Transcripts For CSPAN3 Armed Services Chairman Expresses Frustration Over Lack Of Afghanistan... 20170707

Testimony on the department of defenses fiscal year 2018 budget request. We welcome secretary mattis, chairman dunford, secretary norquist and thank you for your many years of distinguished service and your leadership of our men and women in uniform before we begin. We all want to acknowledge the service and sacrifice of Sergeant Eric houg, corporal dylan baldridge, these three soldiers from the armys 101st Airborne Division were killed this weekend in afghanistan. The thoughts and prayers of this committee are with their loved ones. The sacrifice of these heroes is a painful reminder that america is still a nation at war. That is true in afghanistan where after 15 years of war we face a stalemate and urgently need a change in strategy and an increase of resources if we are to turn the situation around. We also remain engaged in a Global Campaign to defeat isis and related terrorist groups from libya and yemen to iraq and syria where u. S. Troops are helping to destroy isis and reclaim mosul in raqqah. Meanwhile, threats around the world continue to grow more complex and severe. North korea is closing in on the development of a Nuclear Capable internet continental Ballistic Missile that can target our homeland. And iran continues to destabilize the middle east and seek to drive the United States out of the region. At the same time weve entered a new era of great power competition. Russia and china, despite their many differences, are both modernizing their militaries, developing advanced capabilities to undermine our ability to project power globally, threaten their neighbors in challenging new rules based world order. Russia in particular continues to occupy crimea, destabilize ukraine, threaten our nato allies, bolster the murderous assad regime in syria and pursue a campaign of active measures to undermine the very integrity of western democracies. The thousands of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines deployed in harms way around the globe, those of us who are charged with the awesome responsibility of providing for the common defense must ask ourselves if we are doing Everything Possible to support our brave men and women in uniform to meet the challenges of an increasingly dangerous world and succeed in their mission. Im sad to say that we are not. In response to rising threats, weve asked our military to do more and give more but have given less and less to them. Our witnesses Opening Statements are a harsh indictment to this failure, but they are right. I implore my colleagues to listen carefully to their testimony and heed their admonition to us. Since 2011 spending caps mandated by the budget control act have led to a 23 cut to the Defense Budget. These reductions compounded by fiscal uncertainty and continued resolutions have left our military with depleted forces, and aging equipment. This has put the lives of our men and women in uniform at greater risk as this committee has heard in testimony for years from our civilian defense leaders and senior military officers. The administrations fiscal year 2018 budget request if enacted could help to arrest the decline in our militarys readiness but ultimately and unfortunately it falls short of the president s commitment to rebuild our military. The proposed Defense Budget of 603 billion is both arbitrary and inadequate. Arbitrary because the top line is simply what was written into the budget control act six years ago prior to the sequester cuts and inadequate because it represents just a 3 increase over president obamas defense plan. It is hardly surprising then that this committee has received lists of unfunded requirements from the military services totalling over 31 billion, all of which secretary mattis testified last night in the House Armed Services committee that he supports. Our military Service Leaders have testified to this committee that this budget would staunch the bleeding, but we owe our men and women in uniform more than that. Its been said that this budget request focuses on readiness, and it is true that the requested funding increases would make the current force more ready for the next year. But ultimately readiness is more than training hours and time on the ranges. Real readiness requires sufficient capacity to enable our troops simultaneously to conduct operations, prepare for deployment, rest and refit and focus on the challenges of tomorrow. This budget delivers no growth in capacity, which means that the joint force will continue to consume readiness as quickly as it is produced. These increases in capacity are reflected in each services unfunded requirements. True readiness is also modernization. Because if we mortgage future capability pay for present commitments, we have achieved little, especially at a time when our adversaries are moving at an alarming rate to erode americas military technological advantage and call into question our ability to project power. Here too unfortunately this budget request poses the old false choice between readiness and modernization. The fact is that 603 billion simply is not enough to pay for both priorities, which is why the services unfunded requirements are heavy on the procurement of new and additional capabilities that are desperately needed. All of this presents this committee and this congress with a significant choice. The administrations budget request is just that, a request. Ultimately it is our independent responsibility to authorize and appropriate funding for our military at levels and in ways that we believe sufficient to provide for the common defense. I believe that this budget request is a start, but we can and must do better. This will not be possible, however, as long as the budget control act remains the law of the land. This Defense Budget request and the additional funding that our military needs is literally illegal under the budget control act. This law has done Severe Damage to our military, it has harmed the departments ability to plan and execute budgets effectively and efficiently. It is ground business to a halt. And worst of all there are for more years of bca caps to go. We cannot go on like this. Our men and women in uniform deserve better. It is time for congress to reinvest in military, restore capabilities in readiness, rebalance our joint force and renew americas military advantage. To do so we must revise or repeal the budget control act. And we must give our troops what they need to succeed today and in the future. Will the politics of this be difficult . Yes. But the question all of us here must answer is, how much longer will we send our sons and daughters into harms way unprepared before we get over our politics and do our jobs . Senator reid. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing to maintain our nations military. I also want to welcome our distinguished witnesses this morning, thank them for their service to the nation. I want to join with the chairman in paying tribute to the soldiers of the 101st who gave their lives and their families, they are examples of thousands and thousands of americans who serve and their families here at home that serve with them. Today we consider the fiscal year 2018 Trump Administration budget that seeks 574 billion in base funding and 65 billion forover seas contingency operations. As we all know the budget control act, the bca of 2011, and the sequester are still law of the land. And this budget request of d. O. D. Exceeds the bca spending cap by 52 billion. Rather than negotiate with congress or propose an outright appeal on the sequester, President Trump proposed to offset an increase in defense spending with a 52 billion cut in nondefense spending. But unless the bca has changed, the offset will seriously harm nondefense spending and fail to prevent across the board cuts reclaiming the 52 billion leaving d. O. D. In a worse position. Weve already held many hearings this year where leaders have repeatedly urged us to remove the caps and end sequestration. Like chairman mccain, i believe its time to repeal the bca. Setting arbitrary limits has not made our country safer or fixed these problems. Nor do these accurately reflect what our military needs in order to confront todays threats or the kind of domestic investment we need to keep america competitive and strong. Let me be clear, i am not opposed to increased military spending. Democrats have and will continue to support robust defense spending, but it is a duty of this committee to carefully review the budget proposals presented by the president to ensure that the funds are allocated properly so that our fighting men and women have what they need to complete their mission and return home safely. Every member regardless of party takes this duty seriously. I also believe that our budget must reflect our nations core values and take care of americans who remain at home. Our military personnel have a vision of the america they are fighting for, and it is our duty to protect that. I therefore have grave concerns about the president s budget request because it robs from peter to pay paul. The proposal increases defense spending but also eliminates 17. 3 billion from the state departments efforts to prevent wars which is the very kind of spending that secretary mattis has said is so crucial to our military efforts. It also slashes funding for Health Investments like the nih and cdc and training for Health Care Professionals to fight against Global Public Health Epidemics such as ebola, before they reach the u. S. This budget request also eliminates programs that helps vulnerable americans here at home. Certainly our military needs Additional Resources to climb out of the hole it is in and at the same time deter conflict with competitors but i do not believe we should do so at the expense of diplomacy and vulnerable americans. I will also know that for over the last 15 years we have found it important enough to send our brave men and women to war, but we have not had the courage to raise revenues to pay for these wars, as this nation has historically done. As we examine what funding requirements are necessary for the safety and security of our country, we need to look at our federal budget in a much broader context. The bca dealing with the issue between defense and nondefense spending has had the unfortunate effect that pitting each category of funding against the other. Instead we would be better served if we can sit at the needs of our nation wholistically. I also believe wed be best if we examine the president s budget request in the context of an Overall National security strategy. Such a strategy, however, has not clearly emerged as we enter the sixth month of this administration. We seem to careen from one Foreign Policy crisis to another, many of which are the administerings own making. This takes valuable energy and attention at a time when there are several significant National Security challenges on which we need to be focused. Secretary mattis and general dunford, you have been consummate professionals and steady hands in a tumultuous time. But we face many difficult decisions both strategic and budgetary that demand the kind of leadership and engagement that only a grounded and focused president can provide. I look forward to working with you and my colleagues as we address these important issues. Im proud that this committee has always worked in a bipartisan fashion during this process. I look forward to working with the chairman and all the Committee Members to come to a reasonable agreement again this year. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Secretary mattis, welcome back. Well, thank you, chairman mccain, Ranking Member reed and members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify in support of the president s budget request for fiscal year 2018. Mr. Chairman, i request the committee accept my written statement for the record. Im joined by chairman dunford and the departments new comptroller under secretary of defense david norquist. Thank you, mr. Chairman, member of the committee for your swift consideration and senates confirmation of Defense Department nominees. This budget request holds me accountable to the men and women of the department of defense. Every day more than 2 million Service Members and nearly 1 million civilians do their duty honoring previous generation to veterans and Civil Servants who have sacrificed for our country. And its my privilege to serve alongside them. We in the department of defense are keenly aware of the sacrifices made by the American People to fund our military. Many times in the past we have looked reality in the eye, met challenges with the help of congressional leadership and built the most capable war fighting force in the world. There is no room for complacency and we have no god given right to victory on the battlefield. Each generation of americans from the halls of congress to the battlefields earns victory through commitment and sacrifice. And yet for four years the department of defense had been subjected to or threatened by automatic across the board cuts as a result of sequester. A mechanism meant to be so injurious to the military it would never go into effect. But it did go into effect, and as forecast by thensecretary of defense panetta, the damage has been severe. Hollowing out our force. In addition, during nine of the past ten Years Congress has enacted 30 separate continuing resolutions to fund the department of defense, thus inhibiting our readiness and our adaptation to new challenges. We need bipartisan support for this budget request. In the past by failing to pass a budget on time or to eliminate the threat of sequestration, congress sidelined itself from its act of constitutional oversight role. Continuing resolutions coupled with sequestration blocked new programs, prevented service growth, stalled Industry Initiative and placed troops at greater risk. Despite the tremendous efforts of this committee, congress as a whole has met the present challenge with lassitude, not leadership. I retired from military Service Three months after sequestration took effect. Four years later i returned to the department and i have been shocked by what ive seen about our readiness to fight. While nothing can compare to the heart ache caused by the loss of our troops during these wars, no enemy in the field has done more to harm the combat readiness of our military than sequestration. We have only sustained our ability to meet americas commitments abroad for our security because our troops have stoically shouldered a much greater burden. But our troops stoic commitment cannot reduce the growing risk. It took us years to get into this situation. It will require years of stable budgets and increased funding to get out of it. I urge members of this committee and congress to achieve three goals. First, fully fund our request which required an increase to the Defense Budget caps. Second, pass a fiscal year 2018 budget in a timely manner to avoid yet another harmful continuing resolution. And third, eliminate the threat of future sequestration cuts to provide a stable budgetary planning horizon. Stable budgets and increased funding are necessary because of four external factors acting on the department at the same time. The first force acting on us that we must recognize is 16 years of war. When Congress Approved the all volunteer force in 1973, our country never envisioned sending our military to war for more than a decade without pause or conscription. Americas long war has placed a heavy burden on men and women in uniform and their families. A second concurrent force acting on the department is the worsening Global Security situation that the chairman spoke about. We must look reality in the eye. Russia and china are seeking veto power over the economic, diplomatic and security decisions on their periphery. North koreas reckless rhetoric and provocative actions continue despite United Nations sanctions. While iran remains the largest longterm challenge to mideast stability, all the while terrorist groups murder the innocent and threaten peace in many regions while targeting us. A third force is adversaries actively contesting americas capabilities. For decades the United States enjoyed uncontested or dominant superiority in every operating domain or realm. We could generally deploy our forces when we wanted, assemble them where we wanted and operate how we wanted. Today, every operating domain, outer space, air, sea, under sea, land and cyberspace is contested. A fourth concurrent force is rapid technological change. Among the other forces noted thus far, technological change is one that necessitates new investment, innovative approaches and new Program Starts that have been denied us by law when we have been forced to operate under continuing resolutions. Each of these four forces, 16 years of war, the worsening security environment, contested operations in multiple domains and the rapid pace of technological change requires stable budgets and increased funding to provide for the protection of our citizens and for the survival of our freedoms. I reiterate security andin solvency are my watch words as secretary of defense. The responsibility of our government is to defend the American People, providing for our security. And we cannot defend america and help others if our nation is not both strong and solvent. So we in the department of defense owe it to the American Public to ensure we spend each dollar wisely. President trump has nominated for Senate Approval specific individuals who will bring proven skills to discipline our departments fiscal processes to ensure we do so. This first step to restoring readiness is underway thanks to congress willingness to support the administrations request for an additional 21 billion in resources for fiscal year 2017 to address vital war fighting readiness shortfalls. Your support put more aircraft in the air, ships to sea and troops in the field. However, we all recognize that it will take a number of years of higher funding delivered on time to restore readiness. To strengthen the military, President Trump requested a 639 billion top line for the fy 2018 Defense Budget. This years budget reflects five priorities. The First Priority is continuing to improve war fighter readiness begun in 2017, filling in the holes from tradeoffs made during 16 years of war, nine years of continuing resolutions and budget control act caps. The second priority is increasing capacity and lethality while preparing for future investment driven by the results from the National Defense strategy we are working on now. Our fiscal year 2018 budget request ensures the nations Current Nuclear deterrent will be sustained and supports continuation of its much needed modernization process. The third priority is reforming how the department does business. I am devoted to gaining full value from every taxpayer dollar thats spent on defense thereby earning the trust of congress and the American People. We have begun implementation of a range of reform initiatives directed by the 2017 National Defense authorization act. And we are on track to enter into a full agency wide Financial Statement audit as required by statute. I urge congress to support the departments request for authority to conduct a 2021 base realignment enclosure. I recognize the careful deliberation members must exercise in considering this, but brac is one of the most successful and significant efficiency programs we have. Properly focused base closure effort will generate 2 billion or more for a period that would in the world. Investment in military compensation, retirement, military Health System and family programs are essential to building the talent we need to sustain our competitive advantage on the battlefield. Our fifth priority is support for overseas contingency operations. Fiscal year 2018 president s budget requests 64. 6 billion focusing on operations in afghanistan, iraq and syria, increasing efforts to sustain natos defenses to deter aggression and global counterterrorism operations. Isis and other terrorist organizations represent a clear and present danger. And im encouraged by the willingness of our allies and partners to share the burden of this campaign alongside it. Moving forward, the fy 2019 budget informed by the National Defense strategy will have to make hard choices as we shape the 2019 to 2023 defense program. The department will work with President Trump, congress and this committee to ensure future budget requests are both sustainable and provide the commander in chief with viable military options that support americas security. In summation, first i need the bca caps lifted and a budget, not a continuing resolution, passed on time. And elimination of future sequestration cuts so we can provide a stable and adequate way ahead of budgets. To those who are concerned, we are not asking for sufficient dollars, please consider the following. For 2017, as a supplemental we asked for 30 billion and the congress provided 21 billion for our administration to address readiness shortfalls. This fiscal year President Trump has requested 574 billion plus 29 billion in the department of Energy Budget plus 65 billion for overseas contingency operations. This is a 5 growth over what the department had for 2017. This request is 52 billion above the budget control act defense cap. We have underway at this time a National Security strategy review, and that will give us the analytic rigor to come back to you for the fy 19 to fy 23 budget request and we will build up our military that the chairman have i laid out in our written statement. I am keenly aware that each of you understands the responsibility we share to ensure our military is ready to fight today and in the future. I need your help to inform your fellow members of congress about the reality facing our military and the need for congress as a whole to pass the Defense Budget on time. Thank you, members of the committee, for your strong support over many years and for ensuring our troops have the resources and equipment they need to fight and win on the battlefield. I pledge to collaborate closely with you for the defense of our nation in our joint effort to keep our armed forces second to none. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, and chairman dunford is prepared to discuss the military dimensions of the budget request. General dunford. Senator mccain, Ranking Member reed, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to join secretary mattis and undersecretary norquist with me to do. Represent men and women in uniform and its because of them i can say with confidence that our forces remain the most capable in the world. However, the competitive advantage that the United States military has long enjoyed is eroding and a number of factors have contributed to that erosion. Chairman mccain, you mentioned several of these in your opening comments. Since 9 11 an extraordinarily high level of operational tempo has accelerated the wear and tear of our weapons and equipment. Meanwhile, budget instability and a budget control act forced the deployment operate with far fewer resources than required. As a consequence, we prioritize near term readiness at the expense of replacing aging equipment and Capability Development. We also maintain the force that consumes readiness as fast as we build it. We lack sufficient capacity to meet our current Operational Requirements while rebuilding and maintaining full spectrum readiness. The secretary and the Service Chiefs have addressed the dynamic in their testimonies and i fully concur with their assessment. Beyond readiness were confronted with another significant challenge that i assess to be now nearterm. While we have primarily focused on the threat of violent extremism, our adversaries and potential adversaries have developed advanced capabilities and operational approaches to specifically design to limit our ability to project power. They recognize that our ability to project power is the critical capability necessary to defend the homeland, advance our interests and meet our alliance commitment. Secretary mattis alluded to russia, china, and iran fielded a wide range of cyber based, aviation, maritime and land capabilities specifically designed to limit our ability to deploy, employ and sustain our forces. Russia and china have also modernized a Nuclear Arsenal while north korea has been on a relentless path to steal Nuclear Armed icbm that can reach the United States. In just a few years if we dont change the trajectory, we will lose our qualitative and our quantitative competitive advantage. The consequences will be profound. It will effect our Nuclear Deterrence, our conventional deterrence and our ability to respond if deterrence fails. Alternatively we can maintain our competitive advantage which sustain, sufficient and predictable funding. To that end the fy 18 budget is an essential step, however this request alone will not fully restore readiness or arrest the erosion of our competitive advantage. Doing that is going to require sustained investment beyond fy 18. Specific recommendations for fy 19 and beyond will be informered by the forthcoming National Defense strategy, however, we know now that continued growth in the base budget of at least 3 above inflation is the floor necessary to preserve just the competitive advantage we have today and we cant assume that our adversaries will standstill. As we ask for your report, we recognize the responsibility to maintain the trust of the american taxpayer. We take this responsibility seriously and we continue to eliminate redundancies and achieve efficiencies where possible. Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you this morning. And more importantly, thank you for assuring that americas sons and daughters never find themselves in a fair fight. And with that, chairman, im prepared to take questions. Secretary norquist. Mr. Chairman, i have no opening remark. Thank you. Secretary mattis, receive unfunded requirement military services and honored more than 31 billion, every review goes unfunded requirements, list . I have, chairman. Do you agree these are military requirements that should be funded . Chairman, i think we have our priorities with the base budget, but ive reviewed the unfunded requirement i believe is 33 billion, and i think if we were to receive more money those requests are appropriate. I guess my question is, is it your request that we give you 31 billion more . Chairman, im here to defend the budget as it stands because i can defend every priority there. If the congress were to allocate additional funds to National Defense, i believe the unfunded priority list gives good priorities. So we are satisfied with what is basically a 3 increase in budgetary requirements . Chairman, when it comes to defense, sir, we at this point, i think that the president s budget is allocated appropriate to the priorities. The priorities listed by the service chief as we go more deeply into the readiness challenge are certainly well tuned what we need. Id be happy to receive more money if the congress was to allocate additional funds, and along the lines of the unfunded priority list. Well, i appreciate your willingness to cooperate but a lot of times we depend on your recommendations in order to in shaping our authorization and appropriation. Yes, sir. I cant think of any priorities unfunded priorities list if we were given money, sir. That would be a decision by you. I have to represent the president s budget since hes having to deal with a wider portfolio than just defense. Let me put it this way, will this 3 increase give you the confidence that we need that we are doing everything we can to make sure that our men and women serving in uniform are adequately equipped and trained and ready to fight . Chairman, it took a good many years to get in the hole were in. It will not be enough in itself to take us where we need to go. Its going to be a campaign, as i laid out, it started with our request for an additional 30 billion during this fiscal year the growth that we have in the 2018 budget and when i get done with the Defense Strategy and review that, well be coming back to you for more and probably along the lines of close to 5 growth, 3 to 5 growth for 2019 to 23. But, no, it will not take us the whole way. Its in the right direction. Now, mid june congress hasnt passed a fiscal year 2018 budget, something that should embarrass every member of the senate and house. Neither the house or senate has started drafting, but considering Appropriations Bills because theres no resolution on the top line. This body knows what needs to be done and bipartisan budget deal to set the budget. If we dont begin negotiating today, its very likely the military will once again begin the fiscal year on a continuing resolution. What would be the impacts of starting this year on a continuing resolution that the budget control act with 52 billion less than your request . Chairman, it could only worsen the readiness situation we face now, which has been laid out starkly, i believe, by the Service Chiefs. If we go in with a continuing resolution. First conversation that you and i had was about a strategy for afghanistan. Were now six months into this administration. We still havent got a strategy for afghanistan. It makes it hard for us to support you when we dont have a strategy. We know what the strategy was for the last eight years, dont lose. That hasnt worked. As mentioned in my Opening Statement, just lost three brave americans. When can we expect the congress of the United States to get a strategy for afghanistan. Theres a departure in the last eight years which lose . I believe by midjuly well be able to brief you in detail, sir. Were putting it together now. And there are going to be, there are actions being taken to make certain that we dont pay a price for the delay. But we recognize the need for urgency, and your criticism is fair, sir. Well im a great admirer of yours, mr. Secretary, and so are the men and women who have had the honor of serving under you. But we just cant keep going like this. You cant expect us to fulfill the three requirements that you gave, funding increase, pass the budget, prevent a destable budget, present a stable budget if you dont give us a strategy. I hope you understand that im not criticizing you. But there are problems within this administration, i was confident that within the first 30 to 60 days we would have a strategy, from which to start working. So all i can tell you is unless we get a strategy from you, youre going to get a strategy from us. And i appreciate our wisdom and knowledge and information and all of the great things with the exception of some to my left here. But the fact is, its not our job. Its not our job. Its yours. And i have to tell you, the frustration that i feel is obviously palpable. Because its hard for us to act when you dont give us a strategy which then leads to policy, which then leads to authorization, which is our job. So i hope you understand that were going to get more vocal in our criticism of not having a strategy in afghanistan. Do you agree were not winning in afghanistan . Sir, i understand the urgency. Were not winning in afghanistan right now and we will correct this as soon as possible. I believe the three things we are asking for stand on their own merits, however. As we look more broadly at the protection of the country. But in no way does that relieve me of the responsibility to provide that strategy. I thank you, general and i understand very well, as do members of this committee that some of this is beyond your control. But at some point we have to say look the congress and the American People owe, congress owes the American People a strategy which will then lead to success in afghanistan. Im sure that the three names i just mentioned in my Opening Statement, their parents and their wives and their husbands and families, their members and their families are very aware that we have no strategy. So lets not, lets not ask these families to sacrifice in this, any further without a strategy which we can then take and implement and help you. Im fighting as hard as i can to increase defense spending. Its hard when we have no strategy to pursue. So i hope you understand the dilemma that you are presenting to us. I do, sir. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, as we discussed in your testimony in our, the chairman and my testimony, even if you get the additional 52 billion, with sequestration in place, would you essentially have to turn around and forfeit that in acrosstheboard cuts, is that your understanding . Yes, sir. And those acrosstheboard cuts would be more disruptive than anything i could conceive. Because there would be no prioritization, it would just be taking it from the most sensitive programs, in fact leaving money in programs that might not even need it. Is that correct . Thats correct, sir. It would be injurous and it would sideline both this committee and myself in making wise decisions. I assure you, sir, President Trump is keenly aware of this situation. What is his position on sequestration . I prefer to speak to mine, sir. Because i could speak most authoritatively there. The bottom line is the administration believes that congress has to repeal the budget control act and the sequestration that follows. But, wouldnt it be not only appropriate, but essential that that the be incorporated in the president s budget . Because the ramifications of sequestration are clearly played out in every aspect of the budget. And remaining as you did in the budget, leaves a lot of people wondering what is his real position . Or does he even understand whats going on. Senator reed, were part of the executive branch and article i of the constitution gives you that authority. To deal with that very situation. So, and i think we all know what needs to be done. Ive heard it from republicans and democrats on this committee for a long time. But the interesting thing is, i havent heard a clarion call from the president , and also a practical response and solution as to how we not only undo the bca, but what are the, how do we allocate resources between defense spending, domestic spending and other spending. And without that, it goes in the same trajectory of no strategy. Theres no budgetary strategy. Its just congress, do something. And i think the chairmans point is, its very late in the game. And the ability for us just to institutionally, when we write a budget to reallocate a budget between defense and nondefense to increase defense spending without any guideline or framework from the administration is not, its not impossible, its very difficult. Do you sense that . Senator reed, weve submitted a president ial budget for the department of the defense. We believe that is guidance. Weve submitted unfunded priority list from the pentagon in accordance with the will of congress and we believe that is guidance for what we need. Just let me point this, i respect you immensely, but the budget as submitted, will not work. If nothing is done to change bca and sideline bca, the 52 billion we give we will take back in fact in a more harmful fashion than even if we didnt give it to you. So let me just change gears for a moment, have you received direction from the president to begin intense planning and preparation for what appears to be inevitable renewal cyberattacks by russia against the United States . In the context of elections, have you received any guidance . We are in Constant Contact and National Security staff on this. And we are engaged not just in discussing the guidance, but in actual defensive measures. Is that what the president has laid out in some authoritative way of a mission to protect the country in this respect . Or is it something just collateral to your discussions . Senator, im under no confusion whatsoever. My responsibilities and the organizations i have National Security agency and cybercommand that what we are supposed to be doing right now, were taking active steps on that. But i can brief you on it. In closed hearing. So youre, you said russia represents the most significant threats to the United States, not only in their new aerial denial systems that you think i alluded to. But also in their cyberoperations, is that still your position . It is, senator. And i included the Nuclear Capability as well as their behavior. Again finally, my last few seconds, you believe thats the position of the president of the United States . That russia in all these new dimensions is the most significant threat to the United States . Mr. Secretary . Sir, ive i would prefer to let him speak for himself on that. I can assure you that from Law Enforcement to the intelligence agencies, all in a information is available. Were, recognizing the strategic threat that russia has provided. By its misbehavior. You recognize, the question does he recognize it. Sir, ive had full support for example for the European Reassurance Initiative. Where were sending more troops. To europe that is not being sent there for any reason other than to temper russias designs. Ive had full support on the things that weve had to do. In order to address russias choices. Thank you, general. Thank you, gentlemen, thank you for your service. Let me just say this about sequestration. When im i think about the failure of this congress and this government, to deal with this, i look in the mirror and i take my share of the responsibility. One thing that hasnt been said is that the reason we got the sequestration to start with, is that theres twothirds of american spending thats on auto pilot. Its very popular programs, medicare, medicaid, Social Security and of course interest on the debt. And sequestration was meant to focus us on that twothirds of the budget that we dont deal with every year. Weve been unwilling politically to do that. On both sides of the aisle. And until we do that, were not going to really be able to get back to the problems that got us to sequestration to start with. Let me talk about something, secretary mattis, that might save us a good deal of money. That is multiyear procurement authority. Which is assumed in your budget proposals, for destroyers, fastattack submarines and b22 aircraft. Its my understanding that the Cost Investment and Program Evaluation office or c. A. P. E. , that the navy and omb all agree that savings would be significant if we go with multiyear procurement authority. But we lack at this point a preliminary determination to begin to implement this. A valid determination can come later. But we need a preliminary determination. So are you aware of the situation, secretary mattis. Do you agree that the assumption of your budget is correct that this will save money and can you help us on this . Senator i have no doubt that it would save money to have multiyear procurement. Especially of things that take a lot of steel, a lot of the equipment to build. The economies of scale allow for enormous savings. We would have to have a repeal of the bca act. In order to give the confidence the industry, they can buy that stuff. It wont sit in the shipyard, when funding drys up the next year. So again we come right back around to the very thing the chairman and Ranking Member has just been discussing bca does to us. It removes the chance for even wise investment of the money you give us, sir. At this point the immediate situation is that, i need you to commit to this committee that youll intervene to insure that we get the preliminary determination necessary to move us forward at that point, we dont need to repeal bca to get that done. Will you help us on that . We will help you, yes, sir. Thank you very much. Let me ask you in the remaining time, i appreciate what has been said about winning in afghanistan. I notice over the last few days, a group of my colleagues have advocated just, its been too long. We need to look at the timetable. Decade and a half is too much. We just need to pull out and let afghanistan take care of itself. Let me just say, i think that would be a, a massive mistake. Which would affect security of americans. I hope you agree with that. If you could comment on that, define for us what winning in afghanistan means and if if we if were successful there, and have a followon force thats not involved in combat. Much as we have had for 70 years in europe and a long, long time in south korea, that, that would be certainly something that i could live with. If youd comment on that. I believe youre correct. Walk away from this, weve already seen what can come out of these kind of spaces, these ungoverned spaces, the problems that originate there do not stay there. They come out, they threaten all of us, they threaten the world order, they threaten our economy, they threaten our very country. As far as what does winning look like, the Afghan Government with international help, will be able to handle the violence, drive it down to a level that local Security Forces can handle it. And with our allies it would probably require residual force in training and maintaining the highend kipabilicapabilities s threats that we could keep this at a level of threat that the local government and the local Security Forces can handle. Its going to be an era of frequent skirmishing and its going to require a change in our approach for the last several years if were to get it to that position. Do the people of afghanistan want us there . Theres no doubt. The reason that taliban and the hay cani use bombs is because they cannot win at the ballot box. They know that. And the people do want us there, thats based on the loia jurga outcome, the Large Assembly of local, provincial and nationallevel leaders and based on polls not run by the United States, but by other organizations. And i have no doubt that the majority want us there. Not all of them do but the ones who dont are not the ones who are looking forward to afghanistans future as we think it ought to, we and the afghanistan people. Thank you, sir. I want to continue the line of questioning, started by the Ranking Member. Im deeply concerned about the success of russian information influencing the 2016 elections, as well as efforts to destabilize democracies across the globe. How is the Department Working with other federal agencies to capture russian Information Warfare in the United States and the hacking of our Electoral Systems and how are you working with our partners and allies to fight these efforts . Secretary mattis . First of all, there is constant information, defining the problem as critical, because they try to do it in a deniable manner. So we work inside our interagency effort, Law Enforcement for everything from fbi and any other Police Organization that gets information on this. Its mostly been fbi. Our intelligence agencies Work Together, too, we have good sharing of information. And we also work with our allies, sharing information back and forth and youve seen some of that. Some of it can be released. Youll see it in the newspaper, in other nations elections right now. For example. And this morning, bloomberg reported that russia managed to hack 39 state Electoral Systems and attempted to alter data, though was not successful. Last week, nsa documents suggest that gru, the Russia Military intelligence agency, attacked voter rolls in eight states. The attackers used the information to launch target attacks to 122 local election officials, just 12 days before the election this information highlights the urgent need to protect our elections infrastructure from cyberattacks going forward. During the last election several National Guard units assessed the states elections risk for intrusion. Do you think theres a role for the National Guard in assisting and securing election systems . There may be, maam. I think our organization right now is still adapting to this new domain. One of the reasons we dont want continuing resolutions, we have to do new things i also assume in Something Like this, that what you just outlined is not the whole problem at work. Do you think we should consider a 9 11style commission to do a deep dive on where our cyber vulnerabilities, what are the then things we need to do to prevent cyberattack in the future. In the same way the 9 11 commission made recommendations that have frankly subverted terror attacks in new york state in the last decade because those recommendations really did have an impact on how to protect against future terrorism . Senator id have to look at what is the problem were trying to solve. I think reorganization of cybercommand and nsa along the lines that have been proposed by the congress, i think that also is part of the defining the problem and defining the defensive measures that we need to take. And i would not be against Something Like that. I would have to look at what the specific problem is. To just make recommendations to prevent another cyberhack of our elections, just the same way the 9 11 commission did it. Basically impaneling experts in cyber, to come up with the ten things we need to do. Ill tell you we have efforts under way to do those things right now. But at the same time im not against what youre proposing. I want to talk a little bit about sort of the world in order my last minute and a half. President trumps decision to withdraw from the paris climate agreement was one of the several signals to the world that the administration is repositioning in the United States not as a Global Leader but as a country focused exclusively on its interests. Upon his return, National Security adviser h. R. Mcmaster and gary cohn wrote in the wall street journal, the president embarked with a clear outlook that the United States is not a Global Community but its where businesses engage and compete for advantage. Our Defense Strategy has been predicated to work with allies to maintain stability. Yet this oped suggests we would only work with allies and partners when it suits us. Is the department drawing its new strategy around this new paradigm . We do work through allies, we have alliances. We have bilateral agreements. The greatest generation came home from world war ii and said like it or not, were part of the world. Thats part of the philosophy that guides our Foreign Policy, as well as our military policy. Admiral mike mcmullen. Former chairman of the joint chiefs and former National Security adviser jim jones just wrote an opinion piece on the same topic. And you said something similar, several years ago that the less we invest in diplomacy, the more we invest in bullets, do you still agree with that analysis . Its got to be a whole of government approach to the world, absolutely. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Good morning, gentlemen, i would like to thank you botd for your service and for being here today. First i would like to note my appreciation for this budget and strong support for the Nuclear Modernization and the comments that both of you made on this issue. I know mr. Secretary, you alluded to in your Opening Statement as well. Cy was pleased to see the departments request reflect a necessary prioritization for that Nuclear Modernization so thank you for that. General, in your Opening Statement, you said that you assessed that within five years we will lose our ability to project power. Can you put that in context . What is being unable to project power do to our ability to protect our homeland and to deter conflicts, meet our obligations to our allies, article 5 under nato for example, again, senator from my perspective since 1990, china, russia, other countries have studied u. S. Capabilities from precision munitions to our ability to protect power. We identify that as our center of gravity, and our source of strength, the ability to project power, to advance our interests to meet our alliance commitments, we think that plays an Important Role in deterrence. It plays an Important Role in assuring allies that we can meet our commitments, in specific areas where were invested in, antiship cruise missiles, antiship Ballistic Missiles, Electronic Warfare capabilities, Cyber Capabilities, all focused us to prevent us from projecting power when and whenever necessary. They want to keep us from getting into the area. This is both with case to russia and with regard to our nato alliances in china and with regard to meeting our commitments in the pacific. Want to keep us from being able to deploy forces into the area and operate freely within the area so when i talk about competitive advantage, in my judgment the problem that were trying to solve is to continue to be able to do what we have historically been able to do and that is simply to project power when and where necessary. I mentioned the role it plays in assuring our allies and meeting our commitments, i also believe that source of strength plays a very Important Role in deterring potential adversaries from initiating provocation of conflict. You mentioned that fiveyear period. Do you believe its in doubt now . It is eroding now. We have historically had the ability to do that. You know, not uncontested, but in a decisive way. We would be challenged in projecting power today. Weve done some very careful analysis at a classified level. Looking function by function. Yet our current capabilities, our adversaries current capabilities, the path of Capability Development that were on. The path of Capability Development that our adversaries are on. What weve seen is an erosion over the past ten years. Well get to the point where well suffer significant casualties and in meeting our objectives and projecting power in five years. In five years. Do you think now that regardless of our intent, we dont have the capability to act unless we change the path were on . Senator, i dont think theres any question, unless we change the path were on, were going to be at a competitive disadvantage. Thats pretty consequential, isnt it in. Senator, to me it affects our ability to deter conflicts. It reflects the confidence our allies have. And it makes a more dangerous world because both Nuclear Deterrence and conventional deterrence would be ineffective. That they are incapable or they are not ready, do you believe that any leader will send that force into battle . I think it would be very difficult for a leader to extend a force in battle when his military leadership would articulate the risk associated with doing that i believe we have a cometive advantage over any potential adversary today. And what im doing now is projecting into the future based on a trendline weve seen over the past decade where we will be if you we dont turn it around. Secretary mattis in the last now weeks the United States has conducted three strikes against pro Regime Forces that threaten coalitions. Do i have your assurance that were going to take any and all measures to protect our forces in that area . Absolutely, senator. The commander on the ground has the authority to take whatever act is necessary and i support that. During your confirmation hearings you talk about how russia has chosen to be a strategic competitor. You stated im all for engagement but we also have to recognize reality and what russia is up to, and theres a decreasing number of areas where we can engage cooperatively and increasing number of areas where were going to have to confront russia. Do you believe this is an accurate characterization of russias behavior. I think a modest expectation for finding areas of cooperation with russia. Until they change their behavior. Thank you, mr. Chairman. 16 former senior military leaders to submit a letter today in support of foreign assistance and specifically they made the following points. Proactive conflict Prevention Strategies are far less expensive in terms of resources and lives extended. And this is signed by a number of folks well all recognize from general breedlove to admiral mullen to general petraeus, to general mcchrystal. I think we should keep that in mind when we review the president s budget. Which i believe is particularly short sighted with regard to foreign assistance. I want to move now, secretary mattis, to something you said at your confirmation hearing in january. I asked you for your assessment of the key threats to our vital interest and at what priority level. And you said the principal threats start with russia. Do you still view russia as a significant threat to the United States . Yes, senator, i do. Senator, i think the European Reassurance Initiative alone of 4. 8 billion, is designed with one target in mind. That is to dissuade russia from thinking this is a time when they want to test nato or the americans, i would also point out that in terms of technology, we are looking at specific technologies that address some of the maturing threats that they have. Air, space, under water. That that sort of thing. And i think, too, that the investment in prepositioned equipment, that allows us to move forces quickly into an area, would cause a change in their strategic calculus, as far as the risk in their behavior, perspective would go up. Theres a fair amount of ground munitions and air field enhancements that are going on specifically targeted to your concern, senator. I want to thank you for that i think those are all very important investments. One of my concerns is that the russians employ a set of hostile, highly asymmetrical tools during our election last year and that for the cost of a fraction of a single ship they were able to use very lowcost tools like hackers patrol and social media bots to manipulate our media and even penetrate our political and election structures. Do we have an overall strategy to meet that threat . Either in cybercom or as a whole of government approach. Sir, we have vulnerability assessments and analysis going on that cause us to buttress our defenses in different areas to shift our filtering of information and to shift our focus and intelligence services, to define the problems to a level that we can figure out what to do about them. So is there an overall strategy . Were working on a broader strategy that this would be part of. But right now, we have enough definition that we dont have to delay taking steps at this time intelwise and defenseswise against the russian threat. Should there be consequences when russia does this kind of thing . Absolutely. Thats a decision that has to be taken by the commanderinchief and certainly with congresss support, involvement. But i think this sort of misbehavior has got to face consequences and not just by the United States, but more broadly. I couldnt degree more. I want to shift, shift gear as little bit in my last 40 seconds or so. You know my interest in directed Energy Weapon systems, they have enormous potential to be a gamechanger. The kind of thing that weve seen change symmetry or asymmetry in the past to our war fighters, section 219 of last years defense bill instructs the secretary of defense to designate a senior official at the pentagon to have principal responsibility for the development and transmission of directed Energy Weapons systems, as of today, its my understanding that this position remains unfilled. Secretary, can i have your commitment today to meet this requirement and to assign someone with critical responsibility at the pentagon. Yes, sir. Thank you for bringing it up. I didnt know i had that responsibility. Im learning more every day. But i will, if thats the response youve assigned, it will be done. I will tell you that right now ive been briefed on directed energy r d and advances and so i know people are working it right now. But if we havent filled that line number, sil get on to it. I appreciate that very much. Thank you, mr. Chair. Thank you, gentlemen. I want to associate myself with the remarks about our budget picture. That secretary mattis had and that chairman mccain had. I will say i agree with chairman mccain. I think the president s budget sin adequate to the threats that we face, the more fundamental problem is the budget control act and the simple solution, is to repeal the budget control act. From senator fisher down to my right and senator donnelly, down to senator peters, not a single one of us was here in the summer of 2011 and voted for that bill. The budget control act is not the constitution. And the 112th congress was not a constitutional invention, we should simply repeal it. Some people say its going to increase the deficit. But its not going, going to affect, we know that we know exactly what will happen. We will have a continuing resolution in september, well have some kind of a twoyear budget in october, november, well have an omnibus in december of 20 17 and omnibus in dmgs of 2018 and well do it all over again in 2019. Lets repeal the budget control act and take our responsibility and own up annually for our budgeting cycle. I would urge us all to do so in the senate itself. Now off my soapbox. Mr. Secretary, open skies treaty allows for aerial surveillance of military forces, u. S. And russia are both parties. However, according to the state department, russia has not been playing ball lately. Theyre denying the United States overflight of certain of their territory. We had sought resolution with russia on these matters. My understanding those efforts have come up empty. Do you believe that the russia is in violation of the open skies treaty . We are meeting on that issue, bif been briefed on it and well be meeting with state department and National Security staff here in the very near future. There certainly appears to be violations of it. Ive got to go into the meeting and figure out that ive got all the information. Would you care to elaborate in an unclassified manor in this setting on the nature of those violations . There are areas that weve been prevented from overflying. Think some of the other as spekts of it i would prefer to talk privately with you. But thats one of the clear to me violations. Can we get your commitment to submit response on the record, classified or unclassified as appropriate once youve had the consultations . I would prefer to do it before i have the consultation. I can tell you what we know right now what we believe right now and we can update you later, sir. Thats fine. If we could get that on the record and in writing. General dunford while were on the topic of russian violation. Are you aware that it was testified in march that russia has repeatedly violated international agreements. Including the intermediate Nuclear Range treaty and the treaty on conventional armed forces in europe. Do you agree that russia is . Inn violation of those treaties . I do, senator. Lets put this plainly. Vladimir putin wanted he could hold u. S. Troops in europe at risk, would be one, we send 30yearold f16s with 30yearold Nuclear Weapons against stateoftheart russian defenses or we have a choice to escalate a tactical cries toys a strategic one by responding with longrange bombers or intercontinental missiles or submarinelaunched Ballistic Missiles, is that the situation we face right now . Thats a good reason why weve already modernized our Nuclear Enterprise to make sure we have an effective deterrent and a effective response. One of the modernization priorities is the airlaunch cruise missile. Going on 40 years now. General selda said a decade from now, outcomes will not be able to penetrate russian air defenses, therefore theres an urgency to their replacement. Given do you agree that its an urgent priority to replace the outcome with a longrange standoff. As you know, we going through Nuclear Posture review. What i would say is this. The third leg of the triad, the bomber, needs to be able to penetrate. Thats what we should have going into a Nuclear Posture review. Imf treaty against china, advantage over American Forces in the pacific. Russia is outride ignoring the imf treaty in europe we have no matching response to either of those threats and even if we did. It would be illegal, because we are literally the only nation in the world that restrains itself from developing interneed mead yat range cruise missiles, is that right . Senator, i think whats important about the chinese capability is that is in the category of denial that we discussed earlier. Where the large number of missiles and rockets they do have present a challenge to us. Is that a critical strategic problem that we face that you gentlemen are working to address it. I hope that we can do Everything Possible to help it. Thank you. Senator the widerange in the fy 18 budget, wideranging capability areas where we requested resources designed specifically for those challenges that youve articulated. Thank you, mr. Chairman and thank you to our witnesses for being here today. I want to ask about whats happening between qatar and its neighbors. Last week saudi arabia severed all diplomatic and economic ties with qatar and almost immediately bahrain, the uae, egypt and yemen did the same. This crisis began in part because it was reported that the leader of qatar in a speech praising iran and criticizing other countries in the region. Now it appears that that was fake news. And that the leader of qatar gave no such speech. Now the media has reported that the fbi believes it was actually the russian who is planted the story. I dont want to ask a question that depends on classified information. So let me ask this question instead. If the news reports are accurate, what motive would russians have had for doing Something Like that . Mr. Secretary . Might you be able to answer that . I think a disruption of the international order. Is something sanaa russia in a shortsighted way thinks works to their benefit. I think it does not, but i, i cant speak for them. I think what youre seeing here, though, is, the continued prevalence of threats, not just to our own country, not just the western europe democracies, but theyre trying to break any kind of multilateral alliance, i think that is a stabilizing influence in the world. Good and i hope, good in terms of your description this is very helpful and i hope were going to be able to get to the bottom of this. Our intelligence agencies have told us that the russians conducted a successful cyberattack against our 2016 elections. A few months later the russians tried to do the same thing in france and now it appears theyre trying to take it to a whole new level. Id like to ask for your help to clarify the u. S. Policy on this current dispute. After the saudis cut off diplomatic and economic ties, the president immediately tweeted his support for the move. Saying and i quote here, so good to see the saudi arabia visit with the king and countries already paying off. But soon after secretary of state tillerson called on those countries to ease the qatar block aid. Saying it was quote hindering u. S. Military operations in the region. And the campaign against isis. In testimony to this committee, the air force secretary contradicted secretary tillerson and said that the dispute was in fact not impacting air operations, at our base in qatar. Secretary mattis kurks please clarify . What is the policy of the United States toward the current dispute among gulf countries in the middle east . Yes, maam. The secretary of the air force, is referring to the operations at the one air base. More than that going on in the region. So she was quite correct in what she was saying about that. Secretary tillerson was nonetheless correct. If you look more broadly at the situation. Where we have to work with many of those what we call gulf cooperation states. We have friends in the region senator, who have problems, they admitted one of the issues that came up and when President Trump visited saudi arabia. Was their effort to turn off the spread of rapid ideology that undercuts stability and creates kind of the ocean in which the terrorists swim. That sort of thing so we have friends out there. Weve got to work with them. Our policy is to try to reduce this problem. But at the same time we have got to make certain that were all working together and theres no funding, whether it be from a state or from individuals in the state who can get away with it. That it lacks oversight or law or that kind of thing. Theres a lot of passions at play here. I understand it. That qatar needs to do more to fight terrorism. In the field. I just want to make sure i clarify the point and understand it. General dunford, is the qatar blockade affecting u. S. Military operations . The senator is not. Were watching that. Very, very closely, weve had big cooperation from all authorities to make sure that we can continue to move freely. As well as the headquarters forward of the United States central command. Thank you very much. I just want to say, the cyberthreat appears to be getting bigger and bigger, more and more dangerous, taking on multiple permutations. I think that means its really important and im going to ask you later for an update, on the status of trying to implement the our cybercommand. Elevation. But this is something weve got to fight back against. Were on track with elevation. Its going and to find. I dont see any issues there. Theres other things about splitting them that were working through. But well work through it. Good, powerfully important. Thank you for your service to our country. Gentlemen, mattis, secretary mattis, do you see any way that the current budget could be operational with the budget control act. Still in existence. I believe congress is going to have to remove the budget control act in order for that to happen, for the budget to go through. Would it be fair to say that a continuing resolution has never saved money. With regard to any of the defense programs . Sir, i guarantee you continued resolutions cost us more money for less capabilities. Last week dr. Wilson and general goldstein talked about the b21 program and reiterated the importance that it stay on time and on budget. The Program Ramps up next year from 1. 3 billion to 2 billion requested for 2018. I also understand that a cr or return to bca funding levels could jeopardize funding for this and ultimately request the timely fielding of this critical component of our future National Security. General dunford, you just mentioned the fact that we absolutely have to have a longrange Strike Bomber with regard to our plans of delivering any type of weapons against the upgraded threats of our peer competitors. Would you care to comment on the need for the continuation on a timely basis of the development of the b21. Senator, i cant comment on the timing. Weve done three Nuclear Posturing reviews since 2010 that im aware of. All of whom validated the need for a triad and emphasizeded need for a bomber that had assured access. So completely supportive of that and i know that the general goldstein and the second of the air force have testified with the challenges of the timing of the b21 and i can assure the committee that their leadership will be zis niv that program. Secretary mattis, for more than a year now weve talked about cyber, and the need to define policy with regards to cyberattacks within the United States. Weve put within the ndaa, a director that the administration deliver a policy or proposed policy back to congress by december of this year. And i believe that since this is coming to the nda its going to fall under your purview to see that it gets done. This would identify those acts of aggression which are of sufficient duration, similar to what an act would be that it would impact our country. For individuals within the administration to comply with the ndaa directive . Sir, i want to get back to you with the detailed answer on that one. I understand the question im not prepared to answer it right now. I know weve got a lot of work going on, were not engaged in the operation. The specific answer i dont have right now, ill get back to you. Thank you, sir. General dunford, the need for cyber superiority. I think sometimes when we talk about air, land and sea, and space, sometimes we forget to add in the fact that cyberis connected in all sequences, theyre all connected, could you share a little bit with the committee about the need to upgrade cybercapability and not only for defense but to be able to attribute the attacks, to be able, to defend against them, to go back and respond and, one step farther is to be able to survive the attack. In such a fashion that we actually can respond afterwards. Senator, thanks, as weve analyzed todays conflicts and future conflicts, i would agree with you completely, we say we used to talk about multidomain. We now talk about all domain. You referred to all of them. Sea, land, air, space, and cyberspace station, we expect cyberspace to be integral to any campaign we would conduct in the future. The requirements start with making sure that our own network is protected. We provide support for the rest of the government, but our own network is defended to include our command and control systems. We talked earlier about nuclear, our Nuclear Command and control systems. But our mission of defense in the Department Also requires us to be able to take the fight to the enemy which is an integral part of any campaign that we would wage. And that requires us as you suggested, one to be able to attribute it to action and provide the president with Viable Options and response. I would tell you the one thing we emphasize is just because the enemy chooses to fight in cyberspace, doesnt mean our response has to be limited to cyberspace. In other words, we may experience a cyberattack, but well take advantage of the full range of capabilities that we have in the department to respond. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Chairman and thank you to the witnesses for your testimony and for your service. In march you each testified before the defense subcommittee of Senate Appropriations on a topic that i care deeply about, which is authorization for use of military force in the ongoing effort against isis and the record would reflect secretary mattis you stated. I would take no issue with the Congress Stepping forward with the nnmf. I think it would be a statement of the American Peoples resolve if you did so. I thought the same thing for the last several years i might add and have not understood why the congress has not come forward with this at least the debate. I believe isis is a clear and present danger we face. Testimony of general dunford on march 22nd, same hearing. Quote i agree with the secretary, think not only it would be a sign of the American Peoples resolve. But truly i think our men and women would benefit from an authorization of use of military force, that would let them know that the American People in the form of their congress, were fully supportive of what theyre doing out there every day as they put their lives in harms way. Is that still an accurate reflection of your views as you sit here in june . Yes it is, senator. Absolutely, senator. Senator flake and i are members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and have introduced an authorization trying to square difficult circles dealing with the nonstate actors, trying to appropriately exercise congressional oversight without micromanaging fungtss, that are functions for the commanderinchief and his staff. I would appreciate very much you, both of you individually, but also the administration trying to work with us, the head of senate relations, senator corkers desire to move on this and we would want to work with you to get to a place to express the congressional resolve that you discussed in this testimony. Happy to work in concert with you, sir. Absolutely, senator, thank you. I dont have any other questions, thank you, chair. Wath to clear one thing up. I have the upmost respect for you guys and god help us we got to have you be successful. But there is zero chance, zero, im on the budget committee. Theres zero chance that the budget process is going to work, the best we can hope for, is that were going to add, there are 43 working days left. Before the end of this fiscal year. Were headed for another cr. Unless we have an omnibus, so the best thing we can hope for today is the omnibus, the budget process is broken. Its why were sitting here today, its why were at an historic low in terms of spending on the military. We can argue about 20 billion, 50 billion. I think the number is bigger. I need help on two things, one, help us with an audit. You have my full support, were going to try get some money, we need an audit. We need a bottomup analysis of missionsbased need. I want to give a little history today, in the last in my lifetime we disinvested in the military three times. This is significant. Once in the 70s, one in the 9 0s, once in the last eight years. Such that today were spending 3. 1 of our gdp on our military. The low point was 2. 6 in 2000. A lot of people refer back in 2000. Prior to 9 11, prior to isis and all the things that have changed our world in the last 15 years. We recapped only one time in my lifetime in the 80s, we called ourselves recapping in the 2000s, but we chewed that up in 16 years of war as you just said, secretary we havent built new aircraft carriers or submarines or airplanes. Here we are, where most of our major platforms and maturing at exactly the same time. Its estimated that by 2000, russia will have 70 of their Nuclear Triad will be absolutely new technology. Its estimated it will take us 30 years to get to 70 there. So we have an estimate here, that says that based on historical average of 4. 1 , thats the red line there, the difference between where we were last year, 3. 1 and 4. 1 , 100 basis points on our economy is 200 billion. The other way to triangle late about needs, is bob gaits in 2011 put a missionbased needs requirement out in 2016 estimated that his estimate for 2016 is 130 billion more than what we have. And then the last one i want to give you is this. That is, general you said our mission is to make sure our sons and daughters never have to fight. I agree 100 . Historically, the country with the biggest economy is, china has reached us, their economy is the same size as ours. There is every reason to believe that theyre going to outpace us with a population thats four times our size. Theres no reason to believe that wont continue to happen. My problem is this china this year, will spend 826 billion on equivalent money, compared to our 677. Thats if you get everything you want. Already theyre spending more in equivalent terms. So when i triangulate the cbo estimates is, secretary my question to you is, i know youre an historian, how do we not just this year, how do we develop a longterm plan to make sure in an environment where every dollar, every dime were already spending on the military, the va and all domestic programs is borrowed, our discretionary spending, 26 , every dime of that is borrowed, in the last eight years we borrowed 35 of everything we spent. That environment, how do we, how do we develop a longterm Strategic Plan that helps us achieve what the general has said that our mission is . And i agree with that mission, by the way. Sir, we need to have a Strategic Dialogue with the congress and determine what you can do. And at that point well have to adapt the strategy to whatever level of resources you can give us, to avoid a strategic mismatch and protect the country. With due respect. You mentioned one time before that youre working on a missionbased estimate now. Its going to take some time to come together for that to come together. Is that correct . Theres a strategy review under way, sir. Is that the gemna . Really two pieces to this. We have been involved over the last 18 months in doing a comprehensive analysis of what were using as bench marks for the joint force. Weve looked carefully at china, russia, north korea, iran and violent extremism. Not predictive, but with the key assumption being if we benchmark our capabilities and capacities against one or a combination of those challenges well have the right force. Were carefully gone tlau and done a functional analysis that were going to share with the committee at the top secret level, it takes a look a at our rhett tiff competitive advantage or disadvantage. Against each one of those challenges and in the aggregate effect of those competitive areas in our ability to meet or objectives in a conflict. Regardless of where the secretary goes for the Defense Strategy, what we intend to do is provide the secretary with vertical u. S. From a bottomup needsbased prioritization. I believe were in a position right now to provide the secretary with recommendations tore bottomup needsbased requirements. What we have done is taken all the analytics against each one of those problem sets and dissected it to make clear recommendations to maintaining our competitive advantage. Weve identified where we need to be. Five years from now, and what specific programs will help us get there. Thats the latter part of that is a work in progress and well continue to review that constantly. But i feel like for the first time in many years, as a result of an emphasis on that assessment were going to be in a position to have a very good constructive dialogue with the secretary and the secretary will be empowered to have a good, constructive dialogue with the department, with the congress and be able to outline our requirements and more importantly, specific impact of meeting or not meet mooing those requirements in our ability to achieve our oppives against those states that were using as a bench mark. When can we expect that . Its available right now. We started to talk to the committee about that, senator. Were informed now, by some detail work thats already been done by a couple of those problem sets. And the work is reflected in this years budget recommendations. Allowed me to come forward with a degree of confidence i have about what it is were asking for and to support the unfunded priorities list that were submitted. This is where i got the background, the rigor to understand the need for it. Thank you, chair. Let me point out again, mr. Secretary, and im not without sympathy, but unless we have a strategy, it is hard for us to implement a policy. Its now six months. And, members of this committee, particularly senator reed and i, but everybody, we want a strategy. And i dont think thats a hell of a lot to ask. I know that there are problems within the administration, but honestly, what you just said is fine. But what is the strategy . And i dont think that the last eight years are exactly what we have in mind. I dont think that eight years are exactly what we have in mind so right now we have a dont lose strategy which is not winning. General dunn ford, i appreciate very much what youre doing. I remember two years ago going to the pentagon and you telling me of these studies that are going on. Thats fine. Where is it . And i understand that one of the problems is the within the administration itself, but please dont tell us that we have a strategy when we dont. Chairman, we have entered a strategyfree time, and we are scrambling to put it together, but anyone who thinks a strategy and integrated interagency whole of Government Strategy can be done rapidly is probably someone who hasnt dealt with it and its according to dr. Kissinger, the most complex series of threats that he has ever seen in his lifetime and hes a master of dealing with these kinds of issues, and were working it, as far as the strategy for afghanistan. Its coming very shortly, and we have broader strategies that are building on, having to do with nato and allies in the pacific. Youve seen us engage with those people as we make certain that were drawing strength from allies, too. Were not putting this all on the back of the american taxpayer and the american military, but it does take a lot of effort to walk into the level of Strategic Thinking that we found and trying to create something thats sustainable. Senator shaheen . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you secretary mattis, general dunford and undersecretary norquist for being here this morning. I would like to continue to pursue the question about strategy and my question is about strategy and syria. The map that everyone has at their place and that we just put up on the board is the map that was produced by the Washington Institute for the policy. This weekend the Russian Ministry of defense announced that proRegime Forces have reached the iraqi border. This comes as russiabacked forces encircle u. S. Troops and their partners in al tanif and seem to raise questions about our strategy to clear isis along the Euphrates River valley. So my question is were we expecting the russians to come down and make the move that they did around al tanif and to encircle our troops and what is our next move because of that . Senator, as you know, we are in syria in a defeat isis Campaign Based on the president s decision of about a month ago now when he met with president erdogan. We have chosen to arm the Syrian Democratic forces. We have taken out already the manjib area where the attacks on brussels and istanbul and paris originated. That was taken down. The next move is against raqqa. We have shifted the operational art to First Investors surround the locations where the enemy is located so that their foreign fighters cannot escape and get home to europe, to america and Southeast Asia. That fight, they crossed the line of departure about a week ago, a little less than a week ago going into raqqa and the fighting is now deep inside the city. As far as the situation, that was another operating area that we had. I did not anticipate that the russians would move there. I knew it was a possibility. I did not anticipate it at that time, but it was not it was not a surprise to our intelligence people who saw the potential for them to move out in that direction. The middle Euphrates River valley, clearly assad, thanks to the russians and the iranian support is flexing his muscle. Hes starting to feel a little more optimistic about his strategic situation, and certainly they are moving to break through to their garrison and the surrounding. I appreciate that. The question i guess the second question i have is does that compromise our strategy for clearing isis from the Euphrates River vallel. Ill let him talk about the situation on the ground there. Can i also ask you, general dunn ford, if you would talk about if you would talk about the con flikz aside, how were not working with the russians in syria . I can, senator. First, without splitting hairs, the media report of us being encircled are not accurate, and we still have freedom of movement outside of the area, and were snot limited to the Euphrates River valley and our commander of the United States central command, if not daily, multiple times each day and so it is not large numbers of forces and proRegime Forces out there, and they have, in fact, moved to the border and they havent restricted our movement. To that point, our deconfliction mechanism is still allowing us to prosecute the campaign, so i guess i was not asking about the deconfliction about the ways that we are or arent working with the russians and i understand that deconfliction efforts are going on. To deconflict with the crews and the personnel on the ground at the military level. Meanwhile, secretary tillerson is leading an effort dealing with the foreign minister of russia to take a look at what might be done to address syria as a whole for the political solution, but today on a daytoday basis we have mechanisms to communicate with the russians and between the air Operations Center and the russians on the ground in syria. We have a threestar channel thats on the joint staff that communicates with his counterpart and the russian general staff and i speak routinely to the chief of defense. In fact, ive spoken to him twice in the past week to ensure that we address the safety of our personnel and our ability to continue to prosecute the campaign against isis. So to the extent that were doing more than decon flikz, thats the political dialogue led by secretary tillerson and right now were completely informed by the language that restricts any mill to mill cooperation with the russians limited to deconfliction in syria and were compliant with the law at this time and if there is a need to do something more than that, my understanding is the secretary of defense for the National Security interest purposes can waive the requirement and allow us to do more with the russians if that meets our interests inside of syria. Can i ask a followup, mr. Chairman . Thank you. There have been reports about the political efforts that secretary tillerson is undertaking through tom shannon to go to st. Petersburg, and the news reports have suggested that that could involve our exchanging sanctions, the removal of the russian dhaka the facilities that we seized in november and the u. S. , and have you and secretary mattis, have you been consulted about whats being proposed there and are you troubled by the idea that well do these exchanges without having any proof that russias changing their behavior . Ive not talked to secretary tillerson about that, maam . We have extensive talks every week and mostly every day. That has not been one of the issues that ive brought up with limb and hes brought up with me. I stay more in the military factors with what your map weighs out here and that sort of thing. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Im sure it didnt go unnoticed with people coming and leaving and we have three hearings going on at the same time. Ill be very brief and i was here for the Opening Statement. You came back out of retirement and you were shocked at what you saw and youve been very up front and you made the statement for decades and america has been uncontested and thats no longer the case now. So times are different now. I do think its great and very effective for the uniforms to be talking about this. I cant do that. Those of us up here dont have the credibility that you have when youre speaking from your vast experience. We are facing, in my opinion, the greatest threat this countrys ever faced, and so when we talk about that and we look at the attention that our military has been getting, i go back to 1965 when 52 of the total federal spending was on defense and then that is slowly degraded down to 15 , so when it gets right down to it, is a lot of this the fact that we have just not prioritized the military budget . I mean, were faced with something and the threat is great, and when you have people like the general coming out and saying, they did at the army poft our hearing we were outranged and outgunned and we are being very honest with the American People and do you think weve gotten a point over the period of time where we were not given the proper priorities to defending america . Senator, i i know there were a lot of contributing factors, but i dont know how we can restore the strength that we all know that we need if we dont start with the repeal of the bca and at least open the door by effective action by the Congress Oversight and fund. Its like weve tied ourselves up in a knot. Do you agree with that, general . I do. We have to benchmark our military capabilities against our National Interests and the threats that we face and what we try to do is paint a picture where we have a disconnect. Were in a trend, where the military capabilities and capacities that we have are insufficient to meet our National Interests in the context of the threat that has grown. As secretary mattis said and secretary kissinger, ive used this many times describe this as being the most complex period since world war ii and sitting where i sit, i couldnt agree more with that assessment. And, you know, if you look at single out end strength and i was looking at the chart that you may have in front of you, i dont know, but take out the reserve and the National Guard the guard, and just take the army active, the air force active and marine active. You have made statements and the administration has made statements, for example, that the army active needs to be at about 540,000 and yet, this budget is coming up with 476, from fiscal year 17. Same thing is true with the air force and we talked about the necessity for having 361 and its at 325 and the same navy, and the same with marines. So i would just ask. We talk about how adequate it is, and were not meeting the goals that apparently you were in on the decision, both of you were somewhat in on the decision as to where we should be in the four services on just in strength alone. What am i overlooking here . Senator, i believe what we face right now is the reality that the were already asking you to bust the aca cap by 52 billion. We are trying to be informed by the reality of what the law says, but at the same time were not being shy in telling you what were really at in terms of what we need, but i think we need to Work Together and come up with a solution here because i dont know how i would bring something to you that would lay out a budget for what youve pointed out here when the bca count, i would have to completely ignore this and i would ignore it already to the tune of 52 billion, with the president and the budget he submitted. It seems to me that the discussion that senator purdue and senator mccain and senator reed have brought up and get a grip on reality here because its like were all Walking Around as if were victims. Youre right. I appreciate the answer and we have to do all we can and i still think hes back to priorities and a lot of people out there in the real world agree with you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Let me point out again, a 3 increase over the obamaproposed budget is not enough. So whether we do away with bca or not, thats our problem. Our problem with you is its a 3 increase over the obama administration. Everybody agrees that its not enough. So if were going to bust the bca, why dont we bust it to what we really need rather than come forward and complain all about the bca when what were asking for is not sufficient. At least thats the view of the military commanders that i have talked to. Senator donnelly . Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to thank our witnesses for being here with us. You improved the Mental Health and resiliency, and i appreciate the leadership on this issue. As we discussed before in section 701 of the fy15 Congress Passed an act requirement which means active guard or reserve receive a robust Mental Health assessment every year. The department has said in the past that the sexton act requirement would be fully implemented across all services by october 17th. Secretary mattis, will this be fully implemented by october 2017 . I dont know right now, senator. I will get back to you with the best estimate i can give you. As you are no doubt aware, that is a significant requirement and that is a very laborintensive requirement for the number of Mental Health professionals that we needed to do that, but let me get back to you and tell you where were at on meeting that deadline date. That would be great. Its critically important. Also, secretary mattis been we discussed the challenges of a proper transition. General has worked on this extensively on the handoff from active duty to the va in regards to the formulary and in regards to making sure that its a smooth transition. Are the department and the va working closely on this and do you think progress is being made at this time . Because whats happened sometimes, not to get too off script or whatever is a lot of active duty when they become vets medicines that theyre dependent on that are critically important are not available when it flips over to a v aside or a different one is handed off which causes significant problems and i want to make sure that the transition that the dod and va are working together to get this done properly. Sir, i believe both the committees will be briefed very soon. We have made significant progress on Electronic Health record. Thats actually one of the contributing factors to how we will do this right, and we have, i believe, right now according to people who have been involved in this for many years, in one case over two decades weve never had a closer relationship between dod and va targeted right at that transition, the records and the formularies. And i want to ask a little bit about afghanistan with what the chairman was asking. Youve both done extraordinary work there over the years. Some years i was with the marines out in Helmand Province and they were doing an extraordinary job and it almost seemed like a place put down in the middle of taliban highway and every other direction, and so as we look at this, what does success i know were waiting for a plan, what does success look like a year from now, in your view . What, in your mind, makes the situation better . Sir, i believe that the violence will be reduced significantly, especially in the Population Center where most of the people live, that the Afghan Government has got a degree of integrity in what it is contributing to the people and the corruption has been driven down, but most of all that the taliban no longer has the freedom of movement that were seeing right now that has been rolled back. General . Sir, i would probably add to that the mitigation of afghan casualties and thats been a great concern of 2015 and 16. One of the ways to get after that is assisting them both in Planning Operations and delivering combined arms, most specifically the aviation capability so continuing to grow their aviation capability and providing them support while they grow their aviation capability will be a key piece of mitigating casualties. Do you think were in better shape now than we were at this time last year or do you think that weve gone backwards . I dont assess that were in better shape than last year, senator. General mattis . I think the taliban had a good year last year and theyre trying to have a good one this year, sir. I think we may be able to, buy a change in some of the concepts of operations help them with air support and fire support that will put the enemy on the back foot. Right now, i believe that the enemy is surging right now. Well, we look forward to the report and i would like to talk to you or both of you about raqqa and the situation about the folks there. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Chair. Gentlemen, thank you very much for being here today. We appreciate your advice to this committee and your service to our great United States, and secretary mattis, open invitation to rock march with team ernst at any time. Any time. Vice chief of army and i solved most of the worlds problems this morning and we just need you to fill in the gaps. Youre welcome at any point. A counter isis strategy in Southeast Asia is something that i continued to push for which is why i was excited to hear that this weekend, u. S. Special Operations Forces were assisting the government of the philippines in taking back the isisheld town of marawi. Until 2014 we had a sizeable Counter Terrorism mission in the philippines, and we have known about this threat for a very long time and unfortunately, we havent returned to that area in order to counter some of isis bad deeds. So, general dunford, as we target a terrorist who wishes to strike our homeland, how does our Counter Terrorism commitment in the region also help ward off other adversaries like china and russia . Do you want me to hit those separately . Absolutely. In addition to the philippines, the congress funded whats called a maritime domain and that helps countries in the region specifically indonesia, malaysia and the philippines to have a common understanding of the maritime domain, particularly the flow of foreign fighters, criminals and those kinds of things. The other thing we have done is weve incorporated Southeast Asian nations into what we call operation gal in phoenix and thats the intelligence and information sharing architecture which allows us to take a transregional approach to violent extremism. Separately, our presence in the pacific to include the fielding of our most modern capabilities and the f22 and the f25 in the operations were designed to deter conventional conflict and specifically, conventional conflict in the region. Do you see that as being effective also in the areas of malaysia and indonesia . In terms of deterring conventional conflict . I do, and i view the most dangerous threats in malaysia and indonesia to be the threat of violent extremism. So isis. We have talked about the lack of strategy earlier in 2014 we canceled the named operation that we had down there, perhaps of a premature view that we were gaining success. Without that we offered the funding line so what the chairman brought up is completely correct, but it shows the lack of strategy that we inherited there and i just got back from shangrila where the chairman and other members of the congress came up and we are working closely with the philippines, right now, for example with both manned and Unmanned Aircraft as they tried to retake marawi, and i think it would loom larger if we were having the hearing a couple of months from now, so weve got to take steps to get it back under control and support indonesia, nah lakera and this leads us to. Thank you for bringing up the shangrila dialogue, mr. Secretary. The other countries that participate in that dialogue, what type of support are they looking at coming from the United States . What can we offer them . Much of it along the lines with operation gallant phoenix. Its getting the intelligence and ensuring the information where everything from interpol and the secret services of various nations Work Together so transnational threats are tracked when they go over the nation borders and they flee from one to another, and also the intelligence helps, and i would add there that thats where our strategy of working by with and through allies helps take the load off of us. For example, singapore, has offered isr Surveillance Aircraft to philippines and thats the way we need to get everybody working together out there against this threat and not carrying the full load ourselves. Thank you. Just very briefly because i am nearly out of time. Our special operators have a time of about 1 to 1 ratio. This was mentioned in one of our conversations recently. What can we do . Ill tell you its because they want that. They wont say no when they are given a mission, and i think its incredibly important that they stand up to their obligations, but what can we do to increase their dwelled time beyond expanding their forces . Is there a way we can push their talents out to the conventional forces. And some of these missions due to the conventional forces compared to 2001. We have now Army Infantry and army brigades, marine battalions that can take the load off and take the word off of the special operators and that sort of thing, where you want relationships we still want to use the special Operations Forces. Chairman, do you have anything to add . The secretary directed me several weeks ago to do an analysis of all of our special operations requirements today and look for opportunities to substitute with conventional forces for exactly the reason you talked about and we are concerned about the ratio which is not only a factor from the human perspective and families. It also precludes them of training for the full range of missions that we require them for and we dont want them to be focused on the current fight and we want them to be prepareded to support across the spectrum. Thank you, gentleman. Thank you, mr. Chair. Thank you both for the Extraordinary Service to our nation and all of the men and women under your command and thank you for being so forth right and helpful in your answers today to our questions. I want to ask about the f35s which are in the unfunded party list. I believe there are 24 of them. Would you support including them assuming that you receive additional funds from the congress . You mean the support to the aircraft that make them fully capable . And the aircraft, as well. Yes, sir. As to helicopters, ive written a letter, a bipartisan letter along with a number of my colleagues to the approapriator asking for 240 million to fund the 60 helicopters that are necessary to reach the state of readiness for our National Guard that they have asked to be, would you support that as well . Assuming that the congress provides the funding . I would have to look at the priorities be placed more broadly, but it sounds reasonable, so i would have to look at it in particular. Thank you. Yes, sir. A number of our military leaders, past and present have characterized the greatest threat to the this nation as being cyber warfare and there was a report in the washington post, just yesterday, as a matter of fact, that hackers allied with the russian government, you may have seen the report have devised a cyber weapon that essentially has the potential to disrupt our electronic grid completely cause chaos in the electric systems vital to daily life in this country and an alarming report. Have you seen it, and do you agree that its accurate . I have seen it. I believe that this threat is real and none of us are ignoring this threat at all. Theres a lot more going on in this regard, sir, that i can discuss in a private setting. I would appreciate that opportunity. Would you agree with me and with others that cyber is one of the greatest threats or perhaps the greatest threat in warfare today . Its certainly one of the top because it cuts across the air Domain Service and impacts the Nuclear Command and control and certainly our very institutions whether they be democratic or banking or whatever are vulnerable to should sort of attack. Would you agree that the russian hacking and cyber attack on our systems during the last election was an act of war . I would leave i know it was a hostile act. Whether or not it crosses the threshold for war, sir, im not a lawyer, but theres no doubt it was a hostile act directed against our country. Would you agree we need a better definition and policy and it may involve lawyers or others and im not sure lawyers are the best to define it, but wouldnt you agree that we need a better policy defining what is an act of war in the cyber domain . I think clarity in this regard would help in terms of deterrence and response. Absolutely. I want to in my remaining time focus on an area that is extraordinarily important to our nation even though its not the kind of glamorous, shiny toy area that attracts the most attention. President trumps budget cuts the department of labors worker training budget by 36 at a time when we are working to modernize our military with particular emphasis on the Nuclear Triad, the department of defense will be relying on the Defense Industrial base to recruit and hire and train thousands of workers across the country and my own state of connecticut at pratt whitney, thousands of workers needed to build the engines that are necessary for the Strike Fighter and thousand of of workers necessary to build the submarines and so essential to our National Security and yet we are cutting the funding necessary for training those workers, the welders, pipe fitters, engineers, designers, people with real skills that are essential to our National Defense. Would you agree with me that our National Security requires that funding to be restoreded . Sir, there is a need for the people youre referring to and there is an Apprenticeship Program starting, and i do not know the details of it, but its directed exactly at the skills that youve just been citing, but i cannot tell you more about it and i would say thats the best place to get information about whats actually in the president s budget to address this. I know the labor departments budget is out of your direct jurisdiction, but it affects our military capablity and my time has expired, but this subject is intensely important to the future of our nation, and i hope that you will support e for thes to increase the funding necessary for apprenticeship and training. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Secretary mattis, you famously said as a marine corps commander, that you need to buy me more ammo. Do you still stand behind that idea . It was probably a rather simplistic way to point out that we have to engage with the whole of government. Yes, sir, i do stand by it. Soft power is an essential ingredient to winning the war on ror . Think america has two fundamental powers, sir, the power of inspiration and intimidation and you have to work and the department represents inspiration overseas. Do you agree with that, general dunford . I do, senator. Has anybody asked you a question yet . Senator purdue made reference to an audit. Ill give you a question, but youve got to be quick. Okay. What would cost be in terms of dod spending in the next decade. What would what cost be . Tricare. I dont have the number at my fingertips and overall its 61 billion for the health costs. Look at it because you will find it to be encroaching on the Defense Budget and we need to have reform. The Health Care Costs of defense have gone up significantly year after year. General dunford, when we liberate mosul, and i believe we will, would you recommend a residual force stay behind of americans . I do believe the iraqis will need support after mosul, and i would point out that the end of mosul is not the end of combat operations in iraq. Absolutely. Theres much more work to be done. So the day that we get to end the combat operations, is it your testimony as chairman of the joint chiefs that wed be wise as a nation to leave a residual force to prevent isil and other radical roots from coming back . That support for the iraqis would be strategically important. To the United States . To the United States. Do you agree with that, mr. Secretary . I do, sir. Do you agree from a Homeland Security point of view, the outcome in afghanistan matters in terms of whether its a failed state or stable country . Yes, sir, i do. Do you believe that every soldier serving in afghanistan today, american soldiers and insurance policy against another 9 11 . An insurance policy. Against another 9 11 coming from oh, absolutely. Do you agree with that, general dunford . If anybody falls in the service of their country in the service of afghanistan, they die for the homeland . Believe strongly that the pressure that weve put on terrorist groups outside of afghanistan over the last 15 years is the reason we havent seen another nerve. One of the best purchases you could have in dealing with International Terrorism is afghanistan. Do you agree with that, both of you . Its a good place to be in terms of countering International Terrorism. The center of International Terrorism, sir and weve got to confront them there. Okay. Thank you very, very much. Saudi arabia, do both of you support the arms deal to saudi arabia negotiated by President Trump . I do, sir. General dunford . Thats a policy decision, ill defer to the secretary. Militarily, do you think it would be wise for us to help saudi arabia . The only military judgment consideration is how does that fit into qualitative military edge for israelis and its been looked at through that lens and its not a challenge. Lets get back to this right quick, general mattis. If Congress Rejects this arms deal, what message are you sending to iran . I believe iran would be appreciative of us not selling those weapons to saudi arabia. And the tight weapons were talking about selling would make saudi arabia more effective on the battlefield on places like yemen and not less because of the specific nature of the weapons . With proper training, it can have that effect, yes, sir. Okay. North korea, is it the policy of the Trump Administration to deny north cor korea of an icbm. Yes, sir, it is, senator graham. That policy has to have all options on the table to be meaningful, including the military option . Thats correct, sir. And the military option would be devastating for the world at large, but the president and you have to balance the interest of Homeland Security against regional stability and do you think china gets it this time that were serious about stopping north korea . I have no doubt that china thinks were serious about stopping north korea, sir, and its principally a diplomaticled effort right now to denuclearize the peninsula. Last question. What signal would you be sending to russia if congress failed to act for punishing them. If congress failed to push back against russias interference in our election and it gave russia a pass. What message would that send to putin. What message would that send to our allies and what would you recommend that congress do about russian aggression . Do you support more sanctions . Sir, i believe that weve got to make very clear what behavior we want to see in the International Community and what behavior we will not stand for and we need to make that clear in the congress and the executive branch and in our alliances. Do you agree with that, senator dunford . I do. I would hope that anything we do in regard to russia would be done in conjunction with the state department and i can assure you we are preparing with the military dimension of the problem. With a 3 increase over the obama administrations defense appropriations and well take care of all of those thing, is that right, general . Chairman, i was responding to the russia challenge and i think the fy18 budget has given us significant resources to deal with the russia challenge. So 3 is sufficient in your view . Chairman, all i can tell you is the prioritization that weve been given is the right prioritization, and as i indicated earlier why, i believe the requirements provided over and above the budget are legitimate requirements. So 3 is enough, huh . Chairman, i also stipulated that we needed a minimum of 3 just to maintain the competitive level we have and the secretary and i subscribed it, we needed 5 for several more years to come before we could be competitive. Senator nelson . Mr. Chairman, senator king has to go to a funeral and he asked for two minutes of my time if i may give that to him. Senator king . Thank you. Just a couple of points, mr. Chairman, and i think its important and i hate to be bringing more bad news, but in thinking about the budget and the budget future, the looming threat that i see in addition to all of those we discussed today are Interest Rates. For an easy way to think about this is one point of increase in the Interest Rate on the National Debt equals the air force the entire air force budget would encompass the entire Defense Budget and 5 would encompass almost the entire current discretionary budget and i dont think theres any doubt that Interest Rates would be leaded up and thats an additional factor that we have to think about in terms of our development of the budget. Secondly, theres what i call the modernization bulge coming which cbo estimates to be 400 billion over the next 12 years and thats the b21 and the columbia sur marine and the ohio replacement b21 and the whole nuclear. So thats another problem that we have to deal with and still maintain current budget levels. So i think the situation is even more grim than what we talked about this morning because of those additional factors that arent generally discussed in terms of this and weve talked a lot about unconventional war threats that were facing, cyber and the attack on the electoral system and clear attacks and we havent talked about hybrid war and i worry that crimea is a precursor of a way, for example, to attack the Baltic States without tanks rumbling across the border and finally, mr. Norquist, i hope that you will take seriously the necessity for the audit which weve been hearing about for years, and i think, as i recall, 2017 was supposed to be the year the department of defense was ready. So my folks in maine say how can they possibly do this without an audit, and i hope to have a report back from you and perhaps we can have a hearing just on that. So those are the points that i wanted to make and i wanted to thank you gentlemen for your testimony today. Thank you. Senator nelson . And thank you for your Public Service. I want to follow up on the quote that senator graham quoted you with regard to the state department. Are we giving up options that were previously available to us to exercise before we reach an Armed Conflict by a budget that is substantially cutting the state department and other agencies with soft powers such as usaid . Senator nelson, i have not looked in detail at the state department. I cant tell you what is actually being cut and what is being retained. I would have to direct that to secretary tillerson. I am not confident to answer it. Well, i would suggest that you look at it because if youre supporting a budget that whacks the state department and usaid you well know that you are not only a warrior, you are a diplomat. As a commander, who utilizes all of those other agencies of government in projecting your soft power and this is a budget that substantially decreases the state department and usaid, so i understand the sensitivity. You dont want to answer that, but thats going to be something youre going have to face. Let me ask you about. Are you satisfied in your statements with the u. S. Support of article 5 in the nato treaty . Are you satisfied that you have assured allies that america supports article 5 . I have, sir, and i believe the president has just recently done so right from the white house. Was it in his speech and he took it out when you were over there . I believe those actions spoke louder than any words and he has put it in his speech since then. As you know its been in the last couple of days. All right. Let me ask you about do you think that the existing sanctions are enough to deter further russian aggression in ukraine and syria, the sanctions against russia . Sir, its hard to tell what what influences putin. I dont think hes acting in the best interest of the russian people and as such, i think that whatever the congress does so long as it leaves some flexibility to our secretary of state and our president to negotiate as we try to get out of this spiral thats going downhill. You know, make the point about where you stand, sir, but leave some flexibility and execution to those who have to diplomatically engage and try to reverse this. Would additional economic sanctions against russia help, in your opinion . I think if they were conditioned on failure of the diplomats to gain some kind of common approach to get out of a jam that russia is putting everyone in. Thank you. Mr. Chairman . On behalf of chairman mccain, senator sullivan, please. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, thank you for your service. Theres been a lot of discussion today about the budget and a continuing resolution, and one of the issues that seems to be forgotten here is it voted out of committee almost unanimously and a Defense Budget and unfortunately, it came to the floor last summer right around this time and it was filibustered and if we did that again, secretary mattis, would that be helpful tol have a Defense Budget that we worked on, voted on and be filibustered . Is that helping our troops . Would it happen again . I certainly hope it wont happen again. I think it would be horrible for our country, as well as our troops, sir. Secretary mattis, i appreciate your focus on asia pacific and i know it was your first trip as a secretary and your recent visit to singapore with the shangrila dialogue i also think was important for a whole host of reasons. Sorry, i couldnt have joined you. I had an event that was even more important than the shangrila dialogue with my daughters, otherwise i wouldnt be with you. I read your speech in the q and a afterwards. I thought it was outstanding. Can you succinctly state u. S. Policy as it relates to freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea and other areas just so both of our allies and adversaries are aware of it . Yes, sir. We operate freely in International Waters and we do not accept international inhibitions in the International Waters or waterways. Will we be able to do that with our allies as possible . We will unilaterally or in league with our allies. Yes, sir. I read in the press that u, is uss dewey within 12 nautical miles and we conducted militarytype mission according to the press reports. The chinese, according to press reports protested that what was our response in response to their protest . I did reiterate that we operate in International Waters, sir. I also very much appreciated your focus on the importance of our allies. You highlighted that quite well in your shangrila dialogue speech. Can you touch on that for the benefit and the benefit of the American People just how important our allies are not only in the asia pacific and in terms of us securing our National Security objective. Senator sullivan, there is an awful lot of talk about asymmetric advantages and competitive advantages and disadvantages and i would put our allies and our alliances from nato to the pacific, bilateral and multilateral as our asymmetric advantage, as well if you put a list of our allies alongside a list of chinas allies or russias alliances. You can see the proof coming through from history that nations with allies thrive and those without them do not thrive. So were an allyrich nation and our adversaries and potential adversaries are poor, is that a way to look at it . We should look to deepen those alliances and expand them, correct . Absolutely. Do you think everybody in the administration gets that and is doing that . As you know, sir, secretary tillerson and i work very closely together and he leads Foreign Policy, and i provide military factors and will he gets his efforts and i also know that in terms of Homeland Security, secretary of Homeland Security kelly is working with our closer allies around the hemisphere and also further out to try and protect the country. So i see it being a theme and carried forward, yes, sir. Let me follow up on a couple of questions, senator graham asked about north korea, and i actually very much appreciated what the president and Vice President did when they invited 100 u. S. Senators over to the white house to get the briefing with the president there and the Vice President , h. R. Mcmaster and all of you. I thought that was very useful and very important. One element that i thought was important is you were clearly trying to get the congress in a bipartisan way to be supportive of this new strategy, and i think, as you know, mr. Secretary, our countrys at its most powerful when the executive branch and the legislative branch are, woing together when democrats and republicans are working together on difficult issues and inviting everybody over to hear about our strategy and firsthand with general dunford was so important is the nuclear icbm armed in north korea the most significant threat we face right now as a nation . Its certainly the ones that is in the hands of of a potential rogue state that we have to consider, and is it increasing . That threat is increasing . No doubt. We need more Missile Defense capabilities for our nation . Right now, i believe we can protect the nation, but as we look to the future, absolutely. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I might have a few follow ups in theres time. On behalf of senator mccain, senator peters. Thank you to our witnesses, i appreciate this interesting and informative testimony. You described rapid, technological change an important force acting on the department and you highlighted one of the four major forces weve had to confront and you and i have had the opportunity in my office to talk about how robotics and itson mouse systems and all of these other technologies will fundamentally change warfare in the next ten years, perhaps much sooner than that. The private sector is leading on many of these developments. For example, ford motor company, General Motors both have a selfdriving automobile in the next four to five years out in the marketplace which is much sooner than i think most people realize and secretary mattis, you stated in your testimony, in fact, that the fact that much of this technological change may come from the commercial sector may expose it to state competitors and nonstate actors. Im concerned in recent years china has rec on oized investment as a method of improving capabilities and obtaining advanced u. S. Technology. The committee on Foreign Investment in the United States is the u. S. Government entity responsible for vetting Foreign Investment in the u. S. For National Security risk. I am concerned that cfius is both outdated and overburdened and may not be up to the challenges that were facing today. Admiral rogers testified last month before this committee that our adversaries understand the cfius structure and some nation states have actually changed their investment methodology to get around the progress we have in place. My question is to you, secretary mattis and general dunford, is there a National Security benefit against nations that pose a clear threat to our National Security like china . Absolutely, there is. I completely agree with your view that cfius is outdated, sir, and it needs to be updated to deal with todays situation. General . I couldnt agree more, senator. The many challenges that we look at is the theft of intellectual property particularly as it pertains to defense programs is of grave concern. If we go through some reforms of cfius, which i am in the process with senator cornyn and others to do that. Are there any specific recommendations that you would have for us in changing the cfius process . Let me send you a note that outlines some, and i would tell you right up front that there is a lack of restrictions of investment in certain types of technology that we must have put in place, but i can give you a more inclusive list of where our thinking is at if you just give me a couple of days, sir. I appreciate that. Thank you so much. That would be helpful and in closing, given the fact that there is one of the major threats that we have to face which is rapid, and technological change, are there any particular ones that you are most concerned about . And is to secretary mattis and general dunford . Let me come back to you in private and these are areas that are very sensitive and i dont want to let our adversaries know what were looking at. I understand that and i assume youre in the same position . Absolutely, senator. I look forward to working with you. Thank you. I know the chairman has mentioned this several times, but i think repetition matters in terms of getting this message out to the American People. The president said that he was going to have historic increases in defense spending. At one point he said he would expand the army from 480,000 to 540,000. It is my understanding as the chairman has mentioned that, in fact, the president s request for the military was exactly 3 higher than president obamas and furthermore, i assume you will agree that it calls for additional soldiers, correct . Thats correct right now. So does he not know that this is not a historic request . Does he not know that i mean, what i worry about is the American People are being told over and over again, we will have a really big, were going to fund our military, our military, this is a huge increase in requests and the reality is so different than the rhetoric coming out of the white house, mr. Secretary, and i worry that the American People dont understand that we havent begun what we need to do in terms of bringing our combat brigades to where we need to be. I hate to sound like a me, too. I guess i would have to be a minime to you, mr. Chairman, but i am worried that there is a misrepresentation going on. Senator, if you look at the 30 billion as fast as we came in to address immediate readiness problems, i would just call it the situation that we inherited that demands more. We are trying to put together a coherent program on the run while were engaged overseas, while we have numerous crises unfolding, while were still getting people approved through the senate and nominated to the senate and get the consent of the senate to get them in and its going on at one time. Thats not to say we shouldnt continue to work along the lines that we are together, but ive got to come to you with a coherent plan where i can confidently say that the money you throw into this is going to be spent wisely. I do not say that we are asking for enough money in this budget. Thats why we have a fiveyear program coming. And i appreciate it, and i know youre in a difficult position. I just think it it doesnt help our cause in terms of adequately funding our military if the president is giving the country the impression that he is, and thats the point i was trying to make and in addition to the chairman is asking for in afghanistan, im awaiting the strategy on ooisz, which was supposed to be in 30 days the president took office. I want to turn to the strategy on cyber. We spent a lot of time worrying about the russians hacking politicians. Im worrying about the russians hacking our military and doing the things theyre doing in terms of planting stories and gathering information. Fancy bear, who has been identified by our intelligence and all of the Intelligence Experts as one of the premier agents of russia in terms of cyber warfare, people that fancy bear has targeted outside the former soviet union, 41 are either current or former members of the military, according to a recent analysis. Russia hacked the twitter account of central command. We know that russia has coopted a very wellknown veteran site that originally began in america. I dont want to use the name of it because it will chase people to the site, and its totally been coopted as a russian proxy. In fact the americans that began the site, they were seen in a video of the people they were working and the giant big pictures behind them were of assad and putin. And this was a site asking veterans to help them find jobs, help for cancer treatment. Veterans are giving personal information to this site. We know that attractive women are going on facebook, and in the old days youd send a spy into a bar the military frequented and try to gain relationships one drink at a time. As this recent article pointed out, but now they can do it through a facebook page. So are you all all hands on deck as it relates to the way military personnel and veterans i know general breed love they went after him. Are you all really paying attention to the corrosive ability of russia to influence our military through director contact through social media with our veterans through these proxy sites . I know that training is probably the number one way to armor our people against this sort of thing. And training is perishable. Its got to be ongoing. I have no complacency about this. Ill see if the chairman has anything to offer. But ill just point out we have funded cyber command. Weve got all sorts of things going on with nsa, protections, fire walls into place. Weve blocked a number of times, weve seen malicious malware being used where we were not affected. Thats not because we were lucky. Thats because we were throwing obstacles in the path and building firewalls as fast as we could. All you can do is stay ahead of these. You cant build one and say, there, i can go home now. So training and constant attention to protective measures i can guarantee you is ongoing. Im briefed weekly on this, and brief itself is pages long as i look at the various blocks and Counter Measures are put in place. And what were finding out about what various actors are up to. Senator, anything else . Senator, id probably say two things. I do believe ive seen that the Service Chiefs in particular have really changed the command climate with regard to cyberspace and emphasized that. It treated violations of the protocols with Information Technology, violations and Holding People accountable, as the secretary said its about training and also about accountability. And i think our culture of accountability with regard to Information Technology has changed a great deal. I also think with the support of congress our Cyber Capabilities while we continue to need to grow them, have grown quite a bit. The 133 Cyber Mission teams, 70 are operationally capable. Now 70 are now fully operationally capable. In the coming months well have 133 more of those teams that are fully operationally capable to stay out in front of the threat. I think the secretary used the word complacency. I think the fundamental question is do we get it and are we changing a culture and are we taking effective action to deal with the threat . And i do think we have significantly changed the culture. None of us believe we are where we need to be thank you, mr. Chairman. I will say that one of the things that worried me the most in article i read was there was a purported story of a russian soldier in syria and the way he had been heroic and this spread like wildfire. Through troops in various places. And weve seen an uptick in the popularity of putin in russia in this country. And i just worry they are really insidiously trying to insert combat stories that reflect favorably on russian soldiers on instances that may not even be true, that is infecting our troops with maybe less than a clear eye on what russia is and russia is trying to do. And i just want to put that on the record. This is also reflected throughout nato. The german minister of defense was explaining to me here the german soldiers in with a completely made up story trying to undercut the cohesion of nato. I just want to point out its an anticipated military problem, and were working on it. But i think weve got a long ways to go up against this rather imaginative enemy weve got. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Senator sullivan has some additional questions. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Gentleman, i want to followup on the north korea discussion briefly. I know youre korean history buffs in many ways. I heard you talk about the korean war yesterday in the House Armed Services testimony. General dunford, you talked about a potential conflict on the Korean Peninsula. General milly had similar testimony a couple of weeks ago before this committee about what a conflict on the Korean Peninsula could be like. You just mentioned the rapidly developing threat the north korea present in terms of an intercontinental Ballistic Nuclear missile. You stated it was the policy of the Trump Administration to prevent them from getting that capability. I think you have strong support from most members of the committee on that. But it does certain ly seem like those too issues are going to start colliding here relatively soon. And i know theres a lot of ways to present them from getting that kind of capability, left of launch kind of activities. But if one of those ways was a decision to take some of kind of preemptive military action, i believe that that would clearly trigger congresss article 1 authority with regard to declaring war, and you would need this bodys authority to take such action. Do you agree with that or has that been a discussion in the Trump Administration . Its a very big issue that im not sure has gotten enough attention. Ive not brought that issue to the president s attention. Sir, you know right now from maralago where the president met with his counterpart to secretary tillerson and i who will be following up our counter parts next week or two weeks here in washington as we have Strategic Security dialogues, were doing everything we can to avoid resorting to war in terms of protecting ourselves and our allies. Well, i think its an issue that should be on somebodys radar screen. Because not that we want that, but part of what the president s trying to do and im fully supportive of is try to get the congress to be supportive of his policy. Thats why i mentioned why i thought the briefing at the white house a few months ago was actually very useful. But to continue to have that support, we need to be involved. And i think thats something this committee needs to be cognizant of and this committee does as well. Let me ask one final question. In the past six weeks the russian as have sent Bomber Mission off the coast of russia that have been intercepted five times in the last six weeks. What do you think the russians are up to with this kind of persistent checking of our norad systems, and thats a pretty active engagement. Last time it was not just with bear bombers but with fighter escorts. What do you think theyre trying to do in the arctic and what are they trying to achieve, and why are they so active up there . Sir, im not sure what theyre trying to achieve there. When you looked at the combination of their Cyber Threats to democracies, when you look at what theyre doing in syria the bear bombers as you put this canopy of activities together, its very, very concerning. And were going to have to turn this around. This cycle has got to be turned around. I think its going in the wrong direction in terms of stability and peace. And this is where miscalculations can occur. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I thank the witnesses for their patience. I thank them for their responses. And i want to emphasize, again, mr. Secretary, its not your fault, not yours nordquist, general dunford, but were not going to sit still while you settle these. Strife, which is obviously going on which is preventing this strategy from coming forward. Were moving forward with the authorization, with appropriation, and without a strategy it makes our job ten times harder. I think weve been pretty patient with you. Were going to start putting pressure on because we need a strategy. And to sit here in june 13th, 2017 and say, well, dont worry were going to be coming forward with a strategy, things are happening too rapidly in the world. So you have my greatest respect, admiration, but we are not doing the job for the American People that they expect us to do. So it is what it is. I thank the witnesses and i thank you for being here. This hearing is adjourned. [ indiscernible conversations ] [ indiscernible conversations ] this weekend American History tv on cspan 3. Saturday on 8 00 p. M. Eastern. University of washington professor compared beatniks to hippies. The hippies were the optimistic children of the baby boom generation and the rising affluence of the post war consumer boom. At 10 00 eastern on real america, 30 years ago, oliver north appeared before the house and Senate Select committees investigating the iran contra affair. American people not led to believe by the way youre asking that question that we intentionally deceived the American People or had that intent to believe with. The effort to conduct these covert operations was made in such a way that our adversaries would not have knowledge of them or that we could deny American Association with the association of this government with those activities. And that is not wrong. And sunday at noon, historians, authors and former congressmen and president ron paul explore americas post world war ii security state. The people who liked authoritarianism tell people what to do. They know it is illegal for an individual to go into your house and take what they want. Fortunately, that moral standard still exists. You cant personally take from people and hurt people. It happens, but basically most people recognize you cant do it. But it is not illegal for the government to do it. For our complete American History tv schedule, go to cspan. Org. Tonight at 8 00 eastern on cspan, Harvard University professor and author William Julius wilson discusses Race Relations in america, what he calls income and racial segregation. Here is a preview. And in order to keep things in proper perspective when talking about the relative gains of more privileged blacks, it is important not to overlook the continuing interracial disparity. For example, a report from the center for economic and policy Research Reveals that before the Great Recession there was only a 1. 4 percentage point difference in the unemployment gap between recent black and White College graduates aged 22 to 27. However, in 2013, shortly after the economic downturn, the gap had surged to a 7. 5 percentage point difference. Now, race is obviously a factor at play here because historically the periods during and immediately after downturns have adversely affected blacks more than whites. And well have more from William Julius wilson on this and the effects of Donald Trumps candidacy and presidency on Race Relations from Stanford University tonight at 8 00 eastern on cspan. Cspan, where history unfolds daily. In 1979 cspan was created as a Public Service by americas Cable Television companies and is brought to you today by