyed, as we all know, career diplomats are leaving, there have been massive cuts in their budget and now were proposing no budget for the state department. Well give them a cr but dont Pay Attention to that whatsoever. It becomes a selffulfilling prophesy. How do we know we have to build massive weapons to deter russia and china. Were not talking to them so we have to presume the worst. Were going to give up on diplomacy and focus on having as many weapons as humanly possible to make sure theyre deterred. Dialogue is incredibly important to deter. Not just dialogue with russia and china. We need allies. If we are in a great power rivalry with russia and china, given our massive debt and chinas economic might, thats going to be a tough hill to climb. We can build a trillion military and it will be hard to match that. We need allies and friends, there are a lot of possibilities, south korea and japan and we still dont have an ambassador for south korea. We are degrading development, an important part of it. This is part of you talk about all the stuff on the chart over there china is doing, one of the biggest things china is doing, theyre spending a ton of money all across the world to try to curry favors with countries and build their own economic might. Theyre doing it in an incredibly crass and terrible way because they dont care what the government does. They wont pull money out of a country because of a human rights violation, they dont care. Theyre doing it, were pulling back. This budget is being proposed, guts, development. Lets talk about the department of Homeland Security, passively important, i would hope, for our National Security. It is part of the nondefense discretionary budget. It, too, will be gutted by this approach. Well just leave it in the wind in the cr because defense takes priority, we do nothing else. The Justice Department has played an enormous role in stopping terrorist attacks and bringing to justice those who have committed them. It, too, gets gutted by this budget. I always bristle a little bit when i hear the how can we hold defense hostage to domestic political priorities, as if those domestic political priorities were some kind of luxury we just engage in for fun and enjoyment and arent really important. All of those things are important. The state department is really important. In fact, i dont think it was you, i think it was your predecessor or someone who said i think it was you if youre going to cut the state department you better give me five more division because thats what im going to need to defend this country. It was either you or general dunford, i apologize. To stand here and say we will spend all this money on defense because it would just be wrong to prioritize other things is patently absurd and insulting. Defense is incredibly important. Its not the only thing important in keeping the peace. This is more speech than a question but i think its important. Youve got to agree there are other things important than keeping the peace and if we do what is being proposed today we say to those other things, they dont matter. Department of Homeland Security doesnt matter. Department of justice doesnt matter, state department doesnt matter, none of that matters. Doesnt that make your job vastly more difficult . That was a question. Congressman smith, i take no issue with the fact that we need to have regular order across all government expenditures. Unfortunately right now what were doing is were creating security vulnerabilities that can no longer be denied. Again, one look at the chart and you can see where were at. We cannot do new starts, we cannot get into cyberprotection of the very things you hold dear because we do not have the ability to do so under continuing resolutions 9 of the last ten years. I dont think theres anything contradictory in the way you and i look at this right now. Secretary tillerson and i have a very close working relationship. Our military operations are wrapped firmly inside our foreign policy. And the president has directed secretary tillerson and i to find ways to engage on nonproliferation and arms control. Right now, we have constant communication with the russians what i call operational matters, counterterrorism, north korea, some are pretty big issues. I agree we need more communication with russia and china along the level i would almost call it philosophical engagement as well as operational matters. I dont think theres anything at all illadvised about making certain the protection of the country is put foremost so the country can do all the other things youre referring to. Foremost is okay. Only, exclusively, while ignoring Everything Else, not okay. Thats what were about to do this afternoon. The only contradictory thing is completely ignore the budget, massively cut taxes and provide defense and act like you provided security for the country. Other people have to get in, i made my point, i appreciate you defending the country, i yield back. For the record i hope we get a complete budget agreement and do it this week for all aspects of the government. We can do that, and we should. Mr. Jones. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to talk about the graveyard of empires. I think thats what they say about afghanistan and the history of afghanistan. Mr. Secretary, a few headlines from the last two weeks. Kabul attacks cloud u. S. Afghan strategy. Why are we still shedding our soldiers blood for pedophiles . Subtitle, the full extent of child Sexual Assault committed by Afghan Security forces may never be known. Another heading. The taliban is gaining strength and territory in afghanistan. Another headline, taliban threatens 70 of afghanistan. Last headline, pentagon blocks release of key data on afghan war. The pentagon has restricted the release of critical information on the progress being made in the war in afghanistan, a move that will limit transparency. In your prepared remarks, you very kindly said, we need to build the trust of the American People. How can we build the trust of the American People after 16 years of 2300 americans killed, over 20,000 wounded and we spent 1 trillion . I dont have to add to mr. Smiths comments, but this country is headed for bankruptcy. Mr. Trump campaigned, i have 30 of his comments and tweets, he was opposed to being in afghanistan. He wanted to pull out, he was very critical of those who wanted to stay. We are now increasing the number of troops in afghanistan, and after 16 years the American People have a right to know the successes. Some of that, im sure, is classified information, which i can understand, but i also know that were not getting the kind of information that we need to get to know what successes were having. After 16 years, i do not think were having any successes. I would love to have a classified hearing. Maybe that will happen in a couple of hours and you would be able to tell us of some benchmarks that we have made after 16 years. A friend of yours is a friend of mine. The former commandant of the marine corps, chuck curlatte has been my official advisor on afghanistan for five years, previous secretary of defenses have gotten questions that asked me to ask during hearings like this one. Not today did get that from him. Three or four years ago you talked about increasing the number of troops in afghanistan, he sent me a five paragraph email. Im certainly only going to read one sentence and then i want to ask you the question. No one has ever conquered afghanistan and many have tried. We will join the list of nations that have tried and failed. Mr. Secretary, how can we, with this budget situation weve got, and the economic collapse in this country, how can we continue to go on a policy after 16 years, when the secretary of defense that follows you and the congressman that follows me or congresswoman, if were still talking about afghanistan in the future and nothing is changing . I think theres got to be a time you would say to President Trump, we have done all we can do. Blood and treasure is lost and we have nothing to show that weve gained except we still have trouble with the leaders of afghanistan having tex with little boys. Dark dark having sex with little boys. Give me a quick response, if you can. Congressman, if we were engaged in conquering afghanistan, i would agree 100 with what you just stated, if that was our sense of empire. In fact, what we are doing to earn the trust of the American People is to insure another 9 11 hatched out of there does not happen during our watch. Further, the strategy we put together and President Trump challenged every assumption. It took months to put it together, answer every question he had and the gravity of protecting the American People caused him to change his mind based on what the Intelligence Services told him was the vulnerability we would have if we pulled out of there. That strategy did permit a more regional approach. It has been embraced by nations as diverse as those in nato and india. We have now we have declined the 39 nations fighting in the nato campaign from 50 years ago. It has gone now 41. It has started growing more allies. Theyre there because they believe in the strategy, which means the afghan boys continue to carry the load for the fighting. But now with advisors that bring the nato and air and fire support to help them. The taliban have not made their pitch to the Afghan People in a positive way by murdering innocent people. They are not incurring the support of the Afghan People, whereas nato does have that support. Its been a long hard slog, and i recognize that. I would also tell you that any attempt to keep information from the American People, it was a nato decision at that point, it was a mistake, i might add, and that information is now available. A number of those headlines obviously are selected by their editors in order to make the story line they have. We believe that the regionalized strategy will draw even more allies and it puts the enemy on the path towards accepting reconciliation. Were not out to conquer it. The time of the gentleman is more than expired. Ill just mention to members, you can ask whatever you want to. If you ask a question for four minutes, leave the secretary less than a minute to offer im not going to cut him off but we wont get very far, if thats the approach. Miss davis. Thank you, mr. Chairman and thank you to both of you for your service and being here this morning. I wanted to associate myself with the Ranking Members comments regarding the whole of government approach that is so critical. I know, secretary mattis, you mentioned, too, we must negotiate from a position of strength so our military capability should be clear and send that message. At the same time we know how long it takes to develop high ranking officers who can provide our country with the best of advice, and we must have that same timeline for the state department and for those individuals that negotiate, whether its in commerce or whatever realm that it is. I wanted to go to the issue of lowering the threshold in terms of Nuclear Capability. There is a question, whether or not the Nuclear Posture review is clear on what it considers to be lowering the threshold versus some of the comments i think general selva made, that it is possible to modernize Nuclear Capability, at the same time, lower that threshold, as its perceived by our adversaries. Can you speak to that more because i think were all concerned about the russian doctrine to deescalate. Where are we and how can we make that clear to the American People . I think part of it can be addressed through the continuity of the Nuclear Deterrent. I never say nuclear, Nuclear Deterrent strategy and how we manage it and how we talk about it. If you look at the 20 ten Nuclear Posture review, in which it said we would only use Nuclear Weapons in extreme circumstances, i would defer to 2018, where we say in the most extreme circumstances would we use those weapons. You see the continuity between two different administration, two different Political Parties for the president , and in regards to the lower yield weapon, its to make certain no one thinks they can use a low yield weapon and put us in a position we can only respond with a high yield weapon with the supposition that maybe we would not. We can say what we know we would but what matters in deterrence is what does the adversary think . In this regard, deterrence is dynamic and todays deterrence must keep pace with the thinking of todays adversaries or competitors. Could you respond with the belief that a Nuclear Weapon is a Nuclear Weapon and were using a Nuclear Weapon and perhaps even changing the rules of the game . I would agree. I dont think theres any such thing as a tactical Nuclear Weapon. Any Nuclear Weapon used any time is a strategic game changer. That said, we dont want someone else to miscalculate and think because theyre going to use a lowyield weapon somehow we would confront what dr. Kissinger calls surrender or suicide. We do not want even an inch of daylight appear in how we look at the Nuclear Deterrent. It is a Nuclear Deterrent and must be considered credible. Thank you. General selva as well looking at the modernization cost, cost is that something given the whole scope of whats needed in terms of our Defense Budget that makes sense today . My response is, yes, it does make sense. It makes sense in the context were talking across about a 40year time span, cost of about 700 million to modernize the three legs of the triad to make available to future secretaries of defense and commanders in chief, a credible secure reliable Nuclear Triad that allows those individuals 20 or 30 years into the future, to be able to taylor strategic responses as well as support the possibility of negotiating away entire types and classes of weapons. That process will have to continue over a long time span. The arsenal and weapons we have today are ready, secure and credible but they must be modernized over the span of time to keep those options available to our commanders in chief. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Wilson. Secretary mattison, selva, thank you so much for your service, in being here today. I appreciate what youre doing, as a veteran myself but particularly as the grateful dead, i have had four sons and a nephew serve overseas in iraq, afghanistan, egypt, army, navy, air force. Im grateful for your service and leadership. Its reassuring as a military parent. Secretary mattis, your Nuclear Posture review, mpr recommends the u. S. Develop two supplement Nuclear Capabilities, first a low yield submarine ballistic missill and second, a sea launch Cruise Missile. Why are these needed for assurance and deterrence. Some are arguing they lower the threshold for the u. S. To use Nuclear Weapons . Do you agree its to increase or decrease the likelihood of a nuclear war and why should we need a low yield sbm when we already have a low yield Nuclear Gravity bomb. Are these Nuclear Capabilities redundant . Congressman, i dont believe it lowers the threshold at all. It makes very clear we have a deterrent. If the russians choose to carry out what some of their doctrine people have promoted, their political leaders have promoted, which would be to employ a lowyield Nuclear Weapon in a conventional fight to escalate, to deescalate. To escalate to victory and then deescalate. We want to make sure they recognize we can respond in kind. We dont have to go with a high yield weapon. Thats the deterrent weapon stays primary. It is not to in any way lower the threshold to use Nuclear Weapons. On the sealaunched Cruise Missile, as you know, we have an ungoing issue with russias violation of the inf. I want to make certain that our negotiators have something to negotiate with. That we want russia back into compliance. We do not want to forego the inf. But same, we have options if russia continues to go down this path. So the idea, once again, to keep our negotiates negotiating from a position of strength i dont believe you can go into a negotiation and try to get something for nothing. I dont think the russians would be willing to give up something to gain nothing from us in terms of reduction. If theres any negotiation i certainly have faith in your capabilities and we look forward to working with you. Another issue thats so important, and, mr. Secretary, needs to be restated over and over. You referenced it in your opening statement, is there any stronger indication of congresss resolve, any action with better deterrent value to peer competitors than repealing the budget control act sequestration and supporting our military with quality reliable funding . With adequate reliable funding . No, there is not. It would send the most stabilizing message that this democracy will stand up for itself. The issue chairman thornberry has been leading on is to address our readiness issue. Were here two days from another Government Shutdown, can you tell in your view if congress does not do its part to turn this crisis around, can we expect to see further impacts to the military should we anticipate more tragic accidents, as we saw in the pacific this year with fitzgerald and mccain . Congressman, we are doing Everything Possible to avoid any such repeat of those accidents, however, there are a number of areas where, when time is lost, if you have pilots who are not taking in their flying time now, five years from now, when theyre majors or Lieutenant Colonels they will not have the level of expertise we would expect because they did not get the opportunity that they lost during continuing resolutions or during budget shutdowns, governmental shutdowns. It impacts us. Its not like we maintain even the status quo if we go into one of these kind of situations yet again. We actually lose ground. I can go on to a number of examples in all of the forces. Thank you both for your service. You, mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary and general selva, thank you for your service and for your testimony here today. I also want to associate myself with the comments of the Ranking Member when it comes to taking a whole of government approach to funding our National Security priorities as well. I want to turn to another aspect of security challenge that faces our country today. Mr. Secretary, its an accepted fact our planets climate is changing. You acknowledge this yourself to our committee and youve shown leadership in this regards submitting at your confirmation hearing you will i quote ensure the department continues to be prepared to conduct operations today and into the future and we are prepared to address the effects of a changing climate on our threat assessments, resources and readiness. I want to commend you for those statements. However, both the president s National Security strategy and the departments National Defense strategy failed to note Climate Change as a threat. Im perplexed by that and certainly ask why was that omitted. As these changes occur, how will you insure the department is prepared to respond . What steps will the department take to mitigate the challenges of a changing land and seascape to insure Americas Mission resiliency and assurance . Congressman, on a military level, every base we have has what we call extreme weather plans. We acknowledge any kind of Environmental Impact from the weather, whatever drainage system we need to keep that base operating, airports, seaports, marshaling bases for deployment. This is a normal part of what the military does. Under any strategy it is part and parcel. I still find it perplexing it was left out of the National Defense strategy. But general selva, let me turn to part of your testimony, i might take issue with one part of it, you say Nuclear Weapons pose the only exceptional threat to our nation. I would add cyber and military threat to our nation as well. In your assessment to you and the secretary, how well resourced and trained are our forces to deal with the threats of cybersecurity . Congressman, weve established u. S. Cyber command as the bulwark for the military networks we operate on in order to be able to defend the nation. Cyber consultation with the National Security Administration Provides for some cyb security for Critical Infrastructure around the country. My point in saying Nuclear Weapons represent the only military existential threat is they would be used for military purposes to threaten us and cause us to capitulate or surrender in the face of a military threat. Theres no question cyber is an asymmetric capability and we have civilian infrastructure and we will continue to do the work of normalizing our ability to defend those and provide the kinds of advice we can through the National Security agency as well the department of justice and department of Homeland Security to defend those networks. Do you feel our training is meeting its expectations where we need to be at this time to deal with our cyber challenges . Sir, collaboration between the military capabilities to defend our net works and department of Homeland Security justice and nsa to defend national networks, the training is as good as we can possibly make it and were reacting to the threats we can see. Interstate strategic competition instead of terrorism is the National Security concern. Its also also notes our eroding competitive military advantage should diplomacy and deterrents fail. While i agree we must increase our military edge in todays conflict today, theyre launching Political Economic and informational Cyber Operations targeting us. Where do you believe we are with respect to our competitive advantage in these activity that do not rise to the level of article conflict. Where do you think we should go to raise our proficiencies in these areas . It is a great question, sir because this is what i was alluding to that we have potential to enlarge the competitive space in the areas youre talking about. We have to remember we are a revolutionary acty this country, the kind of accuracy we stand for. You can practice all the predatory economics you want, send your military into syria to prop up a despot, if you wish to, but the fact is we have areas of diplomacy, education that go far beyond what other nations can reach back and find strength in. We can use that to build modern partnerships. In other words, not abandon our traditional partnership, nato, for example, but certainly expand to a broader array of partners today that do not want to be made tribute states to someone elses economic or political system. Thank you both. I yield back. Mr. Turner. 92 thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you both for being here. Mr. Secretary, thank you for your strong statements here today. I have two thank yous and a question and i will yield the remainder of my time to mr. Gallagher. The chairman is in tough time constraints so everybody can ask a question. Thank you for your strong statements on the budget. I voted against the budget control act because i believe sequestration would be damaging to our military and it would happen. Certainly, everyone on this committee has fought ever since its been implemented to try to lift that burden on our military. Your strong words are important to let people know the real effects of you. Its real sad you have sections of congressional inaction. The house has not really been inactive. We passed a budget and appropriation bills three times and will do it again. We really are dealing with a handful of those in the senate causing inaction and i call on democratic leadership in the senate to dislodge the defense funding for the military because of the various reasons youre giving us of damage occurring by connecting defense funding to other items. Secondly, i want to thank you for your strong words in the Nuclear Posture review, we know were coming off the 20 ten obama Nuclear Posture review thad assigned the responsibility of reducing the role of u. S. Weapons and u. S. Nuclear strategy while at the same time giving the responsibility to modernize. Its very hard to reduce and at the same time to modernize. Your chart says those who say we need to reduce our weapons or modernization because others will follow is folly. Our reducing our Nuclear Weapons does not result in anyone else doing so. It is not based in reality or history. On your chart, you say air launched on the f 35. Thats on paper currently, thats not accomplished and i look forward to working with you on that. You indicated the inf treaty is continuing to be violated by russia and were continuing dialogue and we know they violated it with ukraine, the open skies treaty and conventional forces in europe. How do we approach their violation of the inf in dialogue when they show know indication treaties even matter to them . Sir, ive had extensive discussions with our nato allies and secretary general at nato on this issue. I made clear our approach is we do not want to withdraw from inf. We have to see efforts by russia to get back in line with it. This is state department is engaged on this with the russians, as we speak right now. Also, we are going to stay inside the inf compliant requirements, but we are going to do research and development of an alternative weapon that should put russia in a position to see the value to returning to being inf compliant. I yield, mr. Gallagher. Thank you, mr. Secretary for your tough words and hard work on the National Defense strategy and particularly focusing on Great Power Competition as we try to operationalize that focus. Im particularly concerned with consequences where we might need to shift our thinking. You endorsed the risk review modernization act and talked about chinas Veto Authority over other nations economic decisions. Why in your review is this legislation and hard look needed . Sir, we have made very keen offerings of the amount of intellectual property basically, industrial espionage has been rifled through in our country. What are the most critical National Security that we may need to deepen to have available whether silicon valley, seattle or elsewhere in the country. General selva, what concerns do you have from a military advice perspective on industrial chain and Critical Technology given our Industrial Base and given current practices and authorities. The supply chain of the Industrial Base speaks to timeliness of the in actions that allow us to supply, train and deploy our military forces. The notion we wouldnt invest in countries that allow us to mobilize our force is folly. The refinement and renewal of the powers within the capabilities to determine who is doing that investing and for what reason but us in a position of being able to understand the potential vulnerabilities of those investments. Thank you for your time. Mr. Secretary, i couldnt help but notice earlier, i think i heard you say we need the slbm in order to have democracy stand up for itself, i think that was your response to a question. Youre not suggesting if either one of us dont support it were not standing up for our democracy . That would never be the way i characterized someones vote, sir . Thank you. So you also argued that in the Nuclear Posturing review, it provides a bargaining chip in dealing with inf treaty violations of the russians, do i have that correct . Thats correct. Is it a logical extension then if we saw a change in russian behavior the administration would stop the development of the either one or both . I dont want to say in advance of a negotiation and undercut our negotiates position what we would or would not do. The point i would make is deterrence is dynamic. We have to deal with it as it stands today, as we see it on the chart. In that regard i believe we have to give our negotiators something to negotiate. Do you have any indication there would be a change in russian we hifr with the development of either one of these . I can only tell you we go into this with capabilities to make sure the russians understand we have a deterrent capability, its based on not just the two nations but the broader deterrent portfolio as well. Does the u. S. Currently have the ability to deliver a nonStrategic Nuclear weapon, Nuclear Response without this investment . Have the ability to deliver that without this investment . Are you referring to a sealaunched Cruise Missile . No. Im talking about the delivery of a nonStrategic Nuclear response. That wouldnt i would be cautious about saying any Nuclear Weapon is nonstrategic. If you mean a lowyield, yes, we do. Whats the difference between that capability and, say a sea launch . The gravity bomb that is the lowyield means the bomber would have to penetrate, but today air Defense Systems recovery all together different than ten or 20 years ago. Is there any investment going on encounter air defense to deal with that or is the development of a new capability the only solution . No, sir. We are certainly working on air defense penetration capability. But, again, we have to deal with where were at today. We are working on the issue. Yes. Kind of where were at question gets something im not going to bore you with the details because well probably get to it in subcommittee hearings but the cbo estimate of 1 1. 2 trillion over 30 years i think the department would say for the Nuclear Modernization the department would say is only or merely 6. 4 of the budget when it was much higher in the past. I dont know if that means the rest of the Defense Budget is out of control and this one is under control or we dont have an accounting what that 1. 2,trillion is and were looking at an mpr that assumes Additional Development capabilities i presume would be on cop of this current cbo estimate. You can maybe address that briefly, but were going to have plenty of time over the next couple of months to explore the money question a big concern of all of ours. Can you tell us about the assurance since Nuclear Deterrence is partly deterrence of allies can you talk about lowyield Nuclear Weapon or response from nato allies at this point . Sir, we engaged in extensive consultation with our nato allies. I was on the phone this morning with one of or counterparts and she expressed the deep appreciation for her country and the amount that went into the Nuclear Posture review. The deterrence posture we have and have outlined in the posture review has gained a great deal of support from our allies. I get changes for collaboration all the time and people then work against me. Im just wondering has nato yet taken a position . Ill follow up with you later on that. Thanks a lot. Thank you for your attendance and service to the country. The last Nuclear Posture review published eight years ago said quote russia is not an enemy and is increasingly a partner close quote. At that time there were many of us on that committee certainly russia continues to brazenly violate the inf treaty. Continues to conduct dangerous exercises against the United States, nato allies and regional partners and continues a military occupation of territory. Finally china declares china clearly demands recognition as regional gatekeeper and influence. With that backdrop, secretary mattis how would you characterize the changes we have seen and how are you recommending we adapt our Nuclear Poster and policies. I believe what weve seen is that russia and china from as you point out ukraine to mucking around in our elections in the case of democratic election, in the case of russia, to chinas militarization of the south china sea, we have seen them choose to become strategic competitors with us vice what we one time hoped would be some level of partnership. Do you believe that the six or seven percent of our Defense Budget that we are devoting to the Nuclear Enterprise is an adequate level of spending to fund our nations number one priority Defense Mission . I do believe it is. Theres about 2029 and we believe that would go into a more measured maintenance of what we had built, the colombia class, b 21. This sort of thing. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. You noted we are a resilient joint force in regards to our Forward Deployed forces. I am concerned regarding the u. S. Navys ability to remain resilient during conflict with the peer adversary. Specifically with level ship repair capability in the pacific. In the review the navy identified capacity issues. At the ship repair facility in japan. The fy 2018 ndaa section 47 requires the secretary of the navy to submit a report on the ship depo maintenance capability in the western pacific. It further requires the secretary to defense to congressional defense committees whether or not the depo maintenance ship capability and capacity including dry docks in the western pacific are sufficient to meet both peacetime and contingency requirements. So my question is where is the department in terms the of meeting these requirements and how are you going about determining if there is sufficient capability and capacity . Counselwoman, where were at right now is we are examining the sufficient of it in terms of raw capacity, anticipated need if we go into conflict, and the distribution over a number of locations for obvious reasons. So right now we are still in the assessment. We know what we have right now, but for the future is where were concentrating the study. Ill make certain the secretary of the navy follows up on this as we get more mature in our output. Thank you, mr. Secretary. The next question is the people of guam are proud to host the presence. One leg of the Nuclear Triad with the recent addition of b 2 and b52 bombers. Considering the bomber presence and as the western most territory of the United States, guam holds vital strategic bases and im happy to see the department place a thad system to aide in its defense. However, in your strategy you call on missile threats from north korean defense. Considering strategic importance is guam adequately defended from theater missile threats and how do you intend to bolster these Defense Systems in the future. We will continue bolstering them to keep pace with the threat out of north korea, as you know besides the that side system, maam, we also keep the Ballistic Missile defense u. S. Navy warship in the waters out there. We can always reinforce that. We also have several of those ships in japanese waters right now. And they can move back and forth to include guam to the mobile way that comes to our navy. We are looking at all the system to include the shore as we look towards the future protection of our pacific area. Thank you, mr. Secretary. I think weve talked about this. Just keep guam in a secure position and keep all the bombers and Everything Else you have there for a while, anyway. And i thank you again. And i yield that mr. Chairman. Votes have come early. We dont have time to get two more members in, so as soon as votes are completed on the floor, we will come back and be in classified session up in 2212. At this point, the open hearing is adjourned. Good to see you, sir. New york republican congressman john faso on gun control. Then tom heart of the one campaign. Will discuss efforts to combat extreme poverty and the effect of President Trumps proposed budget cuts. Be sure to watch c span washington journal live at 7 00 a. M. Eastern tuesday morning. Join the discussion. Tonight on cspan three, a discussion. Then landmark cases. Sch solidified the governments ability to take actions, not explicitly mentioned in the constitution. And after that Veterans Affairs secretary David Shulkin talks about priorities of the agency at National Governors Association Winter meeting. Earlier this month t Nonprofit Organization represent us hosted a summit in new orleans to discuss Campaign Issues and finance process. One focused on president ial elections and included people advocating for a National Popular vote to replace the electoral college. This is just under an hour