Committee on alleged russian bounties for u. S. Troops in afghanistan. Announcer defense secretary mark esper and general mark toley were on capitol hill testify on defense department. They were also asked about alleged russian bounties over u. S. Troops and military bases named after confederate soldiers. Chairman smith i call the meeting to order. I welcome our witnesses, secretary of defense esper and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff milley. We appreciate you being here today. I do have to read an Opening Statement here about procedure in light of the fact that we do have members who are participating remotely in his hearing, in accordance with house rules. So i will do that and then a couple other programming notes and we will get started. I would like to welcome members who are joining todays markup remotely. Those members are reminded that they must be visible on screen within the Software Platform for the purposes of Identity Verification for maintaining a coram participating, and voting. We will not be voting, but participating members must use the Software Platform video function while attending the proceedings unless they experience connectivity issues or other technical problems and are unable to fully part is a fully participate on camera. If a member who is participating technical difficulties, please contact us and we will help you. Participation will be broadcast in the room via the Television Internet feed. Members are asked to mute their microphones when they are not speaking. Members will be recognized normally for asking questions, but if they want to speak, they must seek recognition verbally. In all cases, members are reminded to unmute their microphone prior to speaking. Members should be aware that there is a slight lag between when you start speaking and camera shot switching to you. Members are reminded to keep the Software Platform video function on for the entirety of the time they attend the proceeding. Members may leave and rejoin. If members depart for short reasons, they should leave the video function on. If members will be absent for a significant period, they should exit the Software Platform entirely and rejoin if they return. Members are advised that i have designated a staff member to unnecessarily mute to cancel any inadvertent background noise. Members may use the chat feature to communicate with staff regarding Logistical Support issues only. Finally, members should see a five minute countdown clock on the Software Platforms display. If necessary, i will remind members when their time is up. The only additional note i will make to that is of parent lee is apparently if your microphone in here is left on when youre not speaking, it can generate feedback. So if you are not speaking, turn the microphone off so we can avoid that feedback. So, im going to make an Opening Statement. Mr. Thornberry will make a statement. We have a hard stop on this hearing at 3 00. I am not going to ask any questions. I will go right to the first member on our side of the aisle. I will just let my Opening Statement stand. The purpose of this hearing is to look at the events surrounding the department of defenses response to the protests that arose out of the murder of george floyd in minneapolis. And sort of twofold what i would like to accomplish. One, we would like to better understand what happened. How was the dod involved . What were the steps between the dod and the white house and decisions made at the various points about dod involvement specifically in dealing with domestic unrest. To begin with, there is the basic question of guard units. And this is pretty straightforward. We have used guard units for a member a number of Different Reasons to deal with emergencies across the country. The department of defense works with the governor of every state to determine that. But getting a little clarity as to how that process worked in this case would be enormously helpful. Then there is the more complicated question of how this applies to washington, dc. As we know, they dont have a governor. The department of defense has Greater Authority over the guard in the District Of Columbia than they do in states. How did that play out . How was the coronation handled between the mayor of dc, the police force in dc, and adding to the confusion, the department of justice has various security personnel that they employ within washington dc. There is considerable concern about how all of that played out. What was the level of coordination . Why were there helicopters, military helicopters over the top of protesters in the middle of that protest . Who made that decision . What was the level of coordination . And then connected to all of this, as we get beyond the normal use of the guard, is the insurrection act. Is the ability of the president to activate activeduty military personnel over the objections of governors and use them to deal with civil unrest. How is that considered in this context . There seem to be conflicting statements out of the white house and department of defense about how that was being used. We would like to know what came to pass in that regard, and in particular, the one group of activeduty troops that were called up, they were never deployed, but they were put on standby across the river in virginia for potential use in washington dc. What played out in that decision as well. But then more broadly than what happened in this instant, this is something that is going to involve our country in the future, without a doubt. We will have different president s and different secretaries of defense and different chairman who will be happy to make decisions like this. So what is the departments view on the role they should play in dealing with civil unrest . What role should the guard play . How should they coordinate and when do they think the insurrection act is appropriate . How does all that play out . More specifically on that is the question of how, regardless of whether it is the dod or the state or whoever, how do you deal with civil unrest . I was struck by the fact that there seemed to be a lack of coordination and a lack of thought in that response. I am not talking about dod. I am talking across the country, as people saw the protests rise up and in some cases turn violent. What was the plan for dealing with that . There is actually a lot of very welldocumented history about how to deal with domestic unrest. Ranging everywhere from civil war to protest movements. And we have studied this extensively. I have read quite a bit about it. What is our plan . You had a lot of the president s rhetoric that sounded like basically, we will crush you, so you better stop doing this, to a more nuanced approach. How do you deescalate . How do you protect the legitimate right of people to protest while at the same time stopping crime, stopping protest movements from becoming violent . I think it is something that requires thought and all leaders in a place to make those decisions need to be better educated on how that comes to pass. And then the last two things i would like to touch on is the disturbing lack of coordination between what the white house was saying and what dod was saying, and in some cases, doing. The president started a lot of this with his announcement, and forgive me, i forget the exact words, but the general gist of it was we will bring order to this country and if the governors do not do it, i will use the active military to do it for them. That statement did not seem to be followed up by any actual actions to do it, but why would he say that if that was the case . And what sort of conversations went on between the department of defense and the president and others in the white house about the best way to respond . And that gets to an interesting part of this and that is the difficult position that any secretary of defense and any chairman of the joint chiefs of staff is in. You work for the president. He is commanderinchief, that is the way the flowchart goes, and his decisions are final. And you have to follow those. Now, it is absolutely impossible that any person in either of your positions would agree 100 of the time with everything the president said. How do you handle those disagreements . How do you work through that . Admittedly, you cannot come out in public and say, yeah, my boss is an idiot and i disagree with his decision. And it is something that happens in this committee all the time. I have been on this committee through four president s. And whenever that is the case, invariably, the party that is up here that is not in the white house tries to get everybody at the department of defense that some decision, they dont agree with it. Under president obama, it happened all the time. We had dod personnel appear, up here, a decision was made, and usually dont think it is the right thing to do. I understand in my time, i have never seen a single solitary witness confess and say oh yeah, i thought that was stupid. That is not the way it works. Im not looking for that. Im looking for an understanding as to how the white house and dod can better coordinate. We have had a disturbing pattern not just on domestic unrest issues, but on a number of issues, of the white house, seemingly out of the blue, making bold policy statements that affect dod decisions that do not appear to have been well coordinated or certainly not well delivered. The decision to pull out of syria, the decision to remove troops from germany, the decision to ban transgender people from serving in the military. That one was particularly galling because it came within days after every service chief had testified that there was no problem with them serving. And then a tweet goes out and dod has to respond. That sends a mixed message to the country about what our defense policy is. In particular happened in syria when that announcement was made and we had to figure out how to make that work. And so we are curious within those limitations, how does that coordination happen. Lastly, there was concern about the politicization of the military. Again, this is not unique to any one president. The commanderinchief has a duty to guide the military and at the same time, has political interest. But how do we make sure those two things stay separate . The biggest concern is that obviously was the incident at st. Johns church when the president and secretary of defense and a few others took a picture in front of the church and then it was quickly turned around into a political ad. I think it is incredibly important that we respect the institutions of our government irrespective of who is in charge. We are a nation of laws, a nation of institutions, not a nation of any one individual. Long after this president is out of office and all of us are gone from our current positions, there will be new people in those positions. And those institutions need to survive on their own, not to serve any one particular persons political interests. I am very concerned about the department of defense becoming unduly politicized. I will say for the record that i think both of these gentlemen have done, by and large, an excellent job of not doing that even in what is a very difficult environment. We have seen politicization happen in the department of justice and intel community. Personally, i have not seen that at the department of defense and i respect that. I just want to make sure that it does not happen, because you make bad decisions in that environment. The decision is based on the loyalty to one individual instead of loyalty to the country, loyalty to the law, loyalty to what is our best interests. Anmakes and even it makes already difficult job even more difficult. I look forward to the witness positive answers to what happened and i think it is incredibly important that the public sees this in one straightforward situation where two people in the middle of this can tell them so that we can have greater confidence in those institutions that we so greatly need to make sure that we remain a stable and peaceful nation. With that, i yield to mr. Thornberry for his Opening Statement. Rep. Thornberry thank you mr. Chairman, and let me join in welcoming them to be with us and we appreciate your flexibility in these unusual circumstances and locations and all that is required in the current situation. In addition to many of these specific questions that the chairman laid out, i think one of the most important things that you all can help us do, which the chairman mentioned a couple of times, is help us look at these issues in context. Both Historical Context, and a context of everything that the military is being asked to do. These days. Because i am struck by the fact that even when you look at dod support to civilian Law Enforcement, obviously we think of the protests and what happened here in washington. But elements of the military have been doing a lot of Law Enforcement missions related to covid for months. Again, it is primarily the National Guard that has been doing that, but it seems to me since the beginning of the year, the military has been asked to take on a number of Additional Missions unexpectedly that required different kinds of training and preparation. But at the same time, you still have to Pay Attention to the russians, the chinese, the north koreans, the iranians, and terrorists trying to kill us every day. It is in that larger context that i am particularly interested in your assessment on how our people are doing and also how our budgets are doing, because even when it is the guard in many of these situations that are being asked to do civilian Law Enforcement, dod is footing the bill. For that. So again, my point is in addition to a number of particular questions, the larger context, how the military is doing with these added responsibilities is important. The last thing i just want to say is, agreeing with the chairman, the temptation here is to focus on a particular incident, a particular president , and particular political differences. I think what is most helpful for us, as the chairman said, president s come and go, everybody in our jobs come and go. We are talking in part about the act that was passed in 1807 and has not been changed very much since then. So, the Historical Context is also, seems to me, important with the institutions. I keep always in the forefront of my mind the gallup polls that are done every year. What institutions do you respect the most . The military is at the top of the list. And that is a key National Strength of this country. And whatever we do, we want to make sure that the men and women who serve the military continue to have that exalted position of respect throughout the country as president s come and go, and as issues and incidents come and go. And to me, that is a key responsibility of this congress. Chairman, i am not going to ask specific questions. I will go to specific folks on our sides. Again, thank you both for being here. Chairman smith thank you. Mr. Secretary . Sec. Esper chairman smith, Ranking Member thornberry, thank you for the opportunity to be before you today. Throughout our history, the United States military has demonstrated commitment to uphold our oath to the constitution and to support our civil authorities. Over the past several months more than 60,000 Service Members answered the nations call for working on the front lines in the fight against the pandemic, saving lives and stemming the spread of the virus. At the same time, we are hard at work as part of operation warp speed to accelerate the development, manufacture, and distribution of therapeutics and vaccines at scale by the end of the year. And over the next two months we will likely be called upon by the states to support hurricane and wildfire relief efforts. No matter the challenges, our Service Members stand ready to serve. And i am incredibly proud of their dedication and commitment to our fellow americans. In may, our support to the civil authoritys mission expanded in the wake of the horrible killing of george floyd and an officer being charged with his murder. A tragedy we have seen repeated too often and our nation. Following his tragic death, thousands of our fellow citizens sought to exercise their rights to free speech and peaceful assembly. While most of these protests were lawabiding, it is clear that some individuals exploited the situation to sew chaos and commit acts of violence and destruction and theft. That is why at the height of the civil unrest, more than 43,000 National Guard personnel were called upon by governors across the country to uphold the rule of law, safeguard life and property, and protect the rights of americans, all americans, to protest safely and peacefully. As a formal soldier and member of the National Guard, i am a Firm Believer that in these situations, the guard is best suited to provide Domestic Support to civil authorities in support of Law Enforcement. Using active duty forces in a direct Law Enforcement role should remain a last resort, and only in the most urgent and dire situations. I want to make very clear that no active duty military units engaged protesters or otherwise took direct part in civilian Law Enforcement or federal Protection Missions in the District Of Columbia or anywhere else in the country. And with regard to the role of the National Guard played in Lafayette Park on june 1, i want to make clear the following, that the guard did not advance on the crowd, the guard did not shoot rubber bullets, that the guard did