Reports that the cfpb was asleep at the wheel. Cspan programs are available at www. Cspan. Org, on our home page and by searching the video library. Now another hear on the president s 2018 budget request. He joined other pentagon officials last week to testify before the House Armed Services committee on Strategic Forces. Some of the questions focused on the intercepter Missile Defense test. It runs just over an hour. Good evening. I want to welcome everybody to our hearing this afternoon. I want to welcome everybody to the hearing today. Fiscal year 2018 Missile Defense programs and activities. We have an esteemed group of witnesses with us today. Mr. Todd harvey, acting assistant secretary of defense for strategy plans and capabilities. Vice admiral james syring, u. S. Navy director Missile Defense agency. Lieutenant general james dickinson. Integrated Missile Defense and Commander ArmyStrategic Forces command. And mr. Barry pike who has the best accent on the panel. Is Program Executive officer Army Missiles and space. And before i get started, i want to take the chairmans prerogative for a minute. For almost 37 years vice admiral syring has served his country in uniform. Member of the subcommittee are most familiar with him as director of the Missile Defense agency which he has led since november of 2012. I remember the problems with the prior leadership of mda and the devastating impact in 2012. That has all changed under the admirals leadership. I think theres no better testament than the recent Midcourse Defense System test against an icbm class target. With everything going on in the world, this success sends a powerful and unmistakable signal to allies and adversaries alike that we will defend ourselves from the threat of Ballistic Missile attack. We thank you for your service and very much hope its not complete yet. With that, because we were called for votes, were on a shorter timeline. Im going to dispense with my Opening Statement and yield to my friend and colleague from tennessee for any Opening Statement he may have. Thank you. I would like to add my praise for admiral syring. For his wonderful career so far in the military. We hope it continues. I also want to ask unanimous consent to put my statement into the record so we can get on with the hearing. Without objection, so ordered. What i would ask so well have time for questions and also time to go into the classified section is ask each witness to try to summarize their statement in three or four minutes, if they could. The full statement will be admitted to the record without objection. First well start with mr. Todd harvey. Youre recognized for summary of your testimony. Thank you, sir. Chairman rogers, Ranking Member cooper, members of the subcommittee, thank you for opportunity to testify in the priorities and posture missile defeat programs and activities in the defense departments efforts to sustain our homeland capability so we remain ahead of the threat and provide effective inoperable regional Missile Defense capability. The u. S. Homeland is currently protected by the ground base Midcourse Defense System. Improving the capacity effective to the system is one of our highest priorities. The president s Budget Proposal for 2018 would fund the long range discrimination radar, help lay the ground work for new radar in hawaii. Would continue funding advance discrimination Sensor Technology and spacebased kill assessment programs. We remain on track to complete the deployment of remaining interceptors in alaska to bring the total to 44 this year. Were also bolstering our defenses against advance Cruise Missiles. From a regional standpoint, the president s fy2018 budget request also continues the deployment of Missile Defenses tailored to threats in europe, middle east, asia pacific region. In europe were continuing to implement the european phase and working in close collaboration with our nato allies to develop sensors and interceptors. President s budget request also supports the aegis system that will be deployed in poland in the 2018 time frame. Nato allies have committed to spend more than a billion dollars on Missile Defense command and control. And many are improving their national bmd capabilities. Asia pacific, our forced posture includes bmd capable ships and patriot batteries deployed in japan and south korea. And the recent deployment of thaad to south korea. We also maintain robust Missile Defense presence in the middle east including land and sea based assets deployed in the defense of four forward located forces and those of our allies and partners. This is in addition to build capacity for the counterparts that contribute to the ability to defend themselves. We must continue to look ahead. Which means assuring there are strategies that address the most dangerous threats we confront while positions ourselves to respond to emerging threats over the next decade. On january 27th of this year, the president directed the secretary of defense to initiate a new ballistic Missile Defense review to identify Missile Defense capabilities in the face of rapidly growing missile threats. The bmdr will be informed by the administration determination to develop state of the art Missile Defense system, to defend the homeland and our regional interest. We expect to complete it this fall. It will complement the report mandated by the fy2017 ndaa. The department of defense continues to develop systems to protect vital u. S. National security interests. We intend to stay ahead of the Cruise Missile developments, sea capabilities to lower cost per intercept and defeat emerging ballistic and Cruise Missile threats. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. Look forward to your questions. I thank you. The chair now recognizes admiral syring. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today. Ill submit my written statement for the record. In lieu of an Opening Statement, i request permission to play the video from the test last week. We would love to see that. I will narrate as this goes since its unnarrated. Give the committee an idea of what was accomplished last week. Test was conducted on the 30th of may out in the pacific. Heres a blue water chart that depicts the test construct. The Ground Base Interceptor of fired from Vandenburg Air force base. It was tracked on wake island and the sbx in the northwest pacific. Giving the irpt scepter solution to vandenburg to intercept a quadrant in the Marshall Islands. The red indicates the target flyout and the green indicates the gbi from vandenberg. Heres a picture of the target lifting off from the atoll in the Marshall Islands, 5,000 miles away from the coast of california. This is the longest range target that weve ever flown. The highest altitude and the highest closing velocity for an intercept. This was done with countermeasures. Next youll see a picture of the groundbased interceptor launch from Vandenburg Air force base out of a test silo that is completely production representative of the actual silos at vandenburg, but this is what we test out of. The gbi is production representative of the block ones that will be fielded to fill out the 44 gbis by the end of this calendar year. What youll see next is the sensor view of the kill vehicle, which is separated from the gpi and what the kill vehicle saw in space. This is actual live data from the test. What you see in red is the warhead from the target. And what you see in green is its tank thats flying alongside because in space everything flies at the same velocity. You see the kill vehicle focused on the red warhead and eventually dropping out the other debris in the scene. What you see next is the kill vehicle in acquisition and terminal. Thats an actual picture of the reentry vehicle that was destructed beyond recognition. What youll see here is another infrared picture of the booster and the target warhead with the booster of the gbi flying by literally a second before the kill vehicle killed the target warhead. We had four or five different sensors strewn across the pacific to validate what you just saw. That was not a simulation. That was live data played back from the test. With that, sir, i stand ready for your questions. Outstanding. Thank you very much. Lieutenant general dickinson, youre recognized. Chairman rogers, Ranking Member cooper, and other distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for your continued support of our soldiers, civilians, and their families. This is my initial appearance before this subcommittee and it is indeed an honor to testify before you today to discuss the importance of Missile Defense to our nation and the need to maintain these capabilities in the face of a threat as we all know that continues to grow in both capacity and capability. Today i want to briefly summarize the missions of the organizations i represent. First, space and Missile Defense command or smdc, Army Forces Strategic command rstrat. Which serve as a force provide ner support of our combatant commanders. Our six lines of effort are to number one, protect the homeland. Provide combatready space and Missile Defense professionals, plans synchronized and integrate global operations. Produce or adopt leap ahead concepts and technologies. Preserve an account for the nations critical resources. And promote and foster a positive command climate. Our six lines of effort apply not only to the Missile Defense but also to army space. The army has more than 4,000 military and civilian space cad re that provide continuous spacebased capabilities and support to the war fighter from 22 different locations and 11 different time zones around the world. Within smdcrstrat, concepts they develop space and Missile Defense concepts, requirements and doctrine, provide training to the army space cadray and executes space and Missile Defense development. I also represent the joint force Component Command for integrated Missile Defense. Or jfccimd. Which supports strategic demand in integrating and synchronizing our global Missile Defense operations. For example, today we have approximately 300 fulltime National Guard soldiers located in colorado springs, colorado, alaska, and Vandenberg Air force base, california, who operate the groundbased Missile Defense system. It represents the nations only defense against intercontinental Ballistic Missile attack. These professionals execute a strategically Important Mission 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. They refer to themselves as 300 soldiers protecting the 300 million. Additionally in support of u. S. Strats con, they execute the following tasks. Synchronizing National Level planning, supporting ongoing operations, integrating training exercises, test activities globally, providing recommendations on high Missile Defense resources and advocating for future capabilities. As reported the missile threat continues to grow both in terms of numbers and sophistication. We as a nation must maintain our current Readiness Posture and continue to increase our capabilities to address future threats. Finally id like to highlight the challenges we face today cannot be addressed without the dedication of our greatest asset. Our people. Service members, civilians, contractors and their families those stationed at home as well as those globally deployed, provide support to the army and joint war fighter each and every day. We remain committed to providing trained and ready soldiers, civilians to operate and pursue advancements in space and Missile Defense capabilities for the nation. This committees continued support of Missile Defense operations and the men and women who develop and deploy our systems is essential. Again, i appreciate the opportunity to discuss our missile capabilities and i look forward to addressing your questions. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Pike, youre recognized. Thank you, sir. Chairman rogers, Ranking Member cooper, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, im honored to appear before you to testify on Missile Defense and to thank you for your continued support of our people. Support to our war fighters and their readiness remains our number one priority. I lead the Material Development production fielding and sustainment support for assigned missile and Space Systems for the army. This includes the centralized management of army air and Missile Defense, long range precision fires, close combat, and aviation Missile Systems as well as designated space programs. In todays complex dynamic volatile security environment, army air and Missile Defense is a key strategic enabler. As such our focus continues to be on providing war fighting Solutions Across the operational spectrum. We accomplish this by working with other military departments, the Missile Defense agency, the defense command, to support joint integrated air and Missile Defense capabilities. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member cooper and members of the subcommittee, i look forward to addressing your questions. I thank all the witnesses for their statements. Ill recognize myself first for questions. Admiral syring, we have seen at least 78 Ballistic Missile tests by north korea since kim jongun came to power. More than 60 of these are assessed to be successes. It appears he has had success with solid fuel Ballistic Missiles, including those launched by submarines and on the ground and he may have recently shown that he can build a reentry vehicle. In an unclassified setting, i have to ask, does this budget request allow us to remain paced ahead of the threat and second, if we fully fund your request and it remains at the same funding, less than 8 billion a year, of which increasing amount of procurement, not reach and development, will we continue to stay ahead of the threat or is it moving faster than we are . Sir, with the work of this committee and others and the support of congress, i would not say we are comfortably ahead of the threat. I would say we are addressing the threat that we know today. And the advancements in the last six months have caused great concern to me and others in the advancement of and demonstration of technology, Ballistic Missiles from north korea. It is incumbent upon us to assume that north korea today can range the United States with an icbm carrying a nuclear warhead. Everything that we are doing plans for that contingency. And in addition to looking ahead to what might be developed what is possible over the next five to ten years. In an open setting to the extent that you can, would you characterize what north korea has been doing for the last six months . They have been not only testing at an alarming rate in violation of international law, but demonstrating technology that feeds development of longer range missiles and more capable missiles as well. Can you discuss your timeline for developing and deploying the lrdr . How long will the mda take to do that and from acquirement finalization to deployment . From the specific requirement of when lrdr was developed, it was back in 2014 and we were under contract in late 2015 if i get the timeline correct. And we will ioc it to the war fighter in late 2020. Okay. With that i will yield to the Ranking Member for his opening questions. Thank you, mr. Chairman. In view of the lateness of the hearing and large number of members who are here, i would defer my questions for the classified portion of the hearing. Chair now recognizes gentleman from arizona, mr. Francs for five minutes. Thanks, mr. Chairman. And admiral syring, everybody said it but i hope you know my name is on the list of those who honor and revere your commitment to this country and your service. Admiral syring, has mda completed the inventory objective for both the sm31b, and the 2a . So there is not a stated inventory objective. But i know what the navy is thinking it should be. And we are not close to that. When do you think this objective or this when do you think we could achieve that objective . At the production rate of ill just mr. Franks, ill plan for 48 to 50 a year. Itll be within the next four to five years. You know, sometimes its important for us to understand how much oversight mda receives in executive branch and legislative branches. Sometimes its an enormous burden on you but id like to ask you to detail how many meetings, rfis, and paperwork is involved at mda for these oversight processes. Can i give you a qualitative answer . Yes, sir. A lot. We are under a tremendous amount of oversight. And answer many questions from many different organizations on the dement of Missile Defense technology and capability. Well, given that its a lot, for all of this work, how many recommendations did gao have in its fy16 report . There were three or four. If you parse one. Ill say four for the record. And how many of those were validated by dod . We didnt agree with three of the four. Three of the four. So how about the fy15 report . Im not going to pursue this much longer. I dont recall any specific recommendations from that report. So how much oversight would mba have if we made the bmds accountability report and the gao mandate biannual and altinated when they were submitted and how could the agency better focus on the mission if we did that . I want to start by saying that we given the oversight responsibility, we have a constructive relationship with gao. I dont want to impugn them in any way. We work closely with them. To answer your question directly, i think a biannual report would be more than sufficient in terms of their oversight responsibility. Let me shift gears on you here. How long do you think it will be before the gmd system has operational spares to maintain 44 gbis at all times. Itll be post2020 when we have a redesign kill vehicle available for procurement. And i know you need to pull gbis from the ground for the rkv recapitalization of the ce1 interceptors, is that correct . Thats correct, sir. How can we ensure we dont fall below that 44 gbis in placed the calendar year in fy18 . In fy18, the department made a down payment on solving that problem with 150 million to go towards two silos and six boosters. Two silos additionally up in ft. Greeley. And therell be a tale to that in fy19 and out to complete that work. But the departments taken steps to address that shortfall where if that were funded and supported by congress this year and when the Department Funds the tail, plans will be in place to not dip below 44 for any length of time. That means youll start buying gbis again to add to our inventory when . We will buy boosters, sir, starting this year, and we will buy the silo materials starting this year as well. Mr. Chairman, thats all i have. Just again, thank you for your service. Thank you, sir. I thank the gentleman. Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from california, ms. Davis. Thank you mr. Chairman and i appreciate you all being here. This is one of the ive been on this subcommittee now for a few months and so i havent had a chance to work with all of you. I wonder if we could go back just to the gao report for a second. Though admiral, because we have certainly focused on improving our Acquisition Strategies, been great concerns about that as you well know. And certainly the gao report that recently came out looking at 16 suggested that the fact that you didnt agree with at least three of those recommendations was perhaps somewhat telling and they were looking for more agreement with that. So could you please share with us why, in fact, you werent in agreement with at least three of those. And i know they did overlap to a certain extent. Could you speak to us a little bit about that . Because, you know, were trying to figure out why not implement some of those . A lot of them had to do more with transparency, i believe, and the comments that were made were, well, you know, well take a look at this. But it was a little bit of a dismissal. Help us out with that, please. Maam, the history quickly is we in the past have up to this point agreed with most if not all of gao recommendations. So its not a matter of we never agreed. We just felt strongly department felt strongly in a couple of different areas. One was the recommendation that the cape approve Acquisition Strategies. The cape is a Voting Member on Acquisition Strategies to the under secretary of defense. For acquisition technology. So their vote is heard in that forum. But the acquisition of strategy approval is the responsibility of the former mr. Kendall position in terms of approving Acquisition Strategies for not only me but other parts of the department. And we the department felt that that was not in the capes area. The other point the other example was on cost modeling and schedule modeling. We have a very detailed test schedule tool that we use to plan tests and to forecast tests. We also are use a detailed cost model to roll out tests. Where i would agree with one part of their assessment is that there is more fidelity that could be applied specifically in different parts of the test. But we, i think, have done a tremendous job given the budgetary pressures which has pressurized the test program, frankly, over the last four or five years in replanning and conducting tests. I would note that they said in fy16, we delivered 100 of the capability that was planned. So those are just two areas i wouldnt say of firm disagreement, maam. But we had other methods to get at where their recommendation was coming out. So the fact they may have said there were challenges in meeting the test schedule, you think, was perhaps i recognize there is challenges every year in meeting the test schedule. If there can be more fidelity applied to that process, were certainly going to provide that. Thank you, i appreciate that. And while we celebrate the tests that you shared with us that i think we all really do feel good about that, i also know that it was somewhat under perfect conditions, if you will. You might want to challenge that. But i think that it was out of better conditions than perhaps we would face under a crisis. And so how do we really i think respond to the American People that are looking to see whether or not the dollars that are being spent under these endeavors compared to what we need to do in realtime deployment make sense . Maam, let me if i can just have a point of discussion on that. Then ill turn it over to general dickinson who is the war fighter responsible for the actual execution of the test which the soldiers did. We have to plan tests ahead of time. We have to announce tests ahead of time, because of the air corridors that we go across. It was a 5,000 mile test and weve got to clear the aircraft, clear the ships from the area so there has to be a notification on when the test is going to be conducted. The scenario we conducted was actually an exact replica of the scenario this country would face if north korea were to fire a Ballistic Missile against the United States. We have tippy two radars in japan, we have a radar in alaska and a homeland Defense System in alaska as well. So what we did was move that area south and put a tippy on the island. A radar northwest of hawaii. And shot an intercepter out of vandenburg, which just, you know, a thousand or 2,000 miles south replicated what the war fighter would face in realty time. The scenario was executed by war fighters on console. And the way the information flowed after the launch of the target is exactly the same way the information would flow upon a launch of a north korean Ballistic Missile. It would be detected by the overhead sensors, pass it to the radars in japan, pass it to the radar in alaska, develops the weapons task plan in alaska, to shoot an interceptor to defeat that threat. I would actually argue the scenario that we conducted was maybe more operationally realistic than not. Gentlemans time expired. We only fired one intercepter and the war fight ner a realworld scenario would fire more than one. Were going to have to get a classified briefing in before we get called for votes. Trying to keep everybody on schedule. Mr. Hunter is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Lets go to hawaii. And first, i think this is the existential threat that america faces right now. And youre dealing with it. Youre doing gods work. Lets talk about hawaii. Lets see. Does the program youre talking about you asked for 21 million for new hawaii ballistic Defense Missile radar or the equivalent by 2021. Does what youre talking about is that what youre going to have there opposed to just the sbx . Yes, sir. Okay. Second question, have you looked at and i know other people have so specifically mda, have you looked at using sm3 block twos for the north Korean Missile threat . Yes. Weve done the analysis and looked at that extensively. Can you speak to that now or wait until the next hearing . I can speak to it, sir. There is inherit capability to in the sm32 a to engage longer range threats in terms of what we believe the design space is. We have not tested against that longer range threat. But analysis indicates that that could add another layer of defense to hawaii. In that video, where were you shooting at in the u. S. . Where was the target . Target was on meck island in the Marshall Islands and the intercepter was fired from vandenburg in l. A. No, im saying where were you aiming the fake icbm in the u. S. Towards the west coast. Towards san diego or los angeles . I wont say san diego. Right. How high would it have to be for Alaska Alaska to pick that up and not the sbx . If you would have translated that scenario north, that scenario would have been picked up by the alaska radar. San francisco or higher or something . That the construct that i described protects the entire continental United States. So lets go to the sbx. In 2020 its going to have to go dry dock, right . Yes, sir. So youre talking about building an actual radar on kauai, right . In the state of hawaii. Okay. So not the Pacific Missile Range facility . That is one option. We havent decided on location. There are six or seven locations were looking at. Does the navy not want to do it there . The the navy understands the need for the radar and were working closely with them on what operational restrictions would have to be in place. But you basically have to have this done by 2020 . We do. Right. Okay. So i guess my next question is if you do it anywhere in hawaii, the Pacific Missile Range facility excluded, are you going to have to go through an Environment Impact study . Yes. Im from california. Okay . I mean, camp pendelton was basically closed down to marine corps assault from the ocean because of fairy shrimp in the sand where they did an assault and walked on the hard ball around the actual beach, then they could proceed with their assault. Do you think you have the right time frame in mind . If you have to do an eis. The time frame with an eis would be challenging. Is there any way to get around doing an eis . For reasons of National Security. And you would do an Environmental Assessment . Correct. And comes from osd . Thats correct. Okay so you could say because of National Security and pressing existential threat to the United States reasons, we can bypass that . That is my recollection of the options we have. Do you have to use an eis if you go on pmrf . Let me take that for the record, sir. Okay. The answer is yes. Okay . The answer is yes, we got it. Okay. Last thing is, your milcon budget request for the radar that will be in place before the sbx has to go in the dry dock, you have a date of 2021. Yet you have a planned ioc date of 2023 assuming a fully installed integrated and tested system. Question is how does this time frame from the initiation of milcon compare to like the lrdr . Very similar. Okay. Okay. So youre happy with the time frame . We of the sbx going away which is what you use for this test going away and having a medium range radar in place in hawaii to take its place . I would just offer a little different perspective. Sbx in my opinion will not go away in 2020. Its got to go into a dry dock and weve got to manage that operational risk. But the decision for sbx to go away will be both the commanders call. So you could press that off. They could press that off if they had to by a year or two . Absolutely. Got you. Thank you. Gentlemens time expired. Chair recognizes mr. Orourke from texas. Thank you. Admiral syring, i appreciate being able to see the video. That was helpful to understand what were talking about. Can you talk about we obviously saw success in the icbm being destroyed. Can you talk about any concerns you have with the performance that you can share in this session . Yes, sir. This in no way should the committee take away that this is the final step and were stepping away declaring success. We have been on a journey over the last at least five to six years to improve the reliability of the entire system. As you know, the system was fielded very rapidly back in the early 2000s without a proper System Engineering cycle or production engineering cycle. Because of what the president deemed and correctly so that some defense now is better than no defense. What was said back then was we need to work to improve the system over time. And ive stated openly in this committee and others that i have reliability concerns with the system. That have been systemically addressed in large part over the last ill say six years bit by bit. Its just not the intercepter. Its the entire system. We are not there yet. We have continued work with the redesign kill vehicle. We have continued work with the reliability of the other components of the system to make it totally reliable to give the war fighter options in the future. Ive been open about that that we are not done yet. Let me ask you about that. The president has talked about an expanded Missile Defense system. Youve talked about in response to one of the questions that if i could characterize your answer, we may be keeping pace with the threats, but perhaps not as quickly or as effectively as you would ideally like. What did the president mean by expanding Missile Defense systems . Is the video you showed us, does that satisfy his interests in expansion . Sir, i dont know. I have not talked to the president specifically about this. But i know the ballistic Missile Defense review that he has charter chartered, the secretary of defense has chartered, will look at this exact question in terms of not only the capability of the current interceptors, but the capacity question, and do we need more and where do we need more . Let me ask you this question, forgive the ignorance in the question. Im also new to this subcommittee. How good can we get at Missile Defense not speaking technologically but in terms of either treaty obligations or concerns about upsetting any balance or deterrence considerations that we already have . Sir, if i can, ill give you my perspective of military officer then ill hand it to my policy friend, mr. Harvey, to expand further. But i got asked that question a couple weeks ago, about Missile Defense being destabilizing. And my answer to that was the only thing provocative and destabilizing are north koreas actions. What about with russia . I guess im specifically asking about. Ill let mr. Harvey take that. So as you know, the russians have expressed concerns about our Missile Defense capabilities. I think we have for the past 50 years recognized deterrence as the basis for strategic stability in defense of our homeland. In terms of defense of our forces in a regional context, i think to the extent that the russians pose a threat to those forces that we feel we have not just a right but an obligation to provide the defenses that we need to protect those forces. And we wont let ourselves be cowed by complaints or threats or accusations from the russians. Again, im not suggesting we should. Im just trying to get an understanding of the parameter of how far we can take this within current considerations. Maybe a question for a longer conversation. Perhaps on the same theme, how effective are russian Missile Defense systems comparable to ours . Sir, if i could take that to the classified session okay. Ill have that same question. For other countries. Ill feel more comfortable. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield back. Chair now recognizes gentleman from alabama, mr. Brooks, for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Admira admiral syring, i understand that the Missile Defense agency and the dod test and evaluation both agree that a multiyear procurement of the sm3 would make sense and given komorowski opponents that adding an sm6 may also make sense. Is that right or is that wrong . I agree with that assessment. Why . One, the two intercepters are manufactured in the same location. There must be synergies between the two production lines. We have proven on the navy side, ill speak for the navy, a very successful track record with sm6 testing. Its technical baseline is mature enough, absolutely supportive. The sm 31b will go through final intercept testing in the september october time frame and were confident that given that test, both the sm3 and the sm6 will be ready for the department to procure multiyear procurement. At least that will be my recommendation. Next question, please describe the joint emergent operational needs submitted by u. S. Forces korea commander brooks in february of this year. I understand has been endorsed by admiral harris at the pacific command. Is that correct or incorrect . Thats correct, sir. What is the plan to provide this capability to the commander of u. S. Forces korea . Will you or your successor seek a reprogramming to accomplish this effort or have you included it in your budget request for fy18 . Its an emerging capability. I just returned from korea last night talking about the document. And potential Material Solutions and i would defer that discussion to the classified environment. This next question is for any witness who would like to pick it up. The groundbased Midcourse Defense System alaska and california is the Missile Defense system that protects the United States from long range Ballistic Missile attacks. Should the American People have confidence in its ability to defend the United States . Congressman brooks, American Public should have absolute confidence in it. I have confidence in the soldiers that man and operate the system. I have confidence in the system itself. Ive got great confidence in the relationship we have with the material developer, admiral syring and mda in that regard. But absolute confidence. Given that north korea seems to also be advancing both their capabilities and perhaps numbers of missiles, do you have a judgment as to whether we will be ahead of the game in 2020 . I think at this point we will given the Current Program record and ill defer to admiral syring to talk about it and what the capabilities are that were progressing with, i think we will likely be. Sir, i would answer and add that everything that this committee has supported over the last four years has been targeted towards a near term which is now part of the Program Record and fielded set of capabilities. A midterm and a far term capability. Midterm defined by 2020. Everything that we are working on and fielding is to stay ahead of the threat by 2020. Today were ahead. We need to stay ahead. Where i just want to put one caveat in is on capacity. Certainly the censoring work to improve the capability of the system is on a trajectory and in large part fielded. Where we need to be prudent and constantly vigilant on is what is the capacity increase that we can expect from north korea and what is our capacity to meet that threat . And i can assure you as part of the bmdr, all of the analysis and intelligence estimates will be balanced to come up with a recommendation from the department. It seems that we have protection with our facilities in alaska and california. Do you have a judgment as to whether we need more similar facilities or capabilities on the east coast . That will be part of the departments assessment over the next 180 days. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, i yield back. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from new jersey, mr. Norcross for five minutes. Thank you. There are a couple of items i want to follow up on from my colleagues. The sm3 missile. Been tested considerably but had a few issues not too long ago. Now i understand we got out of the penalty box and its now tested. Do you have any concerns about the reliability . No, sir. None whatsoever. So if we were able to identify additional resources, would you support or do you need additional missiles and by what year . Sir, ill give you the answer. The president s budget was the best balance of resources at the time at the top line. But the answer to the multiyear question from mr. Brooks is that my testimony is that the technical baseline for the sm3 is stable and ready for multiyear procurement. And additional procurement quantities if required. So youre comfortable with the time frame that has been laid out . Yes, sir. This will be once again a bmdr Department Decision for fy19, but it will be my strong recommendation that it is ready for a multiyear procurement. We certainly understand what happens today doesnt necessarily keep us from changing the dry docking of the sbx. My understanding we always have opportunities to extend this out. Theres a twoyear time frame comfortable or can we go beyond that in the event that other technical issues pop up . We can work with the operators and the military command in terms of what risk theyre willing to accept. And we will do underwater surveys to assess the life of, you know, basically how is the vessel doing. There can be ways to not only take risks on when that dry dock appears, or is conducted with periodic maintenance that can be done during the import periods, short of a full dry dock. Do you have the Resources Available to you to extend that out . Id rather have the extension and not use it. Sir, that would be in 2020 and beyond and certainly well before then we will factor in that into the president s budget request if required. Itll be based on how the hawaii radar is progressing. You know, the fielding of the alaska radar, and i can assure you that wont be my decision. Itll be the combat commander decisions. Ill reserve the rest for closed session. I yield back. Thank you. Now recognizing mr. Lamborn for five minutes. Thank you. I want to thank you for service to our country and great work at mda. My honor. Youll be missed, but thank you for what youve done. The kinetic kill test result that you showed us earlier is both wonderful and gratifying and i really was happy to see it. Now, looking forward to the future for future progress in boost phase kill, i think we have to look at directed energy. And mda in the last few years has made some modest but steady investments in directed energy. Now, as the missile threats to our country grow and as the geopolitical situation evolves and there are some dangers out there, i really see that we need to be stepping up our directed energy investments. As but im dismayed when i look at this budget that were cutting 50 million. In this years request. For directed Energy Research and development. So how do we square that with the needs that are and threats that are out there . Sir, the premise of the budget submission at the Department Level with directed energy was to pull directed Energy Funding across the department towards Common Solutions and common maturation of technology. Thats why we saw a reduction in the mda budget. That said, we owe the plan to not just the department but we owe the plan to the congress on how are we going to do that to continue the development of directed energy. I agree with you 100 . Boost phase defense and directed energy should be pursued vigorously and without delay. And i assure you as part of the bmdr, the department will look at directed energy in depth for missile deference and assess that recommendation. Okay. Would you appreciate this committee reviewing that part of the budget and scrutinizing it carefully . Sir, as youre entitled to with congressional oversight, of course. Okay. Excellent. Now, shifting gears. What can you tell us in open hearing about the iranian threat and our efforts in europe with sensors and or radar and intercepters to deal with that threat given the fact that we dont have an east coast site as of yet. I would let me be very careful here. I would put in perspective first the threat piece of iran versus north korea. There is no comparison in terms of the amount of testing that weve seen with north korea both in range and capability to what we have seen in iran over the last six to eight months. Its night and day. So our priorities on focusing towards a north korea threat have been exactly right. That said, we cannot forget about iran and what they are capable of doing in terms of longer range Space Launch Vehicle Technology and shorter range missiles that they possess both landbased and as antiship Ballistic Missiles as well. We as part of the bmdr need to look both ways when we assess our capacity on where the capacity is located, both in vandenburg and alaska, and what a potential east coast site could bring in terms of not only numbers, but battle space to the war fighter. And shoot opportunities with the right assessment capability to go along with it. Okay, thank you very much. Appreciate your service once again and i yield back. Thank you. Was it your best judgment that funding be cut for fy18 on directed energy . No, sir, that was not my best military advice. Thank you. Recognize the gentleman from hawaii for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chair. Admiral syring, i just would like to get an orientation here. So from the time if you can say this in open session. From the time the icbm was launched from quadly, how long before the interceptor was launched . About ten minutes. Can you tell me where exactly did they intercept, close to hawaii, closer to the west coast, closer to the point . It was about 2,000 miles west of california, but further to the north of hawaii. And the when the test was done and the interception took place, was it always anticipated that that would be the route, that more than likely, i assume, that a missile if launched from north korea would take . Was that basically the assumption made . Yes, maam. In terms of being able to replicate the operational architecture down on the test range. Which we did. One of the things that also in your statement you talked about the radar, i think, homeland something radar for that. I dont know what the whole acronym was for hawaii. How long assuming that that radar is in the 2018 ndaa and then appropriated accordingly, how long is it expected for that radar to actually be built . If the funding is authorized and appropriated, we would immediately do the site survey and the Environmental Impact study in parallel to prepare for a competition historywide procurement of that radar. To since your question, we are counting on two years for that to happen. The reason i was hedging on the environmental study is that sometimes that can take longer than that. And though a lot of people assume that prml on the island of hawaii is probably the most logical place, i assume that there are criteria which may place it somewhere else and thats why your response was as your response . We have eight islands and im assuming that youre looking at more than just cue kuaui as a site . Yes, maam. In your statement you speak to the fact that the pacific architecture, the increase, of defensive capability for the gbi for the enhanced defense of hawaii. The gbi of are ground based interceptors. When you say the gbi of hawaiians defense, what do you mean by that . Im sorry for the acronyms and the descriptors. But we talk about the gbis as capability enhancements. Roughly the first 20 gbis, which are the oldest gbis are referred to as capability enhancements ones, capability enhancement twos were for simplicity sake comprised the next ten and then capability enhancement two block ones comprised the balance of the 44. The capability enhancement two block one, which was tested, is the very latest gbi configuration, which will be fielded before the end of the year. If i recall correctly, the 44 is alaska and vandenburg . Thats correct. Thats correct . Yes, maam. So when you talk abohawaii bg defended from those locations . From alaska, yes, maam. And i think thats one of the things that people dont seem to realize is that some people are under the impression if you could respond, id appreciate it that somehow kuaui is the best Vantage Point to protect the hawaiian islands, but in actuality, it is my understanding that it may not be the best location, that its another north of kuaui or another location, depending on where they would track, would that be correct . Yes, maam. For gbis at alaska, that would not be that would certainly not be a recommendation of mine. I mean, gbis in hawaii would not be a recommendation of mine. Now, the defense that we get from alaska in a crossing trage trajectory is very good in defending hawaii today. Thank you very much. Mr. Chair, i yield back. I recognize the gentlelady from wyoming for five minutes, ms. Cheney. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. And thank you as well to all of our witnesses for your service and are being here today. Admiral syring, theres been discussion and conversations about strategic stability, which is a crucial issue. I think its important to know its not the United States that is violating arms controls treaty or talk about escalate to win, thats russia. Isnt it also the case we are not building Missile Defenses to counter russias theater or Nuclear Capabilities . Thats correct, maam. Isnt russia, in fact, doing that to us, basically . Isnt it the case that russia has several dozen Nuclear Armed interceptors in their Missile Defense portfolio . Yes, maam. That are particularly aimed at attempting to defeat any potential u. S. Nuclear attack . I can answer that in a classified session, yes, maam. And hasnt china also been developing ballistic Missile Defenses with an intent to count counter our offensive weapons . There have been developments in that area. When we hear china and russia talking about the u. S. Upsetting strategic stability, isnt that hypocrite cal . In my opinion, yes. When asked whether russia is using active measures to undermine u. S. Nuclear modernization and Missile Defense efforts, the director of Central Intelligence stated on the record yes, they are. Id like to ask all of the witnesses on the record do you agree with this assessment . Start with you, mr. Pike. I dont know that i have any first hand knowledge of that, maam. Maam, i have not seen that or have firsthand knowledge of it. Maam, me neither at this point. I cant comment. Okay, thank you. I share the position of the other panel members. All right. In the event that the director of Central Intelligence is accurate in his assessment, wouldnt it be the case that you would agree, this is not something that we can let stand, that we cant allow the russians to undermine our defense programs . Absolutely. Yes, maam. Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, i yield back. Thank the gentle lady and recognize the gentleman from colorado, mr. Kauffman. Thank you, mr. Chairman. One question i have is that this successful test that we just did, in your view and whoever would like to answer this, what impact do you think it has on the north korean regime in terms of the development of their program . Does it send them a clear signal about the intent of the United States in order to defeat their capability . I dont think we can rely on the rational reaction of kim jongun or the north korea regime. Thats why we need to continue to make improvements to our system to provide protection and not give him or his regime an opening to exploit weakness and use that to his advantage. I would add that i think it validates that if called upon to operate the system in a real world scenario, i have confidence they would do that entirely. What message it sends to north korea, i have no idea but i know what message it sends to the American People in that we can defend them 24 hours a day, seven days a week. I agree with that statement in terms of the demonstration that we have the war fighters that are prepared and trained to do that 24 7, 365. And i cant speak for what his reaction would be, but it clearly does demonstrate that we have the capability. In this open session can you say anything about the work were doing with israel in terms of Missile Defense . I think there is some talk about doing a joint test on the aero system. Yes, sir. Were close partners with israel and their systems, engineering and testing support also. Ive been intimately involved with them on david sling and arrow, the more recent versus of version of arrow three, and frankly, that interceptor is now up into the exo atmosphere and has significant range constraints within the mediterranean. One of the better places to test is in alaska from kodiak and we plan to do that next year. So the aero3 is designed to defeat the overthehorizon capability of the iranians, am i correct in that . Its designed to defeat the exo atmospheric threat from iran. And where are we at in terms of the deployment of that system . It is in testing. I dont have the specific ioc thinking from the israelis, but i can get that to you for the record. Thank you. Can you basically state what chinas concern is with the deployment of the thaad system in south korea. Sir, id like to, if i can sure. Relay that to my policy mr. Harvey. I think theyve expressed a concern about the ability of the radar system to track any missiles that might be launched from china, and what that says, or what that exposes in terms of vulnerability of their systems. So i think thats a concern. Thank you. I yield back. Thank the gentleman. Before we move to the classified portion, i want to touch one topic. Admiral syring, can you explain why were Building Sites in poland and the romanian site. On one site, its four sail to a room and the other is two sailors to a room. That side turned out wonderful, first class. Who made this decision and why . First, the timeline as i understand that the former cno directed that the site be fully capable but austere in its construction in nature for housing. They didnt really have a definition of as you tear when the budget was ready for roman romania. They grappled with the definition of austere and came out with that guidance in 2013, which formed the basis for the poland military construction request. Its not a satisfying answer, but thats the timeline. Does this make sense to you and what does it mean for morale given that were going to save less than 2 of the cost on this site at the poland location . From the navy standpoint i cant speak to that but certainly the message is being sent to the sailors in poland versus the sailors in romania that its different. And its inexplicable and indefensible. With that, we will recess and go into a classified setting now. Secretary of state Rex Tillersons on capitol hill tuesday to testify on the president s 2018 budget request and other priorities for his department. Thats live before the Senate ForeignRelations Committee at 10 00 a. M. Eastern here on cspan3. Later in the day, live coverage of attorney general Jeff Sessions taking questions from the Senate Intelligence committee. Hes expected to be asked about contacts he had with russian officials during the 2016 president ial campaign and other issues raised by former fbi director james comey, who appeared before the same Committee Last week. This will be the first time the attorney general has testified before Congress Since being confirmed in february. That hearing gets under way at 2 30 eastern, its also live here on cspan3. Sunday night on afterwords, utah republican senator mike lee talks about forgotten historical figures who fought against Big Government in his book. Hes interviewed by former acting solicitor general. When youre on the lookout for them, they come to you gradually. Ive asked friends, other people i knew, who they thought should get more credit than they get. And in the the case of the indian chief, he understood the principle of federalism because they lived it for centuries before we were our own country. I was intrigued by that from the onset, because its not a name that most americans know anything about, and yet he had a profound impact on our system of government. Because hes the guy who enabled Benjamin Franklin to learn about federalism and he was the conduit through which the information flowed. First into the articles of confederation and then into the constitution. Watch on sunday night at 9 Peyton Manning on cspan 2s book tv. Jim sensenbrenner met