Transcripts For CSPAN3 Air Force General Paul Selva Testifies At Reappointment Hearing 20170802

Have on our minds and in our prayers senator mccain. Hes going through some recovery right now and wont be able to come back this week. So that will change the way were doing business a little bit. But nonetheless, hell be back with us very soon. And our Committee Meets this morning considering the nomination i should say, the renomination of general sell have f selva. Since weve already been through this drill on the eight required questions, were going to forego that. Im assuming you havent changed your mind since the last time we asked you the eight questions. Is that correct . That is correct. Any family youd like to introduce . I do. Ill do that in my opening statement. Thats good. Your record of service to our nation is well known to this committee. Your first two years a the joint chiefs of staff have been marked by great challenges in our National Security, the advance of isis in the middle east, russian aggression in ukraine and actions against others in that region, north koreas pursuit of both nuclear and longrange missile capabilities. Meanwhile, our young men and women continue to serve in afghanistan ensuring that the court never again serves as a safe haven for terrorists. Moving forward, new leadership at the department of defense and military Service Presents renewed opportunities for our Armed Services as we prepare for the threats of the future crises around the world only continue to multiply. Our Service Members face the most complex and diverse array of Global Threats since the end of world war it. Leading our military during such challenging times requires strong leadership and this committee looks forward to your testimony about how you plan to guide our men and women. Senator reed . Thank you very much, chairman. I want to join you in wishing senator mccain a speedy recovery and rapid return to his responsibilities. In fact, this might be one of the first times that i can sincerely say go navy, because i certainly do. I want to see him back, as we all do. I might observe, though, it cant go unnoticed that the first three here on time were all three army. Yes. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. I want to join you in welcoming general selva. Thank you, sir, for your service. As we consider your reappointment to the joints chief of staff we thank you for your many years of service to the nation and your willingness to serve and i want to recognize your wife ricky for her many years of support. The United States faces challenges around the world. If you are reconfirmed as the vice chairman, youll be an integral player in addressing these issues facing our National Interests. Russias activities have been aimed at undermining the American People on election process and furthermore russia continues to threaten its neighbors and our nato allies and ukraine complying with the ceasefire agreement. And north Koreas Nuclear missile capability is a National Security threat and the United States continues to grapple with the fact that theres no quick and certain options. China has not shown willingness in the asia pacific region. And by undermining the freedom of navigation. Iran continues an aggressive weapons activities, including Ballistic Missile efforts as well as destabilizing activities in the region. While we make progress towards isis, the administration has articulated a whole of Government Strategy that gave rise to isis in the first place. General selva, the aforementioned challenges are pressing and the committee looks forward to hearing from you on how the department of defense plans to address these issues. In addition, the vice chairman is assigned a number of specific responsibilities. For example, the National Defense Organization Act strengthened the role on the joint requirements oversight counsel jroc. And joint performance requirements. Given the important function of the jroc and acquisition programs to make sure that they are reasonable and necessary, i look forward to your thoughts about these new authorities and whether you believe new changes are warranted. This requires working closely with senior policy makers and on critical National Security issues. The committee looks forward to hearing from you on the effectiveness on the current interagency process. Finally, general selva, you have developed the Department Innovation strategy included socalled third officer of strategic capabilities office, the Defense Innovation office experimental and you will provide vital continuity between the last administration and the present administration. It is imperative that the department of defense and secretary mattis continue to leverage our economy and ways of thinking to solve a different and global challenges. Thank you again, general selva, for your willingness to serve our nation and i look forward to this hearing. Thank you, senator reed. Youre recognized, general selva. Thank you, senator inhofe. Id like to recognize senator mccain. On behalf of the joint staff, i look forward to him being back here soon. Distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. To be considered for a second term as the vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. Im grateful to the president and secretary of defense for their continued trust and faith in my ability to serve. Id like to make three brief points before i continue and look forward to your questions. First, i want to commend those who wear the cloth of my nation. During my two years as vice chairman, ive visited Service Members around the globe and im continually impressed bymu th dedication, Selfless Service and their talent. Its been my distinct honor to serve as the vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and i will strive to keep faith with them. Second, as youve already mentioned, senator inhofe, its important to acknowledge the highly complex challenges that face our force today. Presented by adversaries and competitors, internal challenges such as readiness and modernization are all issues with which this committee is very familiar. Please know that i value the dialogue that i and other Senior Leaders have with this committee and i thank the committee for your work on behalf of this nations soldiers and sailors and coast guardsmen. I hope ive conveyed to you the seriousness with which i take my responsibilities as the vice chairman. Finally, id like to recognize my wife ricky, the love of my life, who is here with me and has shared my 37year career and our 37year marriage. She was a classmate when we attended the United States air force academy. Shes not only a lifelong friend and partner but she provides me with the counsel that only someone in her position can. And for that, i will forever be grateful. Senator inhofe, senator reed, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to be considered for a second term as the vice chairman of the joints chief of staff. I look forward to your questions. Thank you, general selva. Id like to start off with one thats been foremost on my mind and i applaud the uniforms for being straightforward and honest about the threats that were facing right now and that would be north korea. They successfully tested a missile on the fourth of july. The country also completed a successful nuclear test earlier on may 14th. The experts consider north koreas missile test on july 4th to be the most significant advancement towards a Nuclear Capability intercontinental Ballistic Missile. Weve had a lot of witnesses talk about this prior to july 4th and what that will mean in terms of a threat to the United States. If you take that range, the projected range that would actually be somewhere around 5,000 miles, which would put parts of the United States into range. So its a scary thing. We had an Armed Services hearing on the asia pacific strategy on april tath. We had a panel of experts and they were good and they agreed with me that north korea currently represents the most imminent threat to a National Security. Id like to have you go ahead and start with three questions concerning that. One, do you agree with the experts who have come to that conclusion concerning our National Security and, secondly, north korea is known to other adversaries like iran. Do you believe that they are in the process of doing that, they have done that and then what other countries might pose a threat as a result of what theyre receiving from north korea and, thirdly, how confident what is your level of confidence in terms of the our intelligent communitys ability to monitor what is going on there. Those three things, if you could start off with. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I do agree in principle with the assessment that the north koreans are moving quickly to develop a intercontinental Ballistic Missile capability. I, however, am not saying the test on the fourth of july demonstrates that they have the capacity to strike the United States with any degree of accuracy or reasonable confidence of success. What the experts tell me is that north koreans have yet to demonstrate the capacity to do the guidance and control that they would be required to i was only referring to range. Yes, sir. On range, they clearly have the capability. And, you know, if they have the capability in range, the other improvements are perhaps not too far behind . Yes, sir. Well have to watch carefully with the ic, the developments on those particular capabilities. I do agree with the Intelligence Community and others that the democratic peoples republic of china that they have engaged in the Missile Technology but they have proliferated every other weapons system that theyve every invented. So its a pretty Clear Pathway to the potential proliferation of these type of systems. And the third question was the capability of our intelligence. Im reasonably confident in the ability of our Intelligence Community to monitor the testing but not the deployment of these Missile Systems. Kim jongun and his forces are very good at camouflage concealment and deception. We have a series of programs that id be happy to talk about in a classified setting that talk to the ability of our Intelligence Community, both military and civilian, to monitor those activities. And i think its been said outside of a classified hearing that the things that he has been doing make him the nicest thing i can say about kim jongun is hes totally unpredictable and the most unpredictable of anyone ive ever had any kind of experience with or even reading about. And thats whats been scary to most of the people, and i assume you agree with that . Yes, sir, i agree with that assessment. Okay. Now, getting down to our threats, this committee has received the testimony from the uniforms and from the experienced people outside of the uniforms that own a third of the Army Brigade Combat Teams and only a fourth are ready. We hear about the 62 of our f18s that the marines are using dont work and so we recognize that when we are going through what weve been going through in the last few years that the first thing to go is mant nebs and then, of course, modernization. So id like to have your assessment, whether or not you do agree with general wilson, for example, when he testified before this committee that fewer than 50 of the air force combat force are sufficiently ready for a highly contested fight against peer adversaries. So were getting down to our individuals. And then secretary wilson and general have told us that they will be short 1500 pilots, most of them fighters, by the end of this year. Do you agree with this assessment and do you want to elaborate on anything that they have said . Senator, i agree with both assessments. Both speak to the availability of funds and resources to do the highend training that is required to make our forces ready for highintensity combat against a peer competitor. The budget in 17 is helpful. The proposed budget for 18 will move us down the pathway of being able to restore much of that training but it will be a twoyear process beyond the initial insertion before you see the readiness improve. Yes. I agree with that. Senator reed . Thank you, general selva, for your service. One of the issues in terms of the third offset thats creating an issue is they are working Public Knowledge on sort of a very cheap satellites, inexpensive, i should say, and also exploiting them with Artificial Intelligence. Something that we need in many places, particularly korea. Were told that they are about to run our money further and we havent received the reprogramming yet and i would think this would be of urgent need and can you explain why they are in this distress and what we can do . Yes, sir, i can. We put tremendous demands on the defense Experimental Unit in the programs that they are working for us, we were notified early last week by director rasha that they have been cash flowing into two programs. We have a reprogramming proposal in staff, as we speak, that will address the balance of the requirements for the fiscal year. Well begin some of the funding for programs that will extend into the next fiscal year. Theyll be able to do that with yearend money. Thank you very much. One of the areas of concern, and there are many, is the situation in iraq. I was there about four weeks ago. Making progress on the ground, general townsend is doing a superb job as commander on the ground as well as when i was up at qs, the 182nd brigade was leading the advisory effort. But the issue now becomes as we reduce their effect as isis has a longterm presence there. Do you have views on that . Also, i heard there were claims at least by revolutionary guards for iran, that they are designated as a terror group, that they will retaliate against our forces. Sir, in iraq, the fighting is far from over. Isis has lost their sanctuary in mosul but they still have a handful of small towns that they control in and around the province. President abadi has a plan to begin a campaign with steve townsends help and consent to clear those towns and move into Anbar Province as that will deny isis sanctuary on both sides of the syrian iraqi border. I read about the iranian republic card maki republic guard making that statement and we will have to posture ourselves to be ready for that but i dont think we should take that threat and keep it from taking action against the kuds force. Thank you. In another area in your advance policy questions, you indicated, which is something that has been seconded by many that are adversaries and antiaccess technologies have eroded a tremendous overmatch by the United States and the question is, what are we doing to get back way ahead, not just a few inches ahead, metaphorically . Thank you, senator. You alluded to the work that weve been doing the last couple of years in the Concepts Development arena as well as working what former secretary deputy secretary called the third offset strategy. Those are concepts that would allow us to contest what we call the antiaccess area denial strategies that many of our adversaries have attempted to impose upon us by making our bases more resilient associated with the area denial strategies, particularly that china and north korea are attempting to impose upon us and allow us to project force into areas that will otherwise presume denied. Thank you. Finally and quickly, we have been working for several different congresses on acquisition reform. Weve passed legislation. We still have a long way to go. I think we both recognize that, honestly. And as chairman of jroc, youve been given additional responsibility, both actual and referential. But can you tell us what youre doing to help jumpstart acquisition and get it so we can deliver systems . The army is commendable for many things with their timing, et cetera, but theyve had a tough record of getting things from the drawing board into the field. Can you comment . Yes, sir. We are implementing the guidance that we received in last years nda ndaa. The deployment that supports readiness is a building relationship with the Service Chiefs and secretaries in their Acquisition Authority roles. So the jroc is providing requirements to the Service Acquisition authorities not only for the basic design and Integration Capabilities that go into systems but actual performance along the lines of buying systems. One really striking example of that capability was a piece of work that we did to move counter Unmanned Aircraft system technologies into iraq from idea to fruition measured in months, from delivery to deployment measured in weeks and those are numbers that are actually quite useful. Thank you. Senator ernst . Thank you, general selva and mrs. Selva for your support and service to our nation as well. General selva, regarding southeast asia, you suggest that shortterm stressors can be managed within the alliance construct and a few weeks ago, referring to the philippines specifically, secretary mattis testified that in 2014 we canceled our named counterterror operation with a premature view of success causing us to lose funding lines that we would have otherwise been able to offer. Do you agree with me and secretary mattis that reestablishing a named operations something we should consider as part of our alliance obligations in order to make sure that those shortterm stressors dont turn into a prolonged or longterm catastrophe . Yes, maam. In every case where we see the resurgence of terror networks, particularly in the fragile areas of the southern philippines, i think its worth considering whether or not we reinstate a named operation not only to provide for the resources that are required but to give the specific command and commander in the philippines the kind of authorities that they need to help them be successful in that battle space. Youve also been moving on to another topic. Youve been openly critical of congress about the budget process and i agree that its long past time for us to break the cycle of these continuing resolutions. Were not doing ourselves any favor. However, budgets are also a twoway street. And the d. O. D. Has not been able to conduct or pass a clean audit for a very long time so thats not helping our cause either. What specifically will you do in your next two years to achieve a clean audit that you havent maybe been able to accomplish in the last two years . I have found over the last several years that achieving the clean audit goal is a really vexing journey. In particular, the discussions over the valuation of Real Property are an obstacle in the way of getting that work done. The debates over what we own and what it is actually worth. I will share with you that in advance of his confirmation, i spent several hours with the new deputy secretary of defense Patrick Shanahan so we can, in fact, clear a clean audit. We will commit to working that together through the Defense Management action group to try and come to resolution. I appreciate that. I hope that we can move forward on that, especially when it comes to the Real Property. We have to own this and we absolutely must get this done to know how the dollars are being spent so we can reassure our taxpayers that we as congress and you as the d. O. D. Are doing the right thing. Thank you for that. I hope were successful. You also provide support for lethal defense support to ukraine, something ive been pushing for a number of years as well. Other than being actively engaged with the interagency on this issue, what specific steps are under way in d. O. D. In order to make this happen . Were working very closely between the joint staff and u. S. European command to actually put requirements on the table for an inventory of what that aid may look like. It will be more than a military recommendation. This will be a policy choice on whether or not were going to give the Ukrainian Government the tools they need to defend themselves against what we believe to be a russia supported movement. I think its really important. And in light of russias recently thwarted attempt to de de deny mond deny access to kosovo and other candidates in reassuring them that we will assist them should they wish to become nato members . Maam, i think one of the tools that we can bring to bear as the joint staff and chiefs of defense and the leaders of their militaries to make sure that all those countries, in spite of whats going on internally, with or without the interference of the russian government, actually are able to make the military reforms that are necessary so they can move towards a path of membership in nato. I appreciate that. We have a lot of state Partnership Programs oh ut there and those countries need our reassurance. Thank you, general selva, again. Thank you, mr. Chair. Senator gillibrand. Hello. Thank you for being here. Thank you for your service. I welcome your family. I want to talk to you a little bit about where we are on trying to combat military Sexual Assault. In 2013, then chairman of the joint chiefs of staff general dempsey said there was a lack of confidence in solving this ourselves. The president of the United States said to us in december, you know what, youve got a year to review this thing and show me you can make a difference. We understand that just because senator gillibrands vote was defeated yesterday, doesnt mean a year from now it may not be reintroduced and if we havent been able to demonstrate that were making a difference, we deserve to be held to the scrutiny and standard. This is now four years later. And we dont see a change in the overall numbers. We dont stee a chanee a rate i change of prosecution and in the rate of conviction and we dont see a change in the rate of retaliation so im really worried that where commanders are entirely responsible for outcomes that hasnt led to the scrutiny to really tackle this problem effectively. So do you agree that more needs to be done to create environments and not be retaliated against . Senator, i believe that survivors of Sexual Assault and standards can report what happened and we provide an unbiased investigation and potential prosecution of the wrong doers of the perpetrators who committed the crime. And do you believe we have achieved enough progress . I dont believe we have achieved enough progress but perfection is the only standard that can be allowed in this space. Sexual assault is the exception where we treat them with respect because they wear a uniform. I dont think were going for perfection. I think were going for a climate where men and women can serve without being sexually assaulted. A climate where they can report their crimes and know that they will be prosecuted and report their crimes and know that they wont be retaliated. Were not even close. The estimate of last year was 15,000 unwanted sexual contact and rape. Thats nowhere where we need to be. We still have almost a 60 retaliation rate and our rate of conviction hasnt moved in five years. So i dont think we are achieving enough progress. I think weve done a lot of good things in terms of getting bett better evidentiary standards and records and making sure theres special counsel for the individuals who do report, but our rate of unrestricted reports, the ones where youre willing to put your name and make it public, is going down. Our rate of restricted reports percentage is going up. So the confidence in the system just isnt there. So i really hope that you will commit to me to do a full look at this issue, look for new solutions, look for untried solutions because what were doing today isnt working and weve done every small ball recommended reform we could possibly do by every committee thats offered them. Maam, i will commit to working with the service and the Service Secretaries to take a deep dive into all of the programs that theyve implemented and to take a look at whether or not they will be effective in supporting the survivors of Sexual Assault and in making sure that we get to unbiased prosecutions and investigations. Thank you. Id now like to talk about our transgender Service Members. I had been pleased by the advances that the department of defense policies have made to be more inclusive to transgender Service Members twice as likely to serve, according to one study, than the general population. But im concerned that the sixmonth delay that the department has approved before letting transgender serve will have unintended consequences. What have you learned so far in your review of this issue and how is the implementation going so far . Thank you, senator. I am an advocate of every qualified person who can meet the physical standards to serve in our uniform services to be able to do so. Our decision to delay the transgender individuals into the services was largely based on a disagreement of the science on how Mental Health care and hormone therapy for transgender individuals would help solve the medical issues associated with gender disforeye gender dysforia. They have asked for additional time for assessment to make their necessary changes to infrastructure as well as traini training curicula and fees logically are still in their birth gender and those issues would have to be addressed before we can begin to assess those individuals impact to service. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, senator gillibrand. Senator cotton . General selva, welcome back. Congratulations on your reappointment. Id like to discuss the int tlad base Cruise Missiles with the range of 500 to 5500 kilometers. Russia, its been widely known, is cheating on this treaty. The state Department Found that three years ago. You testified at the house Armed Services committee that, to your knowledge, russia does not intend to return to compliance. Do you remain of the same opinion today . I do, sir. Theres no new intelligence that says that the russians are inclined to return or beabrogat the treaty. Why would he change if he can have his cake and eat it, too. On the one hand, he benefits much more from the prohibition on intermediate range missiles in europe and the United States is restrained from making those missiles and deploying them. On the other hand, i assume that he doesnt like that countries on his peripheral like china can. Is there anything in your mind that we can do to put pressure on russia to bring them back into compliance to change your current mindset . The diplomatic tools allow us to put pressure on the russians through the Bilateral Committee to try to get them to return to compliance. The other tools that exist in the treaty include beginning research and Development Efforts to field but not test intermediate range. Its our assessment that the russians have gone beyond that assessment and have fielded an intermediate Cruise Missile that could be nuclear or conventional. We have some options to put pressure on the russians, not only diplomatically but also inside the military realm. Im glad that you raised that. My act would authorize money just for that and, in fact, both the house and Senate Passed the ndaa which starts a program of record. There was an issue with that provision and i suspect well work it out in the end since we all want to see russia come back into compliance with this treaty. Putting aside its impact on our relationship with rush sharsia, admiral hardbal admiral harris said that they fall between the range of 500 and 5500 kilometers. China is not in violation of the treaty because they are not a signatory of the treaty. Russia and the United States are. Do you interpret this imbalance or this as a possible offensive imbalance in the asia pacific . It would be easy to treat that as an off balance but were not restricted from fielding Ballistic Missile or Cruise Missile systems that could be launched from airplanes under the air force treaty. Its specific to landbase missiles. With respect to whether or not we use the inf treaty i think is a bridge too far. I believe we can assert that the deployment of Missile Systems on aircraft and ships would allow us to hold those targets at risk. They do. Although the obvious disadvantage of ships and aircraft is that they are relatively small compared to land, which is why china has 90 of their Missile Forces in that range from land. Were limited to what we can do based on our ships and aircraft. Do you think that we should consider extending offensive capabilities to allies in the asia pacific who are also not bound to help counterbalance chinas offensive capabilities . I think those are options we should look at but that would be a policy choice on whether or not to use leverage against the chinese. Thank you. One final question about this area. Both general milly and mattis have testified that the army is outranged and outgunned. When they say that, theyre speaking about Missile Systems that have this prohibited range, correct . The 500 to 5500 kilometer range . Thats part of their argument but not all of their argument. Many of the launch rocket systems are outranged by the russians within the ranges that are stipulated. Below the 500 kilometers . Yes, sir. So below the 500 kilometer, which is a bad thing, but also that we cant get beyond the 500 kilometer range . Yes, sir. Thank you very much and thank you for your service. Thank you, sir. Thank you, senator cotton. Senator king . Thank you, senator and chairman. I want to join those who senator mccain to hardball the witnesses as hes known to do. I know youre interest in innovation and im concerned weve had testimony before this committee that Small Companies in the Silicon Valley, for example, wont even bid or interact with the pentagon because the process is so cumbersome and lengthy and burdensome and now were at a point where some sigma majority of the Defense Department funds go to four or five major contractors. How do we deal with the system itself, the infrastructure of acquisition so that we can open up to greater innovation coming very frequently from Smaller Companies . Senator, for large programs, our Small Companies in Silicon Valley are likely not going to be the competitors were looking for. However, that said, two very innovative programs are under way as we speak. The first is a Venture Capital incubator that helps our acquisition professionals learn the ins and outs of the Venture Capital business. Venture capital is what runs Silicon Valley. Its the willingness to take risk on new programs, on new technologies on rapid prototyping that might or might not deliver at relatively small amounts of money and thats the reason we established, in part, the Defense Innovation unit experimental in Silicon Valley, not only to have a point of preference but to actually have a funding vehicle where we can essentially engage in rapid prototyping in Venture Capital like activities with those companies. Is that far enough along to determine whether its working . Sir, i think it is. Weve expanded the concept to Technology Centers in boston and austin, texas, as well, because were finding the kinds of companies that can bring us innovative ideas that can be scaled into major programs. Let me talk about the third offset. The first two were focused largely on the warsaw pact and the soviet union. Talk about the third offset as it would relate to the multiplicity and diversity of threats that we face today. Thank you, senator. The threats we face today are largely based on mimicking that can deny our access to the areas that we previously had free access to. The projection of power is fundamental to our ability to fight wars. So as we look at the third offset, the principle things we were examining and continue to examine are Artificial Intelligence and the ability to team humans with machines to speed our understanding of the complex battle space thats represented by these new adversaries and competitors and then react inside of that battle space faster than they can respond to our actions. It also involves building around our bases and forces a degree of resiliency through camouflage concealment deception as well as distributed operations that prevents our opponents from being able to hold the whole force at risk using their ballistic and Cruise Missile systems. Part of this resiliency is defense against cyber. One would assume that if a conflict was to begin being the first phase would be cyber to take out Communications Systems and those kinds of things. Is that part of the thinking . Yes, sir. In fact, implicit in the third offset thinking is the partnership between humans and machines and in that space machine to machine defense of cybernetworks in an absolute requirement. Its not an implied task. Its an explicit task. Were giving our opponents maneuvering space in that domain to defeat us in detail. The final question there really isnt time for an answer and perhaps you could take it for a record. I recently finished mcmasters book and its critical in term of the joint chiefs. Id like your thoughts, not now, but in writing, on what the role of the joint chiefs are in a situation where the Political Leadership is either not listening or taking a position that you feel is contrary to the countrys interests in terms of its military capabilities. General mcmaster does a masterful job of outlining the problem, but im interested in some thinking about what is the solution to the problem that he illuminates so brilliantly in that book. In short, senator, id say our obligation is to provide blunt, honest, best military advice and in the absence of a rule that forces our policy makers to actually follow that advice, we continue to give it loud and long. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, senator king. Senator warren . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Like my colleagues, i want to say for the record how much we miss senator mccain and wish him a speedy recovery. I also note that senator reed and mccain talked about duix. I want to express my strong support for the work youre doing there and how much more we can do with duix. What i wanted to focus on, general selva, i heard you publicly describe the main Global Threats that we face as challenges. Russia, china, iran, north korea and violent extremism. I want to ask you about another global threat and thats Climate Change. A Defense Department report from two years ago observed and im going to quote it here Global Climate change will have wideranging implications for u. S. National security interests over the foreseeable future because it will aggravate existing problems, such as poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership and weak political institutions. In short, this dod report described Climate Change as a threat multiplier. So general selva, what impact do you believe that the change in climate will have on the military services . And what are do you believe the department of defense should be doing now to prepare for this impact . Thank you, maam. The dynamics that are happening in our climate will drive uncertainty and will drive conflict. And ill just provide one example of how that can happen, and this is a manmade problem. The dams along the nile river control the flow of water into what was the firstal crescent of egypt. And any change to that water flow causes the egyptians to become more hostile to their neighbors who are putting dams upstream of the egyptian stretch of the nile river. I could build that argument in a variety of countries around the world, and those are manmade problems, not directly related to Climate Change, but related to how we as humans change our environment. If you extend that argument to the kinds of things that might happen if we see tidal rises, if we see increasing weather patterns of drought and flood, and forest fires and other natural events that happen inside of our environment, then were going to have to be prepared for what that means in terms of the potential for instability in regions of the country where those impacts happen. Particularly today, places where theres massive food instability. In africa, thats a classic example where a small drought over a limited period of time can decimate the crops and cause instability and make that an area fertile for recruitment of extremists because they see no other way. Similarly, you could look at the decimation of the fisheries off somalia that contributed to piracy because the fishermen couldnt make their livelihood by doing what they do best, which is fishing on the fishing grounds off somalia. I think we need to be prepared for those. It will cause us to have to address questions like humanitarian Disaster Relief and it will also cause us to have to focus on places where climate instability might cause actual political instability in regions of the world we hadnt previously had to Pay Attention to. If Climate Change is an ongoing phenomenon, one that right now is worsening, the Climate Change is going to have a profound impact directly on our military and on our military infrastructure and on how the military is able to carry out its mission. So i really hope in addition to all of the other global challenges that you have in front of you, and i know they are many and i know they are serious, we need you to lead today on this challenge, general. Tomorrow may be too late. So i want to follow up in just a little bit of time i have remaining on senator kaines question about the third offset. And i know youve made this a priority. Im assuming youll do the same if youre there for a second term. What im concerned about is we dont appear to be moving very fast. Many of the technologies that were talking about here are still in the development phase. Meanwhile, our near peer competitors are continuing to improve their capabilities. It can take years, sometimes decades, from the time we first sign a contract for a new technology to actually make it out into the field. So let me just ask you if you can Say Something very briefly, because were really over time, you can take this for the record, what can we do about this to speed up our Response Time here . I would make two quick points. Okay, and lets make them quick. First is rapid prototyping. We have to be willing to invest and fail in systems that might not work. The second is we cant be bashful about bringing new software into our architectures. So we have worked very closely with some of the companies in Silicon Valley to do rapid prototyping testing and deployment of software that helps with things like automatic target recognition and change detection. I think those are two things we can do right now and be quite successful. Good. I know you share my concern about being outpaced by technology. And how much you make this a priority, i think youll have everyones support as you make that a priority. Thank you. Senator. Thank you, mr. Chair. General selva, let me begin by thanking you for your service to our country. Your previous work before you took your current position, you were the commander of the u. S. Transportation command. And i know that in your statement for the record, you stated that our military strategy is predicated on our ability to deploy and sustain forces. Based upon your previous position, you understand the need to be able to get to where the fight is at. I understand that you appreciate the reliance that we have on commercial air carriers in order to do that within our current plans. As you already know, right now dod has no means to extend the Cyber Protection to these critical commercial carriers. Ive talked about this in a few hearings including just last week. My question for you is, if you were an adversary nation, how would you exploit this, and how would that impede the ability of the United States to deploy forces . I realize that you may be limited in what you can say about this in an open session, but i think it would be really good for this committee and the American People to hear a few general comments on the issue, because unless we continue to focus and gain public support for what i think we need to do with regard to Cyber Protection, its going to be very difficult to get to where we have to be. And we have to have the commercial air carriers available in times of an air lift. Could you comment about what that means and how our adversaries might exploit the Current Situation . Senator, im cautious other than echoing what you said about the potential vulnerabilities of commercial networks in an open session. But i will add the following. Its not just our air carriers that make us successful at projecting force overseas. Its our air carriers, our overocean merchant marine as well as the rail and Trucking Industry in this country, and all three together, land, sea, and air, are the capability we bring to be able to deploy force around the world. All of those capabilities i just described are dependent on the quality and voracity of the data they use to move our forces. So that data, those networks, are just as important as the trucks, trains, ships, and planes that move our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines. Thank you, sir. I think solving this Public Private cybersecurity vulnerability would give us insight and experience to really build a framework to use on the countless other cyber scenes between organizations in and outside of government. Can you give me an update at least in general terms on how the security gap is being addressed today . Clearly, its not a case where were just planning for the future. We have things in place today. Can you give us some reassurances . Again, this is based on my experience in my prior job. The transcom j6, director of communications, is given the authorities and responsibilities of protecting not only the trance com network but extending through contract vehicles to our civilian providers those data standards and Network Standards that allow them to subscribe to many of the protections that are afforded to the transcom network that may be a model we can build our private Public Network into other sectors of the economy. Just in the minute or so i have remaining, in your experience, is two years enough time to maximize the vice chiefs potential to provide optimal strategic guidance as well as maintain continuity for your large portfolio . No, sir, its not. Thats why im so encouraged to see the work that was done in the 2017 National Defense authorization act that actually makes the chairman and vice chairman positions fouryear tours with only one potential renomination for a twoyear extension. That fouryear term will allow the chairman and vice chairman to have the strategic impact that you expect of uniformed members in those positions. Thank you, sir. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you. Senator peters. Thank you, mr. Chairman. General selva, great to have you here before us again, certainly appreciate the opportunity to have some discussions with you both here as well as in my office, and i want to thank you for your focus on advanced technologies and the understanding of how we need to be at the forefront of that, continue to keep our competitive edge. I just want to say before i ask you a question that we heard a lot about Silicon Valley and other places like boston when it comes to advanced technology. But we have all of that in michigan as well. In fact, when the u. S. Patent Office Opened their First Field Office outside of washington, d. C. , they did it in detroit, michigan, because more patents are filed there than anywhere in the country, given the fact we have more engineers per capita than any other area leads to that. I hope as youre looking at innovative technology, you continue to focus on a wide geographic space and understand that we have incredible capabilities throughout our country. I recently met with general dais, the acting director of the armys Capabilities Integration Center as well as dr. Thomas russell from the armys acquisition logistics and technology to discuss the armys robotics and Autonomous Systems strategy. During that meeting, we discussed the challenges of fielding these capabilities within troop formations and the efficacy of deploying autonomous and semiAutonomous Systems in future conflicts. The armys strategy calls for investment in strategy over the next five years, i would like to hear your assessment and analysis as to the status of each of the services and the department in researching and utilizing particularly autonomy and robotics. Thank you, senator. All of the services are actually quite engaged in a campaign to understand where advanced Artificial Intelligence and autonomy can be inserted into current concepts of operations and how they might be used in new and imaginative concepts of operations. To help defeat adversaries across the spectrum of potential conflicts that we might find ourselves in. Im very careful in public settings about the discussion of the very specifics of some of those autonomy initiatives, particularly as they relate to advanced air defense and the projection of force into denied areas because they will actually expose some of the vulnerabilities we believe our opponents have, and they will actually expose some of the tools we think we can bring to bear. But if you allow me to use shorthand, it is very compelling when one looks at the capabilities that Artificial Intelligence can bring to the speed and accuracy of command and control. And the capabilities that advanced robotics might bring to a complex battle space, particularly machine to machine interaction in space and cyber where speed is of the essence. And ill stop there at the risk of exposing things that were actually doing. Fully understand, general. The dod directive 3,000. 09 governs the departments approach to Weapons Systems and is due to be renewed this year. This directive assigns responsibility for the use of autonomous and semiAutonomous Systems including manned and unmanned platforms. In doing so, the department has stated it will not allow any robot or machine to take Lethal Action without a human operator in a Decision Making loop. I know youre well aware of the moral and ethical issues associated with that. However, our adversaries often do not consider the same moral and ethical issues that we consider each and every day. In fact, a recent article in defense one highlights russias ambition to deploy a. I. Directed weapons capable of identifying and engaging targets and even suggesting that russian weapon makers see robotics and a. I. As a key for their future sales for adversaries of ours around the world. So given that dod directive is due to expire later this year, can you provide us some update on the process to update and review the process and your thoughts regarding what seems to be russian developments in a. I. Targeting . Yes, sir, i will. First of all, there will be a raucous debate in the department about whether or not we take humans out of the decision to take Lethal Action. I will tell you in this forum that i am an advocate for keeping that restriction. That because we take our values to war and because many of the things that we must do in war are governed by the laws of war, which say we must take proportional and discriminate action against an enemy to achieve our objectives, i dont think its reasonable for us to put robots in charge of whether or not we take a human life. That doesnt mean that we dont have to address the development of those kinds of technologies and potentially find their vulnerabilities and exploit those vulnerabilities to our own defense, but publicly, i think we should all be advocates for keeping the ethical rules of war in place, less we unleash on humanity a set of robots that we dont know how to control. And thats way off in the future. But its something we need to deal with right now. Thank you, general. Thank you, senator inhofe. Good morning, general. General, when do you expect the npr and bmdr to be complete . My expectation is that it will take several more months to complete the Nuclear Posture review and the Ballistic Missile defense review will follow it because the secondary review is informed by many of the struteatic choices made in the posture review. You testified earlier this year that the npr would be examining Response Options to russias violation of the inf treaty. Is that correct . Yes, maam. By that, do you mean that the mpr will describe potential Response Options or will it contain a decision that we pursue a particular course of action . The design of the npr is to provide the president with options so we will provide him with a set of options that might be reasonable responses to the russian activity with respect to the inf. With no decision on those, just options . Yes, maam. And i know that we have conferred with the russians about their violation and what has their response been . They have been moot on how we intend to respond. Have you seen any indication that they intend to come back in the compliance with these treaty . No, maam. As you provide options to the president , will you be including the russian response or nonresponse in those options that you give him . Yes, maam. The russian activities are a part of the strategic environment within which we will present options to the president. If they would all of a sudden step forward and begin a dialogue with us, would that change then the options that you present to the president . It would likely change those options, but if the russians step forward and said they were willing to return to compliance with the inf, we would have to have a method of actually verifying that compliance, which would require inspections of the Weapons Systems they have deployed. You would anticipate the options would still include they have not responded. Yes, maam. There has been some suggestion that russia doesnt really get any kind of military advantage from the deployment of their ground launch Cruise Missile. Do you agree with that view . Given the location of the specific missile and the deployment, they dont gain any advantage in europe. Thats as close as i will get to agreeing with you, maam. Beyond the direct military implications, do you believe there are broader strategic implications when it comes to confronting violations of an armed control agreement . And that failing to respond could have a negative consequence on those broader implications when it comes to nonproliferation . I think, maam, with respect to any given treaty on nonproliferation, the inability to enforce the standards to which parties have agreed, whether bilaterally or multilaterally, renders all other agreements less compelling. Can you tell us your opinion on where we go from here . I think we should use all of the tools that exist within the intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty to negotiate and try to compel the russians to return to compliance. Im not saying that they will. We should also take a look inside of the treaty as we present options to the president at those research and Development Programs that are available to us to actually increase pressure on the russians. Thank you. As you know, russia maintains far more Tactical Nuclear weapons than the United States. And theyre deploying more Nuclear Capable sea, air, and now ground launch Cruise Missiles. Do you believe that the line between strategic Nuclear Weapons and Tactical Nuclear weapons is eroding, and what implications does this have for any future arms control talks . I think as we discuss Nuclear Deterrence with the russians and now the chinese and likely in the future other countries, we need to make very clear that there is no fire break between strategic Nuclear Weapons and, quote, nonstrategic Nuclear Weapons. That the use of Nuclear Weapons in war crosses a threshold that will require a response. Is this advice that the present administration has received . Its the standing advice we have given every president that i know of in recent history. And do you believe that future agreements must include limitations on those Tactical Nuclear weapons . . I think it would be a useful diplomatic exercise and a useful initiative to attempt to negotiate with all holders of Tactical Nuclear weapons. Their reduction and potential elimination to avoid the potential for miscalculation in the future. Should it be more than just an exercise . Should it be part of the goals that we are trying to attain in any treaty . Yes, maam. Let me be clear with my terms. I didnt mean that as an exercise as an intellectual exercise. I made it as a force of diplomacy to get that work done. Thank you very much, general. Thank you, senator inhofe. Thank you, senator fischer. Senator heinrich. Welcome back, general. I want to follow up on the questions on the third offset that senator king and senator warren raised. And specifically, i want to talk a little bit about directed energy. As the vice chairman of the joint chiefs, you have unique insight into the joint requirements oversight council, which identifies capability gaps for the military and generates requirements to fill those gaps. For the purposes of things like base protection, counter rocket, counter artillery, counter mortar, directed energy Weapons Systems have significant advantages that seem to be unable to enter the requirement setting process because alternative kinetic options already exist. What do you think is preventing these technologies for the war fighter . Is it the pursuit of perfection over fielding something today, or are directed Energy Weapons being held to a different standard . Thank you for the question, senator. I dont believe theyre being held to a different standard. The introduction of directed Energy Weapons into particularly defensive capabilities has proven a difficult task in order to produce the power and the concentration of energy on targets to destroy them, particularly artillery and Ballistic Missiles. We have had significant progress in the counter Unmanned Aircraft systems area in bringing directed Energy Weapons into either defeating the sensors or defeating the actual aircraft themselves. I think the promise is there for directed energy. Its going to be a matter of the concentration of that energy to have lethal effect. And so back to your original point, i do not believe were holding the directed Energy Technology to a different standard. But we need to continue to investigate whether or not it does give us the advantages that the Technology Advocates promise. Specifically with respect to the necessity to kill an incoming kinetic vehicle. You know, i have been following this for a long time. As you know, i started out my career at air force research labs. I would just encourage you to take a close look at where these are today, both in terms of High Energy Lasers and high powered microwave. Once you see artillery shells shot out of the sky, unmanned aerial vehicles, i think were at a point today where this is ready for primetime. As opposed to continuing to chase perfection. And i think that the solutions that it offers avoid many of the Collateral Damage issues that inherently plague kinetic munitions missiles. So i would just urge you to sort of stay at the cutting edge of what we can offer right now within this technology. I want to shift a little bit to the issue of russia, and you and i have talked before about that. But to me and to many of my colleagues, i think the pattern of behavior from russia is painfully obvious, that they will do what it takes to achieve their objectives. With very little limitations. Whether its interfering in u. S. Elections, interfering with european elections, formulating an assassination plot like in montenegro. Russia is treating the west right now like its the wild, wild west, with no norms, no laws, no consequences. Should there be consequences for the kind of hostile actions we have seen from russia both directed at the United States and at our allies in europe . Senator, i believe there should be consequences. The russians have adopted a philosophy of operating below what they believe is the wests threshold to respond. Exactly. We need to understand what that strategy means and how to counter it. And impose the kinds of consequences that are necessary to prevent them from being successful or to deter them from the activity in the first place. Do you part and parcel of that is understanding how theyre doing what theyre doing. Absolutely. Do you have thoughts on what those consequences should look like if we want russia to change their current pattern of behavior . I think this is going to require that we bring all of the tools of government to bear. The military tool is not going to be enough, particularly given the kinds of circumstances where the russians attempt to operate below our threshold to respond. So a whole of government approach that includes things like sanctions, includes things like the removal of properties that we have seen here in the United States . We should consider all of those things working in concert . All of those among others, yes, sir. Thank you. To your question on directed energy, i will commit to having a meeting with the jroc and bring in the Technology Experts who can bring us up to date to make sure were not missing anything. I would deeply appreciate that. I think theres a handful of projects that are sort of on the shelf and ready to go right now that theres a great deal of interest in moving forward, directly to the war fighter. Yes, sir. Thank you, senator. Senator sullivan. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And general, congratulations on your nomination. To talk about readiness here for a minute, from 2010 to 2016, the department of Defense Budget was cut by 24 . A quarter of the budget gone. Did you support that drastic cut . Sir, i was not in the position im in during that period of time. I was the executer of the cuts at the receiving end as both a fielded commander and a combatant commander. My caution is those cuts hurt. They hurt not only our ability to respond with respect to purchasing new Weapons Systems and being ready for what were facing today, but they also caused us to balance readiness and procurement, and because readiness is something you can defer to the future, we deferred a lot of training during that time period in order to make those numbers work. I agree with that. I think that the that these drastic cuts are coming home to roost in terms of readiness. Do you think do you believe that a lack of readiness can be deadly for our military members . A lack of readiness and i. N. Combat can be deadly. Its important to understand that what we did during that time period was focus on the fight that was right ahead of us, so we made sure our forces were ready to deploy to the places they were going and we deferred most of the highend training, the complex maneuver exercises, the joint exercises that make us ready to face peer competitors. Let me go into more specifics. There was an article in the marine force times that talked about marine corps aviation and how the lack of readiness is not only harmful to our National Interests but its actually threatening the safety of our aviators when theyre not able to fly the article said, more Marine Aviation related deaths are going up. We had a horrible, horrible accident just two weeks ago with the c130 refueler, 16 brave souls were killed in that. What are we doing about those kind of training accidents that are in my view are undermining the ability of the force to operate . And risking the lives of the men and women who volunteer to defend our country . Its outrageous. First of all, senator, i mourn the loss of the 16 marines. We all do. But its way too premature to make any conclusions about the cause of that accident, and in deference to the bravery of those 16 marines, i think we should reserve judgment on whether or not training was an issue in that accident. It is common among aviators of which i am one that training does have value in increasing the safety and efficacy of our force. So during those time periods where we compromise on training, we do assume risk, that is a consequence of having to balance within the budget were given to operate. So i think we should be careful about making conclusions about last weeks accident or using a single article to make conclusions about the viability of training for aviators inside the marine corps. Well, in 2015, Marine Aviation related deaths hit a fiveyear high. And something needs to change. And to me, it relates to training. Are our aviators in the marine corps and air force flying less hours now . Sir, im not disputing we need to focus on training and safety within all of our aviation services. Please dont get me wrong. With reference to the specific accident were talking about im not talking about thats an example of whats happening too often. I think it relates directly to 25 decline in military spending. Nobody talks about. This congress approved, that the Previous Administration cut a quarter of the Defense Budget. It is reasonable to draw the conclusion that reductions in training are potentially the cause of an increase in the risk we take to do the work we do. Let me ask just a followup on chairman inhofes question about north korea. The testimony in front of this committee has been consistently an open setting, its no longer a matter of if but when kim jongun is going to have an intercontinental ballistic Nuclear Missile that can threaten lask, my state, and hawaii, senator hironos state, but the entire lower 48 continental United States. Can you describe succinctly what our north korea strategy is, what the goal is, and how were trying to achieve it, and how we in the congress can help you . Is the goal to prevent at all costs kim jongun having that capability . Because as you know, general, he is rapidly, rapidly hitting it. Whats the goal, whats the end state, and how can we support it . Senator, i think we have to have two parallel lines of effort. The first is to attempt diplomatically and militarily to prevent him from achieving his goal of having a weapon. Would we preemptatively launch military operations . I think we have to entertain that potential option. That would be a policy choice by the president of the United States to execute or not execute that option. Which would need the authorization of congress. We would. We need to think seriously about what the consequences of that action might be. A parallel line of effort is to make sure that as he continues along the path to developing weapons that can strike the continental United States, that we have a parallel effort to provide for the defense of the United States with a suitable Ballistic Missile Defense System that can handle the low volume at this point of missiles he might be able to deploy that can strike us here across all of u. S. Territory, alaska, hawaii, and the lower 48. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, senator sullivan. Senator siroano. General, good to see you again. Thank you very much for your continuing service. As we sit here discussing the threats posed by both russia and north korea, there are two very Different Countries that we are trying to figure out, what is it going to take for us to alter the behavior of both of these countries. In the case of russia, it appears as though maintaining sanctions and possibly imposing more sanctions has some kind of a sanitary effect. Would you agree with that . In concert with our nato allies and other partners that targeted sanctions on russia do actually have effect. And can affect their behavior. It is a lot harder to figure out what will incentivize north korea to alter their push to become a nuclear power, so we seem to be placing a lot of emphasis on our hope that china will play a pivotal role in reining in north koreas ambitions. Do you think that were placing too much emphasis on china . And if so, you mentioned Diplomatic Solutions or a diplomatic approach. I dont know that we even have a confirmed ambassador to south korea, for example. What are your thoughts about what more we can do, ie, to incentivize china to do more with regard to north korea or for us to pursue some other avenues, long shots, as they may be, because kim jongun does not appear to respond to the usual approaches. Thank you, maam. I think the work thats being done to pressurize the situation with respect to north korea in terms of economic sanctions and broad trade sanctions is helpful. It is also quite useful to get the chinese to do whatever they can diplomatically and use whatever leverage they have. The point thats not lost on me and i dont think on any of you is the fact that a kim jongun who has possession of Nuclear Weapons that can threaten the United States clearly has possession of weapons that can threaten his relationship with china and fundamentally change the power structure in the region. And that makes a kim jongun armed with Nuclear Weapons a threat to china as well. I think we should leverage as much of that as we can to try to get the chinese not only to work on what they believe is maintaining the stability of north korea but to put pressure on him not to deploy Nuclear Weapons should he continue their development. And i think that occurs to our benefit because it avoids open conflict with north korea, although we need to continue to be prepared in the event they are not successful. So do you think that our best bet with regard to north korea is to come to a much better understanding with china . Because you say that economic sanctions has an impact on north korea, although its hard to see that as having much of a deterrent effect at all. We all recognize that, yes, a Nuclear Armed north korea is a threat to china, but its very hard to tell when china will deem that theres been a Tipping Point reached with regard to north korea where some kind of a much more concerted effort will come into play. Do we have the kind of relationship with china right now that will enable us very quickly to identify what i would deem a Tipping Point and do something in a concerted way with the u. S. And china . I can only give you an assessment as an observer of the activities of the state department and our secretary of state. Theyre giving a tremendous amount of effort to building that relationship with china. The early indications were that china was willing to put pressure on north korea, although we have not seen that pressure be successful. Im keeping my fingers crossed. With regard to the asia pacific region, there are some who argue that or observe that we do not have a current overarching strategy to address the challenges in this part of the region, which has some of the largest militaries and four of the five most significant threats to the u. S. Are in the asia pacific area. Do you agree that we do not have an overarching strategy to address the challenges in the asia pacific arena . I do not agree that we dont have a strategy. The question is whether the critics of that should believe its fulsome enough to deal with the threats of resurgent north korea and emerging china and a resurgent russia, three of the principle threats in the region in addition to violent extremism. I am running out of time, general. If we do have a strategy, very succinctly, what is that strategy with regard to the asia pacific threats . We manage some of our longest standing alliances in the pacific with japan, korea, the philippines, thailand, and others. We have relationships with australia, new zealand, and like minded nations that are putting pressure on china not to destabilize the region. Those are not specifically aimed at north korea, but they could be. We are a nation that exists on trade and economic relationships in the region. And very strong diplomatic relationships and alliances across the pacific. Those are the sum pieces of the strategy without actually trying to outline all of it. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you. Senator wicker. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, general selva. Appreciate you being here. Theres a lot of bipartisanship on this committee. I think you know that based on the legislation were putting forward. The senior senator from hawaii serves as Ranking Member of the sea power subcommittee, a committee i have the honor of chairing. We recommended to the full committee and this committee has reported language which is contained in the ships act, which sits as a policy of the United States of america that we move to a 355ship fleet. The house of representatives has also taken this issue up, and has put that in their bill. That bill is further along over there than here. This 355ship requirement, general, i hope youll take this back to the joint to the joint chiefs of staff, this 355ship requirement is not something that the ship building industry came up with, although im sure theyre delighted about it. Its not something we invented as people in states that build ships, although we would like to see the idea of defending our nation and military manufacturing. This is a requirement that came from the people out in the field looking at the seas and saying what do we need to make america safe at this particular time . And basically, they took the requirements, sent them in, and it was way more than 355. About twice that much. And then they said, resource constrained, what should be the requirement . So the considered opinion of the best minds in the military came up with the 355. I just want to emphasize to you before i ask another question that we take that requirement seriously. And we have been in a position this year both in the house and Senate Committees to give you what you need, and we want to communicate to you that we take this seriously, and we want to be your partner there and actually give substance to what has been stated as the requirement. So please know that. Now, also, in the area of bipartisanship. I want to applaud what senator heinrich said about russia. And i think im quoting him correctly, russia will do whatever they feel is necessary. And they look at the threshold of what we in the west are sort of willing to tolerate and kind of stay under that threshold. Thats been a pretty good strategy for president putin. And im getting tired of it. And i hope the American People and the pentagon and this committee are getting tired of it, because it threatens interNational Security. Now, you answered a question to senator ernst about providing lethal weapons to ukraine. As i understand it, in eastern ukraine, the government of ukraine has troops there. And they are engaged in kinetic activity against russianbacked forces. Is that correct, general selva . Yes, sir, thats correct. Along the line of contact between the donbas and the rest of the ukraine. Would it be helpful to those ukrainian troops if they had better lethal weapons in which to defend their country and defend the government of ukraine . Sir, thats a policy choice. The kinds of lethal defensive weapons that have been advocated for ukraine would allow them to defend themselves along the line of contact against those forces supported by the russians. Okay, so there is a discussion among the joint staff about this, i understand, from your earlier answer. And youre working with the european command to identify what types of weapons are necessary. So when can we expect a decision about that, and how can we be helpful in exhorting our government to provide the kind of weapons that i think senator ernst and i and others are advocating . Sir, those discussions are ongoing, so i think within the coming months youll have an answer to that question, but we have advocated, for example, for lethal means like antitank weapons, so not tanks and offensive capability but defensive capability. We have advocated. Who is the we there . We be the european command and the joint staff. Okay, now months could be 11 months, it could be two months. Can you give us a little more specific idea of when we might actually be able to make a decision and do something that would help these people defend themselves and stand up to the sort of activity that senator heinrich was talking about in his question . Sir, if i can take that back and get you the actual timeline for the discussions, i dont have it with me, but im happy to do that. Okay. Well, thank you very much. Please be advised that this senator, for one, thinks that it is time for us to give these people what they need to defend their own country. Thank you, sir. Senator wicker, let me add that currently, the oklahoma 45th guard is over there training them, a little bit perplexed on what theyre training them with. Excellent question. Senator blumenthal. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to follow those questions asked by my colleague from mississippi, and first to overwhelmingly endorse his view, and i have championed it on this committee that this nation should be providing the kind of lethal defensive weapons, including antitank armaments that are necessary for the ukrainians to defend their own nation. You would agree with me that they are defending their nation against russian aggression, correct . Yes, sir, they are defending their sovereignty. And you said, i think a moment ago, that the question of whether to provide that type of weaponry is a policy choice. But perhaps you can tell us in as graphic terms as possible what the difference would make if we provide those kinds of weapons to the ukrainians. They would be far more effective on the battlefield in defending their country, correct . Yes, sir. Let me make sure that im clear on the discussion of the policy question. The policy question is not whether or not to provide lethal defensive assistance but the kinds and quantities of that lethal defensive assistance to the ukrainians so that they can defend their sovereignty. Maybe you can give us some examples of that choice. How advanced would the antitank weapons be and in what quantities would they be delivered is an example of that conversation. Why not give them the most advanced kind of antitank weapons or the most advanced kind that they need to counter why give them secondrate antitank weapons . I dont want to be argumentative, some of the weapons that we have have technology controls on them that we do not transfer them to other countries unless we can have assurances that the Technology Wont be exploited. Even in your question, you actually qualified by saying the lethal capabilities they need versus the best possible available, and thats the policy choice we have to make with respect to the types and amounts of aid that we provide. And i would agree with you that we should not transfer technology that could be compromised or that could be captured by our russian adversaries and they are our adversaries, too. But i want to join in the expression of impatience, very strong impatience with the delays that we seem to have encountered. I met just last sunday with a group of ukrainian americans who in effect said to me, you have been coming to us saying these weapons are going to be provided. Is there some kind of barrier or obstacle . And i am at a loss to give them the kind of answer they deserve. And i think were at a loss to understand what the barriers or obstacles are. Im not directing this question or my impatience at you personally because i recognize there are other factors at issue here. With respect to russian interference in our election, you have no reason to question the overwhelming unanimous views of the Intelligence Community that they interfered in our election, do you . I have no reason to question their views but i have no firsthand knowledge of the information that theyre examining. And would you agree with me that having some kind of cybersecurity pact with the russians seems foolhardy at best . Not having the details of the potential agreement, its hard for me to say that they would be any more reasonable about a cyber pact than they are about inf or any of the other treaties without some iron clad method of verification and validation of their intentions. So its worth a conversation. The question is without any detail, were having a hypothetical discussion about whether or not they would imply. Their record in cyber domain is one of attacking this nation, would you agree . Yes, sir. So sharing any information with them is just going to give them additional in effect keys to our cyber kingdom. If thats the foundation of such an agreement, that would be true. Well, any kind of information sharing would be involved in a pact or agreement. And seems highly foolhardy and dangerous to our National Security. Again, without the context of the actual agreement, its hard to know what information would or wouldnt be shared. Thank you. I want to end where i should have begun, by thanking you for your service and congratulations on your reappointment in your new position. Thank you very much, sir. Senator graham. Thank you, general. I want to echo that, too. You have served well and look forward to keeping you in the job. I associate myself with senator wicker and blumenthal and inhofe about helping the ukraine. Do you agree that given the threats we face, and we have been talking about a few of them, the air force needs to be bigger and more capable in the out years . Yes, sir, and i believe thats the proposal that the chief of staff of the air force and the secretary have brought forward in the last budget. Thank you. Lets talk about three battlefields right quickly. Iraq. Do you support a residual force once isil is defeated in iraq if the iraqis would agree . Yes, sir, if the iraqis will agree, we will likely need to do continued advising and assisting of the Iraqi Security forces. Is that true for the air force particularly . Yes, sir. The iranians are there in fairly large numbers, i hear. Is that correct . Or having influence in fairly substantial ways. As a consequence of a long relationship between iraqi shia and the iranian government, there are iraqis sorry, iranians present in iraq. That doesnt mean that they necessarily have to be a controlling influence in iraq. Continuing to build our relationship with the iraqi government, Iraqi Security forces, i believe, is in our interest. Offering iraq something they would want from us, not from iran, like helping train their air force, would give us leverage in iraq . Quite possibly would, yes, sir. Okay. Afghanistan. Whats the state of the Afghan Air Force in terms of capability to support their forces in the field . Theyre beginning to be able to sfoeupport their forces in t field with a modicum of lift and Light Attack Aircraft which are very useful in the theater. Their Helicopter Force is subject to the maintenance woes of old russian aircraft. So i have a proposal in place tr actually replace their aging russian vintage helicopters with uh60s. Those are the helicopters that the Afghan Air Force trains on here in the United States. Until that happens, do you agree it would be in our interest to provide air power missing to the forces as they fight International Terrorists . Yes, sir, particularly as a bridge to their capability to provide longterm support for their ground force. Do you support additional troops going into afghanistan . I think it would be a determination of what specific tasks those forces would be doing. But as we look at afghanistan today counterterrorism . It would be one of those missions. Supporting the afghan National Security forces with train, advise, and assist would be another one. And have some air power at their disposal they dont have today . Yes, sir. Okay, syria. Today, we take raqqah back, we better have a plan postraqqah, right . Yes, sir. What role do you think the United States should play in terms of stabilizing syria when raqqah falls . Its actually i think a bigger task than that, senator. Raqqah is the Current Center of external planning for isis in syria. They have already begun a migration towards the middle euphrates valley. Until we have worked either by, with, and through partners on the ground or the Syrian Government shows a willingness to actually deny sanctuary to isis, they will continue to be a threat to stability in iraq and in the region. And air power we wont be done when were done in raqqah. Air power is deployed in syria against isil today . American air power . Air power from 69 nations are used in syria today as well as a very small number of Ground Forces that are providing advice and assistance to those elements that are willing to fight isis in syria. Would you be open to adding more air power into afghanistan . I was shocked to hear the number of f16s we have was pretty small. I would have to look at the numbers to be honest with you, senator. The capacity of those airplanes to range most of afghanistan and to service the targets in afghanistan with the help of tankers and bombers from the gulf is actually a pretty compelling amount of air power in the region as we speak. When i left, i was shocked at the few that we had given the task that we face in afghanistan. So from the American Military point of view, a lot of hard fighting had to be done in syria, iraq, and afghanistan . Yes, sir. And you see a scenario where american air power is not absolutely essentially to deciding the outcome of these battles . No, sir. Thank you very much. And to all those who serve in the air force, thank them. Thank you, sir. Thank you, senator graham. Senator cruz. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And ill say at the outset that our thoughts and prayers are with chairman mccain, as he recovers from his surgery. We look forward to his being back at the committee very soon. General, thank you for your service. I want to talk to you about several different topics, but i want to start with the iran certification. Yes, sir, the Administration Certified to congress that iran is in compliance with the nuclear deal. I have very significant concerns with that certification. I want to ask you in your judgment, do you believe iran is in compliance with the deal . Based on the evidence thats been presented by the Intelligence Community, it appears that iran is in compliance with the rules that were laid out in the jcpoa. Are they testing Ballistic Missiles. They are testing Ballistic Missiles but those were not covered under the agreement. How serious do you assess the threat of iran developing Nuclear Weapons . I think without the controls of the jcpoa, iran has the techinal expertise to be able to continue down the path to development of Nuclear Weapons. As you know, similar deal was negotiated with north korea in the Clinton Administration. And it resulted in north korea acquiring a substantial number of Nuclear Weapons. What do you believe makes this deal likely to result in any outcome different from what happened in north korea . I think there are two substantial differences at the outset. That doesnt mean that there wont be setbacks in the agreement. The first is the inspection regime that went into the agreement that allows for International Inspectors to inspect all of the areas that the iranians used in their development and storage of enriched uranium and potentially the development of Nuclear Weapons. The second is how much advanced notice does iran get before the notifications sph. I dont have the details of how much advanced notification they get, but were reasonably confident the inspectors are able to randomly inspect and they have installed technical measures that allow for constant surveillance of those same sites. The second is the provisions that allow for sanctions outside of the agreement to continue to be in place on those areas of the iranian economy as well as leadership that engage in activities that are not governed by the treaty or by the agreement. Not a treaty. So last week, we also discovered that iran had sentenced an american citizen, a princeton graduate student, to ten years in prison. Does it concern you that were certifying theyre in compliance with the deal in the wake of their imprisoning yet another american . It concerns me whenever an american citizen is imprisoned overseas, particularly in a regime thats not transparent with their judiciary system, but again, the specifics of the agreement are directed explicitly at the development of and storage of Nuclear Weapons. Well, we will continue this conversation, but i will say that i think the iran deal is wholly inadequate. The inspection regime is designed to facilitate cheating. It requires effectively three weeks advanced notice and for the most sensitive sites, the iranians selfinspect. And the American People received numerous assurances that north korea would abide by an agreement very, very similar to this, and north korea, kim jongil, happily took the billions of dollars the Clinton Administration sent to them and used it to develop Nuclear Weapons. I believe the Ayatollah Khomeini intends to do the exact same thing. I think the certification yesterday was unfortunate. And it is dangerous. Theres another certification that is due in october, i believe. And theres also an upcoming deadline for waiving sanctions. Let me say, i would urge the administration, there is no greater threat on the face of the earth to the United States than the threat of a nuclear iran. And i think the certification yesterday is very hard to justify with the facts on the ground. Let me shift to another topic. There is right now a disagreement going on between the department of defense and the house of Armed Services committee concerning whether a separate Military Branch should be created for space. I would be interested in your thoughts on that question. Thank you, senator. I do not believe now is the right time to have a discussion about developing a space force with all of the leadership and infrastructure that would go with it. It would also complicate the command and control of the space constellation, which is critical to our military operations. So i believe the time is not right for a conversation about a separate space corps or a space force. How do we do a better job defending ourselves in space given the vulnerabilities and our dependence on Satellite Technology for virtually every aspect of our military . Senator, i think there are three things that we need to do. One is actually, two are in progress, one is in work. The first was the consolidation of our National Military defensive space in a single command and control center in Colorado Springs that allowed us to operate the entire constellation as opposed to satellites in each. The National Space Defense Center i believe is functioning at the air force base in colorado as we speak. The second is to ask the commander of the Us Air Force Space command with trying to manage it. It comes under general john heightens guidance or leadership, has implemented the change in the command and control arrangements in the last few months. It is time to let that play out and see if we can get some efficiencies out of it. The third is to continue to vest in the secretary of the air force, the Acquisition Authority for satellite constellations that are critical to military defense. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, senator cruz. Senator nelson. Thank you, mr. Chairman. At the outset i want to say on behalf of so many of us that havent had a chance to register our wishes that chairman mccain have a speedy recovery and return as quickly as possible. You know, youve had, general, an extraordinary career, a very distinguished. I suspect theres not a problem in the world with you continuing that service, and i thank you for your willingness to be able to do it. Because of that experience, you want to comment on the fact that russia has a history of meddling in other peoples elections going way back, as far back as what we saw and what they did in georgia, what obviously weve seen that theyve done in ukraine, and using cyber. Im asking this for your perspective because i think putin understands he cant beat us on land, he cant beat us in the air, he cant beat us on the sea or under the sea, and he cant beat us in space, but he thinks he can beat us in cyber. He has had a number of successes going back to georgia, ukraine, now in the european elections, several european countries. So you want to comment about how serious this cyberattack problem from russia is, including our own country and the attacks weve seen here . Thank you, senator. I indicated earlier i dont have any firsthand knowledge of the russian activity thats alleged in our elections from the Intelligence Community. However, as a person who has spent a lot of time thinking about the security of the data that represents our electoral system, i think we ought to think very carefully about how we protect that data and how we use that data to facilitate the democratic process in our United States. An example that i used publicly, and if you for give me i will use now, it is much easier to tamper with Registration Data than it is to tamper with the voting data. So if i wanted to complicate an American Election or i wanted to complicate an election anywhere in the world, i would simply make it more difficult for people to vote as opposed to trying to get in after the fact and change the record of their votes. So as we look at our system which is distributed across 50 states and every precinct and municipality in those 50 states, we need to be really careful that we dont make the assertion that that inherently distributed system is protected because of its diversity and distribution. So i think we as a nation ought to think carefully about the value of the data on all of us. Our voting records in terms of how we register and how we register and how protecting that matters for future elections. In that way no one, not russia, not china, not anybody else who wants to intervene in an election will have the capacity to change our willingness and ability to vote and our willingness and ability to vote our conscience for those democratically elected leaders of our country. So, for example, it could be something as simple as going in to the registration records and deleting registrations so a person shows up and they say, mr. Jones, im sorry, youre not registered. Show up on election day or something as easy as going in and changing addresses so that it fouls up the Registration System of what precinct that youre in. Yes, sir. It could be something as simple as this, and it would hugely complicate, especially in a place like florida that has had tremendous complications with its voting, which has produced long lines that are sometimes as long as seven hours, and thats recent history by the way. You can imagine with people trying to contest the fact that they show up on election day and they say theyre not registered and they know they are and theyre trying to prove that they are and how that would foul up all of the other voters standing in line. It is an extraordinary and scary thought. And since im the last one here seeking recognition, i just want to ask you another question. What is your experience . Would you share with the committee your experience where your own privacy has been invaded on your personal accounts . Is that something that you feel comfortable in sharing . I think it would be very helpful for the committee to either know that publicly or privately. Yes, sir. I would i would share the small amount of information publicly. Immediately following the opm breach where significant amounts of personal identifying information were made available through a loss of data, about 48 hours later i was locked out of one of my bank and investment accounts as a consequence of a third party attempting to enter that account using information that was likely garnered from that personally identifying information as a consequence of the opm breach. Subsequently received a letter from opm that notified me my personal data was, in fact, part of the breach. So thats an example. I can guarantee you for that hour and a half to two hours it took for me to work with my bank and Brokerage Company to make sure my data and my investments were secure that my attention was not entirely devoted to the task at hand, which was being the commander of the United States transportation command. And are you aware that thats happened to other highranking United States military officers . Yes, sir. I think that states it, mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you, senator nelson. Senator reed, did you want to add anything . Well, let me say, youve been an excellent witness. We appreciate very much your straightforward answers and we thank you for your service. We stand adjourned. Thank you, senator. Next on cspan3, we focus on the supreme courts dred scott versus sanford decision with an episode from our landmark cases series. In 1857 the court decided 72 with slavery, clairing that dred scott and other blacks were not citizens of the u. S. And congress lacked the authority to prohibit slavery in the territories. Well start with marylands acting deputy state archivist and George Washington law school professor