Committee meets to receive the testimony of the secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chief of staffs on the administrations fiscal year 2018 budget request. We welcome secretary mattis for the first time before our committee and we welcome chairman dunford back. The question today, as it is each year for this hearing, is how well the administrations proposal meets the security needs of the nation. Factoring in both the external threats and the current state of our military. This committee has repeatedly heard testimony over the past two years that our country faces more serious complex security challenges now than we have faced before. The hearings and briefings we have held on the current state of our military have been disturbing. The administrations budget request of 603 billion for base requirements is 6 above the 17 enacted level and 3 above the last Obama Administration Budget Proposal. Its 37 billion below what this committee assessed last fall was needed and 58 billion below the fy 12 gates budget validated by the bipartisan defense panel. Of course, the issue is not about numbers. The issue is about what those numbers provide for the men and women who serve and what security the budget provides to the nation. Its about whether we can defend the u. S. And allies against north korean missiles. Its about whether we have the number of ships and planes to deter aggression and maintain peace. Its about doing right by our most valuable asset, our people. The men and women who serve deserve the best weapons and equipment our country can provide. Im afraid today they are not getting it. Its always tempting to avert this discussion into a broader budget debate about taxes and other spending issues. They are not within the jurisdiction of the committee or witnesses. Regardless of our views on those other issues, we cannot wait until we solve our budget problems to fund our military. We cannot wait until we perfect our acquisition, to have planes that fly and ships that sail. The world is not stopping and waiting on us to get our act together. It moves on and its moving on in a dangerous direction. 2018 is a key decision point. We have spent six years just getting by, asking more and more of those who serve and putting off the choices that have to be made. We cannot keep piling missions on our Service Members without ensuring they have all they need to succeed. Does the administrations Budget Proposal accomplish that goal . That is the question we intend to examine tonight. I yield to the Ranking Member, mr. Smith for comments. Thank you. I agree with much that you said. The best way is to sum up putting off choices. Thats what we have done for quite a while, not just on the Defense Budget, but on tax reform, on all aspects of the budget as well. I think the impact of the military is, as the chairman describes. The problem we have is a major disconnect between what we would like to do and the amount of money we are prepared to do it. As the chairman mentioned, the president s budget at 603 does not match what our committee assessed was needed, even more tellingly. It doesnt match with what the president says he is going to do. In fact, it is very, very distant from that. If you talk a 350 ship navy, 570,000 person army, talk about all the planes, all the Nuclear Modernization they want to do. I dont begin to know what the yearly number would be to get to that. I am suspecting it is well north of 700 billion to 800 billion. We have these ideas but we dont have the money to get there. Who is in the lurch . The people of the military. They are left with missions they dont have the resources to fill. We have to start making choices. I have a preview of your remarks and i agree with you. Certainly the house of representatives is in no position to talk about making choices. Its the middle of june and no budget. We have never gone this long for providing this. We continue to stall, i think, in hopes the money will magically appear or well figure out a way to spend money that doesnt count, something. We have to make choices. We have to decide what we are going to fund. I will disagree with the chairman on one issue, the notion that as the Armed Services committee, Everything Else that goes on in the budget doesnt have anything to do with us and we shouldnt worry about it. One thing does. That is revenue. How much money you have, in my experience, has a profound impact on how much money you are able to spend. Ill skip for the moment the argument about the department of Homeland Security and the department is. I think all those things are important. If you want to get down to the basics, even if you say forget about that, all we are concerned about is the Armed Services committee and providing for the men and women in the mail tear, the planes, military, all that, it is nonsensical to say the revenue doesnt impact that. It absolutely does. If we are talking about putting together a tax reform proposal that is going to further cut taxes 2 to 3 trillion, if there are members of this committee that want to support that and come back to the committee and talk about how terrible it is we dont fund our military, that is a huge inconsistency we need to reconcile. Lets make sure we provide the money for them. If we are not prepared to provide the money, we need to come up with a different set of stran strategies. North korea to iran to russia to a rising china, to, not to mention, the terrorist groups out there and active. It would be difficult to redo that strategy. Are we pert off doing that than a strategy we have no intention of funding . Right now, thats what the executive branch looks like they are doing. They have a strategy they have no intention of funding. We have to fix that. Two quick things and ill ask the question when i get the chance. Countering what russia is doing is an enormously important thing for us. They are in a comprehensive effort to undermine the values our country has fought for in the post world war ii environment. They have a complicated cyber effort, propaganda effort. They are doing all this stuff to foster authoritarian regimes and undermine alliances that the u. S. Relied on in that post world war ii world to maintain peace and security and protect our interest. We need a strategy on that. I would be curious to get your status on what we are doing in qatar. You hear what the secretary of state is doing then the president says something opposed to that. It is a very destabilizing situation in the middle east. I agree with the secretary of state, we should find ways to solve the problem, not throw gasoline on the fire. Im not clear what the administrations strategy is. I would think, mr. Secretary, you have opinions on what we ought to do to resolve that situation. I look forward to that comment. With that, i yield back and look forward to your testimony. Committee welcomes james mattis, secretary of defense. Joseph dunford jr. Joint chief of staff and david norquist, the comptroller who has been on the job about a week. Welcome all of you to the committee. Without objection, any written comments you would like to make would be included in the record. The floor is yours. Ranking member smith and members of the committee, i appreciate the opportunity to testify and support the president s budget request for fiscal year 2018 and i appreciate the committee accepting my written statement for the record. I am joined by chairman dunford and david norquist. He is new, but will be vital to gaining your confidence that we know where our money is going once you give it to us through a good audit. This request holds me accountable to the men and women of the department of defense. 2 million Service Members and 1 million civilians do their duty, honoring previous generations of veterans and Civil Servant who is sacrificed for our country and a privilege to serve alongside them. We, at the department of defense are aware of the sacrifices made to fund our military. Many times in the past, we 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 no god given right to victory on the battlefield. From the halls of congress to the battlefield earn victory through commitment and sacrifice. Yet, for four years, the department of defense has been subject to or threatened by automatic across the board cuts as a result of sequester, a mechanism meant to be so endureious to the military, it never goes into effect. It did go into effect by secretary of defense panetta and the damage has been severe. In addition, during nine of the past ten years, congress enacted 30 separate continuing resolutions to fund the department of defense. We need bipartisan support for this budget request. In the past, failing to meet it, congress sidelined itself from the constitutional rule. Sequestration blocked new programs, prevented service growth, stalled initiative and placed groups at greater risk. Despite the efforts of this committee, congress, as a whole, met the present challenge not with leadership. I retired from military Service Three months after sequestration took e feint. Four years later, i returned to the department and have been shocked by what i have seen about our readiness to fight. Nothing can compare to the heart ache of the loss of our troops during these wars, no enemy in the field has done more to affect us than sequestration. We meet americas commit. S abroad because our troops have a bigger burden. It 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 an fy 2018 budget to avoid a harmful resolution. Eliminate the threat of sequestration cuts. Stable budgets and increased funding are necessary because of four external forces acting on the depment at the same time. The first force that we must recognize is 16 years of war. When Congress Approved the all volunteer force in 1973, our country never invisioned sending our military to war for more than a decade without pause. 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. We must look reality in the eye. Russia and china are seeking veto power over the economic diplomatic decisions. North koreas rhetoric and actions continue despite United Nations center and sanctions while iran remains the long term challenge. All the while, terrorist groups murder the innocent and threaten peace in the regions and target us. A third force, acting on the department is adversary contesting americas capabilities. For decades, the United States enjoyed uncontested or dominant superiority in every realm. We can deploy our forces when we wanted, assemble them where we wanted and operate how we wanted. Today, every operating domain, air, sea, land and cyber space is contested. Fourth concurrent force is rapid tech know logical change. Among the other forces noted this far, innovative forces that denied us by law when forced to operate under continuing resolutions. Each of the four forces, 16 years of war, contested operations in multiple domains and the rapid pace of tech know logical change requires stable budgets to provide for the protection of our citizens and the survival of our freedoms. I reiterate that security and insolvency are my watch words. The fundamental responsibility of our government is fund the American People, providing our security and we cannot fund america and help others if our nation is not strong and solvent. We, in the department of defense owe it to the public and congress to spend every dollar wisely. President trump nominated Senate Approval for individuals to bring fiscal processes to ensure we do so. This first step to restoring readiness is under way. Thanks to congress willingness to support the administration for 21 billion in resources for fiscal year 2017 to address vital war fighting short falls, your support put more aircraft in the air, more ships to sea and more troops in the field to train. However, we all recognize it will take a number of years of higher funding, delivered on time to restore readiness. President trump requested a 639 billion top line for the 2018 Defense Budget. This budget reflects five priorities. First priority, continuing to improve war fighter readiness in fy 2017, filling in the holes from trade offs made during 16 years of war, nine years of continuing resolutions and budget control caps. The second priority is increasing capacity while preparing for future investment driven by results from the National Defense strategy. Our 2018 budget request will be sustained and continuization of the modernization process. The third priority is reforming how the department does business. I am devoted to gaining full value from every taxpayer value earning the trust of congress and the American People. We have begun implementation of a range of initiatives directed by the 2017 authorization act and are on track to enter into a full agency wide Financial Statement audit as required by statute. I urge congress to support the request for authority to conduct a 2021 base realignment and closure or background. I recognize the careful deliberation that members must exercise in considering it. It is one of the most successful and significant programs. We forecast a properly focused base closure effort will generate 2 billion or more annually over a fiveyear period, enough to buy three apache helicopters or four virginia class submarines. The fourth priority is keeping faith with Service Members and their families. Talented people are the departments most valuable asset. We must balance these requirements against other investments critical to rea readiness, equipment to make sure the military is the most capable war fighting force in the world. Investment, blended retirement, the Health System and family programs are essential to fielding the talent we need to sustain our competitive advantage on the battlefield. The fifth is overseas operations. The fy 2018 president budget requires 64. 6 billion. Folks seen 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 present a clear and present danger. I am encouraged by allies and partners to share the burden of this campaign. Moving forward, the fy 2019 budget by the National Defense strategy will have to make hard changes. The department will work with President Trump, congress and the committee to ensure future requests are sustainable and provide the commander in chief viable military options. I am keenly aware each of you understand 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 a budget on time. Thank you for your strong support over many years and ensuring our troops have the resources to fight and win on the battlefield. I pledge to collaborate closely with you to keep our armed forces second to none. Chairman dunford is prepared to discuss the dimensions of the budget request. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member smith, its an honor to join secretary mattis and norquist here tonight. Im representing your men and with women in uniform. I can begin saying your armed forces today are the most capable in the world. However, the advantage the United States long enjoyed is eroding. Since 9 11, a high operational tempo accelerated the wear and tear of weapons and equipment. Budget instability and the control act enforce the department to operate with few resources for the strategy of record. As a consequence, we have near term readiness at the expense of equipment. We maintained a force that consumes readiness as fast as we build it. Rebuilding and maintaining full spectrum readiness. They have addressed the dynamic in their testimony and i fully concur with their assessments. We have another significant challenge that i think is near term. Focused on the threat of extremism, adversaries and potential adversaries have operational approaches and designed to limit the power. Our ability to project power is the capability necessary to defend the homeland, advance interest and meet the Alliance Commitments. Sex secretary mattis these are specifically designed to limit our ability to deploy, employ and sustain our forces. Russia and china modernized a Nuclear Arsenal and north korea on a path to fill a icpm that can reach the United States. In a few years, if we dont change the projectry, we will lose our competitive advantage. The consequences will be profound. It will affect the Nuclear Deterrents or conventional deterrents and ability to respond if it fails. Alternatively, we can maintain the advantage with sustained funding. To the end, fy 18 budget is an essential request. This will not restore readiness or the erosion. Doing this will require an investment beyond fy 18. Specific recommendations for fy 19 and beyond. We know a budget 3 above inflation is the floor necessary to preserve the relative competitive advantage. We ask for your support. While we do that, we recognize the trust to the american taxpayer. We take it seriously and will eliminate redundancies where possible. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. Thanks for ensuring americas sons and daughters are in a fair flight. With that, im ready for your questions. Thank you. Do you have a statement you would like to make . Thank you. Let me alert members that under the circumstances, i think its important to hold members to the five minute rule. Therefore, short, direct questions will, i have no doubt with these witness withes evoke short, direct answers. They are known for that. So, put me on the clock, please. Mr. Secretary, when the budget came to congress on may 23rd, i think other than the past week, you were the only Senate Confirmed person in the department of defense. Of the Trump Administration. If you look at that budget request, it has basically the same number of ships and planes, no change for the army and marines that had already been planned. So, is it fair to say that essentially what has been sent to us for fy 18 is what was already in the works with some minor adjustments. Chairman, excuse me, chairman, what we attempted to do with the fy 17 supplemental is fill in the holes. With 21 billion, we were unable to fill them all. Part of what we are doing, admitt admittedly is continuing to fill in holes. The growth we are developing this year is into areas where we balance the force. We have to bring in more cyber troops. We need to do some things to expand where we have already got gaps that we cannot simply repair our way out of. We have to buy new equipment and this sort of thing. We are getting the force back on its feet, a force you have paid a lot of money for, but not maintained at full readiness, sir. Just following up on mr. Smiths point, the president has said, specifically, he would like to have a navy of 350 ships, 12 aircraft carriers, Army Strength of 540,000. He talked of increasing the number of fighter aircraft. For this budget in 18 that we have gotten so far, it does not advance any of those goals, does it . Sir, it gets us in the right direction as the chairman and i said, its going to take 3 to 5 in the future to actually grow the force along the lines of what you are talking about. I would point out this is 52 billion above the bca tap. Thats not something we can simply walk in and ignore knowing its a reality you have to deal with. I just editorially comment, i dont think anybody thinks the bca cap is anywhere appropriate to what we need for the military. That is what we are trying to focus on. Let me ask you one other question about that. Again, the white house talks about developing state of the artemis sil defense systems. I think the Biggest Surprise to me was to look at the budget for the Missile Defense agency and see that go down in 18 from what it is in 17. Can you explain that to me . Sir, its a worsening situation. We have a ballistic Missile Defense review under way. Right now, im confident that we have what it takes to secure us against the north korean threat and buy us some time until we can get the review done and come with a defensible, sustainable build up. Chairman dunford, you talked about the 18 budget does not fill the readiness holes. Secretary said he was shocked when he came into the department and saw the shape of our readiness. Looked at the requirements required to give by statute. Theres a lot of readiness in those unfunded requirements. It is true, is it not, that if there is additional funds above the president s request, especially on readiness, those funds can be well used. Would you agree with with that . Chairman, i would. I think its important, at this point, to realize traditional readiness is operations and maintenance money. When you have a squadron with six primary aircraft rates you can only have those aircrafts so ready and its not going to make a difference, the squadron is 50 ready. Theres really, maybe this year now, as a result of the last several years, in many cases a difference between readiness and procurement. It is necessary to get units ready. I think thats whats a point that we learned over the past year as well. Thank you. I yield to mr. Smith. Thank you. Is anyone added up all the president s promises in terms of defense as the chairman and i outlined some of them . Is there a notion to what it would cost to meet those goals in a fiveyear plan . If i understand it, theres not a number offered by the president s budget, which is unusual. I cant help but think its because start the clock. I cant help but think its because you didnt want to look at it and see how outlandish the numbers would be versus the money we have. Do you have a number . The fiveyear numbers to get to what the president talked about . I do not, sir. We have been digging down into what we can do right now to get the forest ready in its Current Situation that we confront. I think calm and understanding here that the force is going to have to be improved. Thats the Common Ground we have. We have to move out smartly and in concert with congress as we sort out what can be done and what the targets are. I would suggest, as i said we get more realistic about that. I dont think it serves a purpose to make a promise nobody has any intention of keeping. With that, let me say, one of the things i hope they are able to do is when we are on the floor, we have an amendment to repeal the bca and the budget caps. I would urge in a bipartisan way to get that out there on the floor and let members take that vote. The budget control act was six years ago. It was passed with the goal of reaching a grand bargain. That didnt happen. Its irrelevant. Thats not to say a 20 trillion debt is not a problem, its that its obvious the budget control act is a terrible way to address it. Can you help me out on the qatar question i raised earlier in i understand qatar has a mixed record, but we are doing this at the request of saudi arabia. They have a mixed record, an extreme form of islam. Madrases across the middle east, africa. Ive been met with the foreign minister and assured they are trying to reform and move in a more positive direction, but just seems odd were working at saudi arabia to go after qatar because qatar is doing too much to support groups that are radical extremists. So, whats going on over there and what should our policy be . Sir, its a very complex situation. You know, each of those countries manifest its own trajectory of forward progress. I would tell you that there is Common Ground, and that is something President Trump was attempting to generate to reenforce with the trip we recently witnessed. In that regard you see qatar itself, for example, houses the largest single air base we have, headquarters for our air force, central command, and special operations. I would point out we have interoperatibility capability with qatar and the prince inherited a difficult situation and hes trying to turn the society in the right direction but we all agree funding any kind of terrorist group is against all of our interests and i believe its moving in the right direction. We have to try to sort them all with qatar. I believe that the president coming back from the middle east was extremely focused on what they had done in order to try to get everyone to agree on how we would stop the funding of the enemy groups to include at times gray funding. In other words, its not black and white. It goes into some kind of nebulous area and shows up there. So what youre seeing is a continued focus on that at the same time weve, obviously, got shared interests with qatar. Again, hosts the biggest base that we have there. So its one of those areas where weve got to find the Common Ground, make Common Ground, and move out together. Couple quick comments before my time runs out. One, saudi arabia is a country that we also have to work on that issue, because while theyve cut this deal, theyll support the version of the religion, as long as they dont get violent. The wahabism version of the religion pushes you right up to the edge of that violence and some would argue the logical conclusion of it, so i think we need to put pressure on qatar. Certainly, we really need to put pressure on saudi arabia to stop the spread of that ideology, and i will assume that one of my other colleagues will ask the question about russia. We lack a comprehensive strategy to counter what they are doing. I would like an update on are we going to develop one, do you see that as a critical need, am i being, you know, alarmist about what russia is attempting to do in so many parts of the world . So id be curious about your comments on that, but ill leave that to my colleagues to follow up on and yield back my time. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Secretary mattis, general dunford, thank you for being here and for your service. Funding for cyber warfare command and u. S. Cyber command has been protected in the budget since 2013. This has been a high priority for me, given responsibilities on both this committee and the house intelligence committee. Admiral rogers testified recently that, and im quoting, to execute our missions i requested a budget of approximately 647 million for fiscal year 18, which is nearly 16 increase from fiscal year 17. However, cuts to the Services Impact our cyber warfare capabilities. Cyber operations to counter isis are funded via oco, which could represent a hollow forces structure and cyber capability and readiness gaps still exist for european command against russia and u. S. Pacific command against china and north korea. General dunford, for you, could you describe the readiness of our cyber forces to carry out the variety of missions they need to conduct around the world . I can, congressman, thank you. We identified a requirement for 133 Cyber Mission teams, and that was done in conjunction with u. S. Cyber command. Right now 70 of those teams are what we call fully operational capable, so theyve had all the manning, all training, and they are fully operational capable. The balance of 133 teams are in initial Operational Capability and will be in the coming months fully operational capable, so were moving towards those 133 teams being there, but i think none of us are complacent with where we are in cyberspace given the number of threats we face every day. We need to defend the network, develop effective offensive tools and grow the force. Congressman, i think in fy18 and 17, for that matter, we began to reverse a trend in over the past five years in spaces like cyberspace, Electronic Warfare, weve been underfunded. This is the second year in a row weve increased our resources to cyber command. As a follow up, general, right now were conducting operations against isis, but do we have the capacity to ramp up for additional if required . We do, congressman, and without going through details, were actually simultaneously conducting Cyber Operations now against multiple adversaries. And can we handle the current level of aggressive cyber activity to counter russia, north korea, china, iran, and others that we are seeing today . We need to continue to grow the force to be able to deal with those emerging threats, congressman. Can you talk about what were doing to track people and support cyber as a career field to attract people and support cyber as a career field . Congressman, i know admiral rogers has worked very hard on that, as have the services, and i think theres a combination of incentives, as well as going out there and recruiting high quality people and then setting good conditions for them to be retained, but thats something were working on very hard, as well. So we are looking at things such as incentive pay or bonuses to attract and keep key cyber professionals . Were actually using those tools now, congressman, and always monitoring the force to make sure what extent we need to increase use of those tools. Okay, thank you. I yield back, mr. Chairman. Ms. Davis. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And thank you all for being here, as well. Secretary mattis, i know in your testimony you spoke about the 3 million Service Members and civilians that make up the department of defense, and i certainly agree with you and agree with my colleagues that this committee cannot be expected to deal with all the issues that we face today, but the reality is that the people who come into our service, the men and women that came from somewhere, you know, they were educated, perhaps their families were on food stamps at one time, they got federal student loans. How do we reconcile, and in your position where i think you have such a strong voice in this, how do you work with those issues while were struggling here to defund defense appropriately and looking at all of our readiness issues and at the same time we see that the president is cutting many of the programs that service the people who actually are in the military. We know that over a third of kids are obese today and they cant serve. They are not able to serve because they have they have drug addictions. There are so many issues that we kind of put them over there and say, well, those dont really relate to our military and certainly not to our National Security. I know youve thought about this issue and what is the role that you see yourself playing . Even within the cabinet, to try and have people focus on these issues. Congresswoman, as you know, im not shy about speaking up. I would tell you that we are meeting our own quality demands right now. We have not had to lower our standards at all, but youre absolutely accurate that we have a shrinking percentage of our 18 year old, 20 year old, that population. We do a lot of recruiting from. We have a shrinking percentage that can qualify to enlist in the army, for example, as a private. So i would take no issue with it. Yeah, i think its all of our responsibilities, whether were in the executive branch, legislative, or were a local School District member, but its not one that i can speak about with authority. Ive been rather consumed, as youll understand, with the portfolio i have, but i dont take any issue with what youre saying. So far i would tell you it is not inhibited our quest for high quality young men and women who are rallying to the flag. Do you hear other voices speaking up on this . In this room . Absolutely. Okay. Well, i hope so, and i appreciate your doing that, as well. I wonder if you could just turn to a second and certainly, general, as well, and just speak to us about your current thinking on afghanistan. As i think that the public is aware, its becoming feels much more chaotic and violent and there are very few options for us. What do you see as the status and where can we go with this . Congresswoman, we are taking a regional approach to this. Were looking at everything from the situation between india and pakistan, pakistan and afghanistan, obviously, iran, that whole south asia area. Because if we look at it in isolation, well probably have something thats lacking in some area. We are going to have to recognize the problems that come out of ungoverned spaces like that, as we experienced on 9 11. Those problems do not stay there. They can come home to roost here. So there will be no turning a blind eye to it. Weve got to determine what level of support is necessary and how we orchestrate the international community. Not just the american, but the international community, to deal with this. Well take that forward to the president for a decision very soon. And general dunford, i know that you serve very actively there, as well. Do the numbers that are being talked about and are those in isolation from other tools in our tool box, essentially, do we need to be doing Something Else with civilians . Sure, weve listened very carefully to general mickelsons assessment of the situation and i think were all concerned about the Security Trends over the last two years, not the least of which is a significant amount of causalities the Afghan Forces have suffered, so weve gone to secretary mattis and the president with some options that might be considered in order to reverse those trends, but as the secretary said, well consider afghanistan in the broader context of regional strategy, as well, but we do have some things were consideration to turn around the trends and better enable the Afghan Security forces, who you know have been in the lead the last two years providing security for their country, so this is not about us being in the fight, its about us doing things for the afghans to be more successful than they have been over the last two summers. Do you have the resources that you need, both in the military and on the civilian side . As you suggested, congresswoman, the options will include not just about numbers of troops, its about authorities, its about other things we can do diplomatic and economically, as well. Thank you. Mr. Turner . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Secretary mattis, thank you for being here. You referenced that President Trump has talked about rebuilding the military and has called for an end of sequestration. Youve called on us to help you rebuild the military and end sequestration and all that we agree. As we look to 2018, though, were concerned this budget falls short of our ability to help you do that. There are important needs, as you know, that we see that are not met and one of those is the concerns we have for the instrength and what numbers are needed. So the discussion of what do we need we can look to your statements that we currently have in the army thats doing more than its ever done, and if we look backwards to a time when the army had less to do when we thought the world was more safe, it certainly is pre9 11. Pre9 11 we had 482,000 troops in active force. Today we have 476,000 in current active force. We know where we were going. President obama had proposed drawing down the army even further. He was going to be 460,000 for fiscal year 17, 450,000 for fiscal year 18. Working with the chairman drafted the posture act and the Republican Congress prevented that drawdown, which keeps us at 476,000 today, still below the peacetime 482,000 of pre9 11. General milley has recently come out and said i need 100,000 more. In this article hes proposing active forces of 550,000, higher than the pre9 11. If we look at the unfunded requirements for fiscal year 18, we know that the army has asked for an additional 10,000 active and additional 7,000 national guard. Those are troops they said they needed but didnt get, and its very unusual in unfunded requirements to actually have force requests. Usually we have planes and tanks, not people. Secretary mattis, we dont want to give you a hollow force, but if were going to do more, do you need more soldiers . I believe we do. I dont take any issue with the unfunded priorities list as far as requirement. I think the base budget has the right priorities. If there is more money available, then i think a pretty good list. Army, navy, air force, marine. I would add, however, we have got to have a stable budget horizon in the future. If we bring those troops in and we dont have a good budget by next year, then its going to come out of our operation and maintenance and modernization if we pay their salaries, because if we go under a c. R. Again, nine out of the last ten years weve had some form of this, then we end up with an army that actually with the best of intentions starts hollowing out. So its got to be a balanced approach, sir, and right now i think this is the way to set the conditions with fy18. Excuse me, go ahead, sir. Thats okay. As you know, weve been in those c. R. S because we havent had agreement between the house and senate and Outgoing Administration on what to do, so im going to ask about your conversations with omb because thats currently where one of our problems are, is were looking at the house trying to increase spending to give it what it is you need. Can you give us an idea, what do they say . Do they know you have planes that cannot fly, that you have pilots that dont get flying time, that you have soldiers that are not ready, and that you have shortfalls in ammunition, training, and spare parts . Because the budget that they gave us doesnt fix that and what is omb saying . Because wed like to fix it now. We dont want to wait. Well, sir, as you know, thats why we came for you for 21 billion just a few months ago to start reversing this. Fy18 is how were going to try to stabilize the problem and fill it in in a way that allows us to balance the force. This is where well get the additional cyber troops and Start Building out like this, but the real growth comes in 19 to 23 with a program that omb is keenly aware we need and President Trump has highlighted to omb. So we have his support on this. Secretary mattis, i got a question i think i know the answer and that youre going to want to answer, that is on sequestration. 142 of us sent the speaker of the house a letter having him to put on the floor a bill repealing sequestration. Every member of the Armed Services committee signed it on the republican side. We certainly believe that the president s call for ending sequestration is important. I recall, and im not sharing classified information when you called us in for a classified meeting on north korea, we were waiting for what you were going to say and the first thing you said was repeal sequestration. That was more important than the threat from north korea. So i got a question for you. Secretary mattis, should we vote to repeal sequestration . Yes, sir. Thank you, i yield back. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Secretary, mr. Chairman, thank you very much for your service to the nation and for your testimony today. Secretary mattis, in the past youve acknowledged the impacts of Climate Change on our National Security strategy stating, and i quote, Climate Change is impacting stability in the areas of the world where our troops are operating today, end quote. We are certainly aware of these coming dangers firsthand rhode island being a coastal state. As such its important to quantify the cost of Climate Change. I also assume theres a cost in adapting our National Security strategy to defend new sea lanes in the arctic or respond to regional instability abroad as a result of deserts, famine, and climaterelated economic challenges. As someone whos thought deeply about this in the past, how are you guiding dod to address these strategic and tactical challenges . Yes, sir. I cant quantify the cost. Ill tell you, its part of the physical environment. The warming. And for us it comes down to, for example, we have a new sea that is navigable more year round, where the winter ice no longer extends as far south, so thats a National Security consideration. We look at these as they develop, sir, from the warming climate, and we take it into account, but its hard to quantify the cost. Its simply part of the broadening appreciation of the situation that we confront. Can you talk about the steps youre taking to identify those costs . Sir, i want to give you a good answer. Let me get back to you on that one. Fair enough. Its just as you know, almost a rubiks cube of ways that you address one thing because it impacts another, and how you contain the analysis is actually quite challenging, but the bottom line is, we have to address whatever the physical environment brings, whether its storms in an area where were responding with humanitarian or whatever else. This is all part of the physical environment. I take you at your word and look forward to your answer, secretary. Secretary and chairman dunford, i believe that the value of our American Power projection lies in our diverse and flexible abilities beyond traditional war fighting domains. Today these strengths are jeopardized by the administrations shortsighted Budget Proposal which fails to recognize the overlapping impacts of the varied interests. Strained u. S. Efforts to maintain our present level of diplomatic and military influence across the globe and underfunding the department of education and health and Human Services will undermine the militarys ability to recruit the best and the brightest should we fail to invest in science, innovation, and programs that ensure americans can meet the educational and fitness criteria of the armed forces. This is especially important in areas where technological change is outpacing our ability to match our adversaries and especially where focusing on offset strategies. Would you agree . Congressman, ill start with that. Look, i would agree with the point that youre making. Every challenge that were dealing with right now, theres a military dimension to the challenge, but also we require assistance from the state department, justice department, other elements of the government, what we call whole of Government Solutions are required and all of the challenges you cited are requiring whole of government challenge. What we have done in the fy18 budget, of course, is addressed the resources necessary for the military dimension of the challenges that you referred to. Secretary . Sir, the state department, the Defense Department are tied very tightly. Ill give you an example of isis. We just had a conference here, state department hosted it, 66 nations plus interpol, arab league, european union, and they all sat down together. Not to talk about just the combat part, which we were able to address about 15 of the conference, but 85 was spent talking about the post combat and how do we make certain when we defeat them, how do we keep them off keep the next group from rising. My point is that these take the whole of government effort and right now the state department and Defense Department work closely. Not a week goes by where secretary tillerson and i arent sitting down together for hours and we talk probably five, six, seven times a week as we try to make this a real tight team to address this sort of situation. Thank you, mr. Secretary. Mr. Rogers . Thank you, mr. Chairman. General dunford and secretary mattis, the last administration was not very aggressive, in my opinion, serious in confronting russia about its inf violations. We havent had a senior military dod official testify before this committee that they believe russia is going to come back into compliance with the inf treaty. My question is, is this administration going to seriously confront russia about their inf violations and will you be prepared in the future to have military options for their continued violation . Sir, we are meeting on the apparent violations, alleged violations, what looks like violations to us, we are meeting on it inner agency wise as we speak, and it probably in closed hearing at least initially, because well also be consulting with nato allies, for example, on this as we build the International Understanding of what happened. We can brief you soon. I cant give you a specific date, but we are engaged on the effort right now. Okay, thank you. General dunford, in march your vice chairman, general selva, testified before us and said, there is no higher priority for the joint force than fielding all the components of an Effective Nuclear deterrent and were emphasizing the nuclear no longer be differed as a result of previous delays and referrals all well considered. We are currently depending on just in time modernization replacement of many components of nuclear triad. Do you share this emphasis to remain on schedule . Congressman, i do. That priority has been reflected in both the 17 and 18 budget. Thank you. Secretary mattis, do you believe we should fully fund fy18 budget requests for these programs or decrease the funding until we see the results of the npr . Sir, im confident right now to maintain a safe and secure Nuclear Deterrent is supported by the current budget and we dont have to wait, but that what that review will do is tell us where were going in the longer term, but right now we know what we can do right now to keep the deterrence safe. Great. Secretary mattis, id like to commend you a study by dr. Colin grey, which i request be entered into the record, mr. Chairman. In it dr. Grey states, the american triad begs for american modernization and deserves the attention and support of the u. S. Leadership, in particular the lrso cruz missile wb a weapon with the performance character that must be highly desirable, even essential to meet the kind of challenges of those concerned. Also points out the long history of dualcapable cruz missiles by both russia and the u. S. And said concerns about the lrso is being destabilizing our overstated and unpersuasive. Secretary mattis, im going to save my question for the record, but i know youre a reader and i would commend this study to you as you review the mpr. Thank you, and i yield back, mr. Chairman. Mr. Larson . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Welcome, everyone. Mr. Norquist, got a question for you. Just a quick very quick. Do you anticipate as comptroller that you will be able to keep the time lines this committee would like to see the pentagon keep in conducting the audit of pentagon programs . Yes, we will have the department, all the major elements of the department, under audit in 2018 as required. That will include standalone audits for many of the organizations and overarching audit overseen by the dod i. G. Most of the contracts are already awarded. One or two are waiting to be finalized and awarded, but we have every expectation to be fully compliant and under audit. I anticipate other folks will have questions for you on that. I wanted to be sure youre listening. No, im sure you are. General mattis, i want to return to mr. Rogers questions in theme only. When it comes to the Nuclear Posture review. Do you anticipate the npr will decide on a triad versus diad debate or more on specific programs in the Nuclear Enterprise . How are you approaching . Sir, were going to have to address both. Whether its a triad or diad will be resolved very, very early because of the strength of the triad. Right now, frankly, but then well continue with the rest of the review. Okay. All right. Do you anticipate that it will come out in stages like that, or do you anticipate a one report at one time . Right now i anticipate one report, but, you know, if it looks like it can come out in stages, id be willing to look at it. Right now its going to come out as one report. Thank you. Perhaps for general dunford. Some of the debate in the recent past is the nsc has been too operational, needs to be returned to be more strategic and part of that discussion has resulted in this conversation about giving operators and Combatant Commanders and those below them in the hierarchy more authorities, additional authorities, especially when it comes to isis and other counterterrorism operations. I dont have a big heart burn with that myself, but i do believe that theres still the oversight questions. Its important whether its policies at nsc, policies set at nsc and dod together, or its a set of actions taken by operators that then evolves into a policy, its still policy and should be coming back to us for oversight. Now its a statement. I kind of want to get your feel on, one, do you think the changes on authorizing authorizations has been either that noticeable or that great in the last four months, first, and second, whats your thought on the oversight question from this committee . Congressman, i think the issue really is speed of Decision Making and that more than the level at which decisions are made has been the point that secretary mattis has emphasized since he came in. I will tell you, having been in both administrations, the fundamental issues of force levels, authorities, and those kinds of things have rested either with the secretary of defense or the president in accordance with established policy, so there hasnt been a change in that regard. What the secretary has emphasized is speed at the speed of relevance. Meaning to support the commander, so weve emphasized that. The other thing i would just say is in my experience, the National Security Decision Making process reflects the Decision Making style of the president and im not sure theres a good or bad. Its the process reflects the degree of detail that the president wants to maintain oversight on. So what we have seen is that the president has delegated to the secretary certain authorities in order to make him more responsive to commanders on the ground, but i can assure you on some of the major issues theres been no change in the oversight, nor will it be a change in what congress is able to provide oversight for. Thanks. Just in my last 30 seconds, really not a question, but i do want to put a plug in for the Electronic Warfare excom. Its been a long road to get to an excom and i urge you to make it a priority both in terms of leadership and investment and training and in rnd. Weve lost in the past. I think weve finally got the pentagon where it needs to be on d. W. Overall, not Just Services service, so id like to make sure you note that. Thank you. Yield back. Mr. Franks. Well, thank you, mr. Chairman, and thank you, secretary mattis and general dunford for your lifetime commitment to human freedom. Thank you, secretary mattis, that you keep our enemies awake at night. Secretary mattis, defense officials in south korea and the u. S. , as well, have confirmed claims by north korea that their Ballistic Missile launch of a liquid fuel on may 14th successfully survived reentry. I consider that to be a very significant and dangerous development, and a few days ago director of Missile Defense agency testified in open committee before the Strategic Forces subcommittee that, we must assume that north korea today can range the United States with an icbm carrying a nuclear warhead. Mr. Secretary, this new and alarming judgment suggests that the North Koreans are making significant progress as a result of their Ballistic Missile tests, yet the president s budget request for Missile Defense agency is 7. 9 billion, which is the average budget throughout the Obama Administration. So my question is, in your best military opinion, is the threat posed by Ballistic Missiles greater now than it was under the Obama Administration, and is that threat growing, shrinking, or staying the same, and if the threat is increasing, why would we wait for the ballistic Missile Defense review to at least fund the 1 billion unmet request recently submitted by the Missile Defense agency . Congressman, right now i would say that the threat is growing. However, what we have in fort greeley now and in california, i believe, is sufficient to buy us time so that when we come to you with a program i can defend it and wont come back and say we had it misjudged or targeted in the wrong direction. As you know, this is something that takes a hightech, very focused effort. I want to make certain that what im asking for can sustain the way ahead in terms of giving us a real capability. But i also assume every time they fire one of these, they are learning manag learning something more, so its a worsening situation, but we can buy the time right now, congressman. Let me, if i could, leverage off of that and say under your budget request in fort greeley and vand denburg, once we deploy those 44 groundbased interceptors this year, we wont be able to continue to test and improve their reliability of the system without having to pull interceptors out of the ground, which means well fall below 44 operational deployed interceptors to protect the United States homeland. I guess i would ask are you aware of that and do you believe thats an acceptable risk in this threat environment . I am aware of it, and based on what we think north korea has and could have in the near future, im still confident that we can defend the country and we will take steps to expand and distribute this capability, ballistic Missile Defense capability further. In fact, right now should we need another site, for example, on the east coast, to defend the east coast, were already doing the Environmental Impact statement, so in the event weve got to come to you and say we need to do more. Were not starting at that point with something that would take some time. So were not at all blind to this, and i accept your concern 100 . Thank you, secretary. And general dunford, would you have anything to add to either one of those points . The only thing id say, congressman, is when we look at the north korean threat, you correctly point out ballistic Missile Defense as being critical, but when you look at our investments in cybercapabilities, the Intelligence Community, maritime capabilities, all of those also are designed for north korean threats and we look at the north korean challenge, we have to balance Capability Development across multiple areas, not just the Missile Defense capability area. Well, thank you both and keep them awake, if you can. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses, secretary mattis, chairman dunford, and under secretary norquist. Secretary mattis, it was a pleasure to meet you during the codell that our chairman led to the shangri la dialogue. Ive appreciated your commitment to continued positive engagement in the region. While we are allies and partners have been subjected to mixed messages at best from the administration, it is my hope that the rhetoric and the actions of the department of defense will signal consistency. Secretary mattis and general dunford, if you could speak about employed forces in the endo Asia Pacific Region, given political and financial considerations, what additional value is gained by having forces stationed on a u. S. Territory, and what flexibility does it provide and what limitations does it remove to allow you and your force providers to be ready and ready to engage when necessary . Congresswoman, the asia pacific theeater is a priority for the United States, for the United States partner of defense. The value of the Forward Deployed forces in themselves is they are a stabilizing element. If we did not have them out there and had to flow them in the event of a crisis, it could be a destabilizing element as people were adjusting to a force that wasnt there before, whereas if they are out there in position, then they are present and any adversary would have to consider that if they were up to mischief. I would also say that having these forces on u. S. Territory, whether it be guam or hawaii, obviously, our sovereignty allows us certain freedoms of action and sustainment out there that we wouldnt otherwise have the confidence in. General dunford . Congresswoman, secretary kind of outlined it from our perspective. I would just tell you having been in the pacific with you last week, let me look at it through the lens of our allies and our adversaries. I would tell you us being forward certainly is great assurance to our allies that we can meet our Alliance Commitments and also serves as a deterrent in the region, as well. Well, i thank you both for your comments. I have another question for you, secretary mattis. Reflecting on your visits and discussions with senior military and political officials in the region, what role do our alliances, particularly the u. S. Japan relationship, play in strengthening our posture and furthering our National Interests . Additionally, how is the dod strengthening partnerships through incorporating interorganizational corporation into planning and operations in the endo Asia Pacific Region . Well, mam, i came into the department with the priorities of strengthening our military, strengthening our alliances, and reforming our Business Practices so we get the best use of every dollar that we get. In terms of strengthening alliances, the u. S. Japan alliance has stood the test of time. They pay an enormous amount of the cost of our forces that are there in the japanese islands, and we also have a technological relationship with them. They are a very capable force. Their navy, as you know, uses our systems, our ballistic Missile Defense systems, for example, so this is a twoway street and a benefit for the defense of our own homeland, as well as for the defense of japan. But i dont think that right now we can find they are in that top tier of allies, frankly, that we have around the world. So you feel, then, that the japan and the u. S. In its partnership for the build up on the u. S. Territory is solid . I am absolutely certain. Ive met with Prime Minister abe, and hes committed to it, to include helping to fund the move with the marines from okinawa and the other japanese islands down to guam, and well continue working it along those lines of a partnership with japan and get the marines in place. Well, i thank you both for your support and i yield back, mr. Chairman. Mr. Conway . Thank you, mr. Chairman. General, thank you. General mattis, secretary mattis, thank you for your clear statement on supporting the audit of the books and records of the Financial Statements of the department of defense. Thank you for that continued leadership. Its important, obviously, leadership from the top. General dunford, i took a quick look at your statement, didnt necessarily see something there, but i hope we can count on your leadership among the uniformed folks. It was at the point end of the sword on most of those transactions and making sure youve added your leadership to making sure that happens, so i assume thats the case. That is the case, congressman. Thank you. And mr. Norquist, welcome to a terrific team. You and i were having a brief conversation to start the hearing that your experience in, was it dhs . Yes, sir. Finished four years of auditing Financial Statements. They did not have a clean opinion when i was brought there as cfo, but they already had an audit and we implemented to turn that around. Dhs has now had four clean opinions. Thats fantastic. Obviously, department of defense spends a few more dollars than dhs, but thank you for bringing your talent and leadership to that task, as well. General dunford, asked something about a 3 above the base rate of inflation would be necessary just to simply keep pace with where were going. Mr. Norquist, could you give us a dollar amount what that might look like, assuming a flat 3 , what the dollar amount would be . I know the math, but would you put that in the record for what that math would look like . Id be happy to. You want it for the record, sir . Id rather have you say it right now. 639 billion at 3 would be about 18 to 20 billion a year, sir. All right, thank you very much. I appreciate that. Didnt mean to put you on the spot. General mattis, you mention b. R. A. K. In 2021. It takes a lot to implement. But those recommendations then result in a construction and decommissioning, all kinds of expenses that go into that. Saving those dollars on the back end are clearly important. Can you talk to us somewhat about are there operational reasons why we would go through a brak . Maybe trying to answer your question for you, but i want folks to know while it takes a long time to recoup those dollars, there may be things other than the dollars and cents to lead us to make some of those hard decisions. Exactly. So the money that we free up from closing an unneeded base continues to accrue. It takes a couple years to start taking the profits, of course, because we have to close the base down, but once those reduced costs for that unnecessary base go away, then every year youre gaining that money for training, for buying new equipment, for modernization. I am not comfortable right now that we have a full 20some percent excess. I need to go back through and look at this again, because i dont want to get rid of something or come to you with something we cant sustain and then have to turn around and buy some land here in ten years, so well take a look at it, sir, but its a great way to free up money. Clearly, we try to do that. In the 2005 may be saving us money, but what i was looking for, are there reasons, operational reasons, training, better locating folks together that have been in separate bases across, are there reasons why we would do that separate and apart from the savings and where the savings would accrue to the future . Im sure we would find some of that, sir. I would have to look at each individual case to make that firmly. I think as we started down that path of doing a b. R. A. K. The history of the 2005 b. R. A. K. Were going to need reasons other than a strait savings in terms of making that happen and if there are operational reasons why we would close some bases, open other bases, move certain places in other spots in order to train better or more efficiently, be able to deploy quicker or more efficiently, all those things will be helpful, as well. Again, thank all three of you for your service and i yield back, mr. Chair. Mr. Courtney . Thank you to the witnesses for your testimony today. Id like to go back to where the chairman and Ranking Members started off talking about this budget and the context of a lot of the expectations that have built up before it was submitted, in particular in terms of the navy. Over the last three years weve had strategic reviews, including a cooperative strategy for 21st century sea power, actually general dunford participated in that review, which again talked about the need to grow the fleet larger than 308 ships. We had the forestructure assessment that secretary mavis submitted last december, saying we should build a fleet of 355 ships. We had in early 2017 accelerated shipbuilding plan which assistant secretary stackly sent over, which actually showed a road map in terms of how we can jump start that process and called for a minimum of 12 ships in the 2018 budget to, again, get us moving in that direction. Three force structure and architectural studies, navy architectural studies that this committee commissioned, which talked about even bigger numbers in terms of the fleet, and now we get a budget, which on the 23rd it had only eight ships in it. On the 24th of may it grew a ship, but, you know, theres no debate, really, about the fact that, you know, whats going on out there and we hear from admiral harris and the general in terms of the demands out there that and were living off a legacy fleet in terms of the ships we have out there. I do not understand the hesitation in this budget in terms of taking advantage of all the work thats been done over the last three years to have, again, a more robust shipbuilding plan than what was sent over. Yes, sir. I think once we get our strategy review done so we can give you a compelling logic, not just for number of navy ships, but number of air force fighter squadrons, bomber squadrons, the number of army brigades, weve got to weave this whole fabric together to make certain we have a joint force thats ready to fight. I would love to have more ships. Youre right, there are nine ships in this one, in this 2018 budget, and we know that we need more, but weve got to get our plan together, as you know, weve been in place here only about five months and we need to get our analysis basically harvested from all those that you just mentioned and then come up with a planned way ahead. But as you know, ships are expensive and weve got to make certain that we have the budget to support it, and right now i cant ignore the reality of the u. S. Armys situation or the air force fighter squadrons, the navy aircraft, all the other things were having to spend money on. Well, again, i mentioned all those prior studies, which really were built around a strategic foundation. Again, it was not just a wish list that was put out there, and i would also just know, having been on the subcommittee for ten years now, is that shipbuildings a long game. Youve got to send a demand signal out, not just the big shipyards, but also the supply chain, which frankly went through a shipbuilding holiday in the early 2000s and which really destroyed, you know, a really healthy Industrial Base and supply chain, and i think, frankly, this budget, you know, undercuts that demand signal that people really, i think, were really starting to believe in in terms of what we have seen over the last three years. So i would just say that i think our subcommittee is not going to wait. I think youre going to see, frankly, some work being done on this side to really take advantage of the great work that the all these studies have accumulated over the last three or four years, and again, which we hear in person from Combatant Commanders about the fact they are playing zone defense out there against the chinese navy and the russian navy, and thats really just not an acceptable state of affairs, particularly given the fact that were going to see legacy ships coming offline in greater numbers than the replacement volume that a nineship budget calls for. That is a 308ship navy budget that was sent over here, not a 350ship budget. And, again, i have the highest respect for all of you, and i think you understand, you know, whats going on out there and the need to grow the fleet, but weve got to do better than what was sent over. I yield back, mr. Chairman. Mr. Wittman . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Tharm dunford, secretary mattis, mr. Norquist, again, thank you so much for your commitment and service to our nation. I do want to continue along the lines of questions about shipbuilding. Secretary mattis, you stated and i think is extraordinarily important the need for us to understand we have been marking time, at best, here in the last several years and that our adversaries are advancing. Thats problematic. You also talked about the capabilities that they have, the ones they continue to develop, and if were going to have the ability to make sure we influence the course of events, u. S. Presence is critical around the world. Navy, Marine Corps Team is a critical part of that, and i know im speaking to the choir here, but i do want to build on the question asked before, and that is across the spectrum i havent heard anybody thats disagreed with saying 355 is not a number that we should direct our efforts towards. And this years budget has us on track to get to the number thats in the outdated 30year shipbuilding plan of 308 ships. So the question being is, if theres this near universal agreement that 355 is where we need to be, we cant mark time. We need to catch up, our adversaries are doing everything they can in building additional capacity, whether its under the seas, across the spectrum with aircraft carrier, surface navy. The question is, it does seem counterintuitive to say were going to do eight ships this year or nine ships. I understand wanting to maintain those and making sure were doing those things, but another thing thats additionally troubling, not just with the number of ships, but this years budget request actually cuts a billion dollars out of shipbuilding accounts, so in that realm my question is, is why only nine ships this year, but more fundamentally with cutting a billion dollars out of shipbuilding accounts, how do we see our navy getting to 355 ships and when will we be able to get there . The cbo has done an assessment. We think we have the industrial capacity to get there. The question is strategically for our nation the urgency of getting there. Give me your perspective, both secretary mattis and chairman dunford, about those two elements, the numbers and dollars reflected in this years budget. Well, i share your sense of urgency. As i mentioned in my opening remarks, we didnt get into this situation in one year, and were not going to get out of it in one year, and i recognize that congress has a responsibility to raise armies and sustain navies, but we cant do in one year or put a marker down in one year. Thats unrealistic. And i mention that were going to have to have sustained growth fy19 to 2023, and this is where youll see the biggest growth, army, air force, and navy, showing up as were still digging ourselves out of a readiness operational maintenance hole. Furthermore, were engaged in operations where we have to come to you and ask for oco funding, overseas contingencies operations funding. When you get done, theres a carrying capacity we can carry as part of the president s budget and we just have to recognize that, but i take no issue with what youre saying or the sense of urgency, and we tried to deal with what amounts to years of falling behind. Chairman dunford . Congressman, i think that this highlights the debate we had internally inside the department as a result of not modernizing in so many areas at the same time. What i can tell you is im confident we have the right priorities within the budget, but im also, as the congressman mentioned earlier, i was part of at least one of these studies that articulated the need for more ships, so i understand that also as secretary mattis global force manager try to meet on a day to day basis the Combatant Commanders commands. This does reflect the challenge outlined in my opening remarks is this year and last year it started were confronted with literally whats described as a biway of modernization in the Nuclear Enterprise, Cyber Capabilities, warfare capabilities, space resilient, land forces, so what we try to do is just get the right balance within the top line that weve been given. Its also highlighted that minimum of 3 just to maintain the competitive advantage that we have today, and that actually is a marker for saying that if we do want to get to 355 ships, if we do want to get to the number of brigade combat teams identified, if we do want to get the number of squadrons required, its going to take sustained growth over time and thats why 19, 20, 21 22 are so important, because we just couldnt get there in 18. Thank you, mr. Chairman, i yield back. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and welcome to you both this evening. Its good to see you before us. It seems to me as weve been talking here today, and youve both given voice to the variety of threats we face, whether its from those who wish us ill, but also from the changing dynamics of how we have to respond to, for example, cyber and making sure were making all the appropriate investments. Its sort of a dualtrack challenge we have. Its clear to me that the military services you all need to recruit from a talent pool that is as broad as possible. You both, general dunford, you represented and said how important it is to secure our competitive advantage, and secretary mattis, you talk about having the most capable war fighting force in the world, and that does come down to people. An analysis conducted for the Defense Advisory Committee for women in the services estimated that only 29 of young people ages 18 to 23 are eligible to serve after you apply all the filters that rule people out, and i think you referenced that number, too. Of that population of eligible individuals, more than 51 happen to be women. However, less than 20 of todays active duty force is comprised of women. In an era where the eligible recruiting population remains on the decline, it seems to me it is evermore important we recruit from the entire population and not disregard or discourage half of our nations talent pool. So, with that in mind, how do we how are you all thinking about your recruiting efforts around bringing women into the military so that you do have that full array of talents that are needed in this very dynamic environment, and in thinking about that, how do you make the case for the invaluable contributions they could be making to serving their country in the military . So ill start with you, secretary mattis. Yes, congresswoman. I dont think in any way we disregard it or discourage it. In fact, we are fortunate for decades now to have had superb women. They are not good, they are outstanding. In our ranks. I think the quality standards are being met across the board, men and women, enlisted and officer rank, so right now i would just tell you that they are without the pressure of conscription or the draft, we are getting volunteers of eye watering quality of men and women. Well, i would agree that is the case of those who come in, but the reality is that larger pool only 20 are seeking to serve, so, yes, i think there has to be some thinking on better recruitment efforts in order to bring more of that pool in, but i also wanted to follow up that i was glad to hear in january that in your confirmation hearings you were committed to having men and women serve alongside each other, as long as all parties met the standards necessary for the job. Under your predecessors, the services launched a review of the physical standards that all services have to meet in combat arms and ive seen some of that process at navy soldier systems in massachusetts, but to establish the physiological standards in order to integrate women into every occupation specialty. My question is, how are you planning on assessing the progress of ongoing integration efforts . Id have to see if the services have identified any problems or our various surveys find a problem. If there is a problem, we will assess it and solve it, i guarantee you. So in your time, it has been a rather brief tenure, are you monitoring those efforts . Maam, i have met with the joint chiefs of staff, the service chiefs, with chairman dunford, ive done it in my quarters to make it a casual evening where this issue was brought up, and none of them surfaced any problems right now. And then one other quick question, in the wake of the various social media scandals, what do you think needs to be done to improve the culture of respect across the department as a whole . I believe that its very important as we recruit from American Society that we make clear not just what the military stands for, but what it absolutely will not stand for, and make certain we maintain good order and discipline. A unit cannot be effective in combat that does not maintain a disciplined lifestyle. I dont care whether its dui, driving under intoxication or Sexual Harassment or anything else. When a unit doesnt maintain discipline standards, its of less capability on the battlefield. So we maintain a Mission Orientation and make very clear what we wont tolerate and we field the force. Thank you, secretary mattis, and thank you for your service. Mr. Kaufman. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Secretary mattis, general dunford, thank you so much for your service to this country. Secretary mattis, current law requires a military that military pay is to keep pace with government inflation projections. This year that would be a 2. 4 pay raise. Unfortunately, the administration submitted a budget request that would cut our Service Members pay raise. Secretary mattis, were these decisions based on Budget Constraints or your belief that pay for the military should not keep pace with government inflation projections . Thank you, congressman. We have a responsibility to take care of our families, take care of our troops, and make certain they are paid what we need to draw very good people and that they dont go off to combat worried about whether or not their family is being taken care of, whether it be health care or Retirement Program pay, all those go into making certain we keep faith with them. I also have a responsibility to ensure that they can win on the battlefield, that we are providing them the best equipment, that were doing the research and development that will keep them at the top of their game. Its a balancing act, sir, as we try to balance what we need to outfit them with to bring with home alone and victorious and pay them to maintain our basically our obligation to these people who volunteer to serve. Thank you, secretary mattis. The military service is already having trouble recruiting men and women to join the services due to competition with an improving private sector economy. How do you maintain the all volunteer force if you wont pay them competitive wages . Sir, i think our analysis show that is we are paying them very competitive wages when owe stack them up against high school, graduates, for example, for the enlisted ranks. We probably have a Better Benefits package than most places. Not all of them. I mean theres some out in Silicon Valley where i lived for three years that could probably beat us hands down. When you look across the United States we are drawing in very high quality people because we are competitive. Secretary mattis, one thing that id like you to take a look at in terms of containing cost, where we can shift those resources around to things like pay raises that keep up with inflation, is to look at every opportunity to shift capability to the guard and reserve and granted those training requirements would have to probably be revised accordingly that were going to rely on them more but i just think theres cultural impediments within the active duty force to argue against that and i think we need to look beyond that in terms of force structure and how we can maintain capability. How we can certainly maintain capability without compromising National Security. But at a lower cost. Yes, sir. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield back. Mr. Garamendi. Gentlemen, thank you for your service and for your leadership. Try to do some quick questions here. About choices. Were looking at tax cuts that might create a 3 trillion to 7 trillion deficit in the next ten years. Looking at a state Department Budget immediately that calls for a 30 billion reduction and a diad and try add. How would you prioritize these . Well, sir, in my role, maintaining a safe and secure inside the department of defense, maintaining a safe and secure Nuclear Deterrent with a concisive force to fight, has the capability of fighting regular warfare. The problem, dr. Gray was mentioned earlier. Pointed out the enemy will always move against your perceived weakness so we cant decide to upgrade the nuclear, only going to upgrade the navy because if enemy will move against our weak area, so its going to be safe and secure nuke, capability, deterrence and capability capability that no one wants to take us on or we change them mind quickly. So we dont have to make choices, we can do all of the above . I believe we can, america can afford survive, yes, sir. Its estimated to be a trillion plus dollars in the next decades for the nuclear. We have gone through this twice before in our history, sir, where we had to hit one of these upgrade times and both times the congress rose to it, yes, sir. Thank you. I just move on to something perhaps a little less important. Current law has prohibits military to military contacts with russia. Should the new National Defense authorization continue that policy . Sir, think that we are right now keen on decon flix. We do not do collaboration or collaboration. We do decon flix in the syria theater. But for right now, i believe that there cannot be business as usual military to military. There may be advantages to us deconflicting and perhaps even having talks once theyre led first of all by our Foreign Policy and our state department to set the conditions for the military to military talks. So we should continue the prohibition on military to military other than deconfliction . I think the congress should give a sense of its direction, if its not a requirement. If it leaves some flexibility to the executive branch and the secretary of state and the president , it would be best. You mentioned that we have a new ocean or sea opening up, i assume youre referring to the arctic. Is it is the u. S. Coast guard an important and integral part of the u. S. Defense . And if so, is a heavy icebreaker necessary . I believe the coast guard is essential and integral, distinct, integral part of the Nations Defense and i that is not an area im an expert in, i assure you, sir, but i would imagine getting through the ice is a pretty good idea when it starts moving in. Okay. To keep us relevant. Icebreaker is about a billion dollars a copy, a heavy icebreaker. Should we allow 1 billion of the 638 billion budget to be used to build an icebreaker . Sir, this is really beyond my area of expertise. Im not trying to get out of the question. Id prefer to study it before answering it. I thank you. I yield back my remaining time. Mr. Hartzler. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and thank you, gentlemen, for your service. I have a couple of questions on the program. Then undersecretary of secretary of state testified before Congress Regarding the Cruise Missile program. And id like to introduce her written testimony for the record. Here are a few quotes from secretary got millers testimony she said focused on three key points. First, the lrso is consistent with our arms control commitments and the president s prague agenda. Second, the lrso supports strateg strategic strablt. Third, it is important in the eyes of our allies, she elaborated, there is no evidence lrso prompting an action reaction. The lrso is valuable for stability. Indeed, it is the absence of a nuclear arm Cruise Missile that leave us more vulnerable to escalation in a crisis. Without a standoff Cruise Missile option, future president s may find themselves facing to a coercion or attack with slbms. As the Nuclear Posture review continues and you imagine the lrso program, how will you consider the input of the senior diplomats and do you agree with her position that the lrso enhances stability and is important for assuring our allies . Ms. Gotmillers representation stands on its own merit. I have had private discussions with her as recently as this last month in brussels. And shes a trusted adviser. As far as whether or not i would stand on the lrso right now, im going to wait until we have a study done and then i can let you know but i have no reservations about taking ms. Gotmillers ideas on board. No reservations at all. Great. An i hope that you will read her comments and her testimony on that because i think it was i was very, very good insight there. I want to shift gears just a little bit here. To another topic. So general dunford, in 2012 the Obama Administration ended the u. S. Militarys strategy that required a force structure and readiness levels capable of fighting two large scale wars simultaneous. At the time the pentagon stated that times changed and the United States no longer faced a peer military on par with the soviet union and this world view was quickly disrupted by a resur gent russia and expanding china and continued instability in north korea and iran. So, my question is, what do you see as the force Structure Requirement in order to guarantee American Security of our allies across the globe . Do we need to be able to fight a conventional war with china and russia simultaneously . And are we currently able to fight two conventional wars at once and if not what do you see as the greatest capability gap that must be addressed . Congresswoman, we do confront today russia, china, north korea and iran in violent defense. Well have a closing hearing on thursday night and i would like to talk to our force size and construct and the challenges in a closed hearing if we could do that. Yes. But you agree its important to address all of these at the same time, right . Certainly one or more. Right. Okay. I look forward to that. The last question, back to mr. Secretary, i remain deeply concerned about our Strike Fighter shortfall. According to the vice chief of Naval Operations admiral bill moran, two thirds, more than 60 of our navy Strike Fighters, the planes that are launching entirety of the navys attacks of isis cannot fly. Im pleased to see the fy 18 budget request including 14 Super Hornets as well as another ten Super Hornets as the top priority of the navys unfunded priority list. Can you talk about how important it is for us to address the navys Strike Fighter shortfall and how important new procurement is in that effort . Yes, maam. The bottom line is we cannot simply repair enough fighters to bring them back up to full strength so we actually are going to have to buy more fighters. Further more, when you look at the 21 billion that Congress Gave us as fy supplemental, fy 17 supplemental, much of that went into buying spare parts for fighters for the very reason youre highlighting here and admiral moran highlighted so were on to the problem. Weve got to keep the modernization going but we are going to need some gap fillers before we get to f35. We have to have more Strike Fighter hornets, for example, for the navy to address this problem. So, we share your appreciation of the problem and were addressing it. But at the same time, its going to take a little while before you hear better testimony in here. Thank you. Ms. Speier. Thank you, mr. Chairman. To all three of you, i want to just say that on behalf of the American People, i think theyre all breathing a sigh of relief tonight because you exhibit the kind of confidence and steady leadership that i think we desperately need. In the military right now. Im going to ask you three questions for the record. That i will just ask them and then ill move on to a question. That you can answer orally. The annual report on Sexual Harassment and violence at the military Service Academies was just released a couple of months ago and it is stunningly bereft of answers to some of the most jarring statistics. 48 of the Service Academy cadets and mid shipman indicate theyre sexually harassed. And of those that actually report sexual assault, they suggest that theres a retaliation rate of 47 . So for the record, i would like for you to provide to me and to the committee what you are going to do to address what i think is a staggering statistic. Along with retaliation, James Laporte was the reporter that broke the marines united case. I think all of us here were shocked by the revelations its not just in the marines. Its in all of the services. But he just recently was told that he is debarred from coming on to the lejeune base by the Deputy Commander and i would like for you to explain to us why after he did a Great Service i think to all Service Members by outing this conduct that he would be debarred. And thirdly, there are have been to our knowledge a number of government meetings, including meetings with foreign counterparts, that have been held at properties owned by the president. I would like to ask each of you if youve or your staff have participated in official government e vebs of properties owned by the president and if so did the department of defense expend taxpayer money to pay for costs associated with that event, including room and board, meals or other incidental costs. Those are the three questions. Now, the one i would like for you to answer publicly, secretary mattis, youve been blunt in your assessment of russia as a principle threat to the United States. Russia has been seemingly relentless in its provocations, buzzing our ships in irresponsible and dangerous manner, flying longrange strategic bombers to alaska and violating the inf. The president has been silent about this hostile actions. Theres much speculation as to why. But i guess my question to you, mr. Secretary, is do you believe that Vladimir Putin has any real interest in a mutually beneficial Good Faith Partnership with the United States . General dunford, how do you plan to respond to this Russian Military provocation . At this time, congresswoman, i do not see a any indication that mr. Putin would want a positive relationship with us. Thats not to say we cant get there as we look for Common Ground. But at this point, hes chosen to be competitive strategic competitor with us and well have to deal with that as we see it. General . Congressman, last year in fy 17 we requested 3. 7 billion for whats called the european reassurance initiative. This year 4. 8 billion. That money is designed to increase our forward presence in europe. Well increase to three bre gad combat teams. Increases the exercises that we conduct in europe, all of which is designed to deter russia and assure our partners to meet our nato Alliance Commitments so we have significantly changed our force posture in europe. And again, our exercises in Capability Development with the partners in response to growing russia capability and aggression. Do you believe that russias our adversary . I think we have an adversarial relationship with russia. A competitive adversarial relationship, yes. Secretary mattis . Mr. Putins chosen to be a strategic competitor, yes. Thank you. I yield back. Mr. Scott. Thank you, mr. What i remember. Gentlemen, thank you for your service. Just to refresh peoples memory on the budget control act, the reason the budget control act was put in place was to effectively create so much pain on the discretionary side of the spending that it would force formula changes to the mandatory side of the budget. Those mandatory changes never came about. One of the challenges that we have is that were just living longer. And thats created challenges with the funding of medicare and social security. Probably better than the alternative, though. But as it is, we live under the budget control act. The we as a congress have been reactive to trying to resolve this problem. And it has created a very serious challenge for the three of you at that table. Weve talked about the military budget on an annual basis. For the last several years. But, general dunford, if the bca is not repealed, what does our military look like four years from now if were operating under the budget control act numbers . Congressman, we will have some tough choices to make and it will be a significantly smaller military incapable of meeting the strategy or maintain capacity and then its the all of force i joined in the late 1970s. It is not what the United States of America Needs to defend itself. I would just suggest that the sooner we deal with the bca the better off well be. It makes no sense to Start Building a ship today that cannot be completed because the budget control act forces the termination of the contract early. As we talk about those tough choices, a lot of countries were mentioned. Some countries that were not mentioned in your testimony were venezuela, honduras, el salvador, colombia, guatemala, mexico. Had time to visit with admiral ted in miami a few months ago. We talked about the narcotics flow into the United States from those countries. Approximately 50,000 americans died from drug overdoses last year. At a minimum, half of that half of those drugs originated from the south com area of responsibility. A lot of other countries down there with chaos. That are going on outside of the transneighal criminal organizations. What Additional Resources do we need to combat the organizations without the south com region given the threat that they pose to americans . Why is this not a higher u. S. National security priority . Congressman, the two major capability areas that admiral ted probably shared with you down there is intelligence, reconnaissance so he can support the inner Agency Program and maritime capability to interdict the drug flow. Those are the two areas he would want to have and have not met the requirements hes identified. General, they are so short funded that when they have the intel that there is a load of cocaine coming in to the United States in many cases they have to sit there and watch it go by. I know as we talk about all of these other concerns, youve got a lot to balance. But i just wonder if maybe just as we do for oco maybe there should be a direct funding line for south com with regard to the drug intradiction mission. I know without training dollars they simply would not be able to function at this stage. And so, i would just encourage you as you go forward to keep in mind over 50,000 americans died from drug overdoses last year. Significantly more than have died from acts of terrorism in the last decade. And that war is on our border. Its right here. Its on top of us. With that said, i appreciate your service to the country. Your commitment to the country. And, mr. Norquist, look forward to getting to know you better but thank you for your service, as well. With that, i yield the remainder of my time. Ms. Gabbard. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen, for your service and joining us here in evening. Secretary mattis, after the attacks on 9 11, the leaders of our country made a commitment to the American People they would go after and defeat al qaeda. Yet, weve not carried out a Serious Campaign to do so to defeat al qaeda in sir why specifically where as a result of that al qaeda has been able to gain strength and territory. In your budget request this year your request of 500 million to counter isis in syria doesnt include any mention or dollar to go after al qaeda. So my question is, is this for military reasons or political reasons . Namely, that al qaeda is allied with and so deeply intertwined with the socalled moderate rebels that the u. S. , saudi arabia, qatar and other gulf states have been financing and supporting in their fight to overthrow the syrian government. Congresswoman, we we have had a Serious Campaign as you know against al qaeda. Al qaeda in the fatah area has been shredded as a cape b89 outfit. They have been unable to attack america many, many years. They have franchised out is the point you are making and from yemen to somalia, from the sajal to certainly syria and this is a franchised al qaeda metastasizing threat. And respectfully, sir, i agree and understand that al qaeda has spread but specifically with syria, al qaedas presence in syria is far greater today than it ever was before. Which speaks to my question about our lack of taking them on in a serious way, specifically in syria. The location of where theyre at in syria makes them very difficult for us to reach, frankly. And we would have to deconflict even more visavis the russians. Let me ask general dunford if he has anything to add to this but youre right. Theyre embedded pretty deeply and hard to get to. I know you viz ited and probably know well and could argue whether we have had sufficient resources we do have a dedicated campaign against al qaeda in syria. We do have specific resources dedicated just for the fight against al qaeda. But its fair to say our priority in syria has been isis because were operating largely in the east and where isis has been. To both of you gentlemen, when your budget is for a counter isis program, your commanders mission on the ground for resolve is to defeat daesh or isis and theres no mention of al qaeda, and the fact that al qaeda has become so difficult to target, specifically because our country has not been taking them on in a serious way and have become so deeply interfwined with the armed militants that have been and continue to be working alongside and oftentimes under the command of al qaeda with our support through the cia and saudi arabia and qatar and these other countries so given the fact that this is the group thats been targeting us, since that attack on 9 11, what can we do in congress and the administration to stop that support of the armed militants strengthening al qaeda and actually go after them . I think, congresswoman, we could start if this is Congress Intent with an authorization for the use of military force in syria against al qaeda with the funding and resourcing. The statement by congress would show the spirit of congress frankly. Sir, but the authorization that you are currently operating under in syria was the one passed by congress in 2001 to go after al qaeda. And its affiliates. Isnt that right . That is we use that that authority, yes, maam. The challenge is that right now we have a greater clear and present danger with isis and you saw why in 2014. And we went after what we thought was the priority danger through two Different Administration well, one administration and now with this administration. Sir, i think the reason why isis youre saying is now a greater danger is because it wasnt taken seriously. One reason among others. Wasnt taken seriously from the beginning and that is the concern here with al qaeda because its been largely ignored it has grown to a point where it has now become difficult to take on and now presents a greater threat to the United States and this must be addressed. I think thats fair and we are addressing it from yemen to somalia and other areas. But were certainly well look at what youre talking about here. It is not that were not addressing it there. Its just that we dont have the reach right now. And well take a look at it but theres plenty of enemies in syria and i would agree with you on that. Mr. Cook. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to thank everybody for being here tonight. I know we have had a long session here. But mr. Scott asked some of these issues and its something im very concerned about. Quite fraclnkly, i came to congress to be on this committee and maybe i might not be as emphathetic to some of the other issues that are going on, everyones got their own area that theyre really interested in. But im sorry. With whats going on in the world and Everything Else, that your testimony is so important. And we have had testimony about being c3, c4 which translates and quite frankly, i dont think the rest of the congress or the senate know exactly the implications of being not combat ready. And that means basically if the balloon goes upper with going to have to commit troops to a conflict where theyre going to die. Or at least be wounded. And so thats a big priority with me. So, you know, we are going to have this debate, whether we will have a continuing resolution. I think it will be no stupid if we send that message again. And even worse, if we dont end that sequester. Now, my question. You know where i stand. And but ill be damned if im going to bury anymore marines on my watch. The if we are if we continue with that, as i described, and we have units that are c3 and c4 and we have all these commitments in europe, all over the world, what kind of message will it send to our allies and in this case particularly our nato allies that weve been after them to meet their 2 commitment, yet we ourselves cannot have our units combat ready . And in light of the rand study, mr. Secretary, and general dunford, if you could address that in terms of, you know, those 28 countries actually its 29 now with montenegro in there right under the gun of the russians and what kind of message would we be sending them . Well, congressman, we share your priority. You place on this. Thats the reason why we came for the fy 17 supplemental. Its why this budget grows significantly. I share the concern that it doesnt grow enough but, again, we are trying to balance a lot of things. Along with a debt and i just have to recognize that this is going to take some time to get out of. Whats the message we send, sir . Id say the message to our allies would be worrisome. It will not be reassuring. But importantly, it is the message to the adversaries that concern me that this is a time to test us. Congressman, i think you raise two issues and the secretary spoke about one of them. The first is that i think history tells us that the perception of strength has a lot to do with the probability of conflict and so if our adversaries look at us and we are strong and the perception is that we are strong it drive douns the probability that we will have to fight. But then the second you raise is if deterrence fails and we have to respond to a conflict, it will be come as you are and the cost of not being ready will be in time to accomplish the objectives and in casualties which is what you spoke about. I couldnt agree with you more. And when our allies in nay or the or elsewhere look to the United States, what they see is what gives them confidence that we can meet our commitments and that well be strong. And so i think its fair to say they have concerns about that. I yield back. Thank you. Mr. Orourke. Mr. Secretary, i wanted to begin by extending my sympathies to you and those who are serving currently in afghanistan and to the families of those who lost their lives, u. S. Service members who lost their lives in afghanistan this weekend. And i think so much of what we are talking about and the support that you are asking us to provide is to ensure as you mentioned that we are ensuring the readiness and the ability of those brave Service Members to do the jobs that we have asked them to do. And youve also mentioned and i think accurately so that congress has sidelined itself from some of its key responsibilities. And the affects of those are very serious and i would add that id say congress has sidelines itself from its oversight and ownership of the wars that we have been fighting and i want to make sure that we work more effectively together to ensure that we are doing our part. In this budget, in our projections for this coming year, what should we expect to see in afghanistan . How many Service Members do we have there now . How many do we project to see over the course of the year that we have a budget for . Or a proposed budget for. Yes, sir. Weve got as you know a little under 10 u. S. Service members there at this time. The commander on the ground in light of the situation has asked for more of those discussions are ongoing right now with the president. And myself. And the chairman advising him. And i think the decision will be taken soon. We have got to come up with a more regional strategy so what were doing is connected to the geographic reality of where this enemy is fighting from. Its not as you know not just from afghanistan and so were engaged in this. However, the bulk of the fighting will continue to be carried by the Afghan Forces as we have seen over the last several years. Are the proposals in those ongoing conversations reflected in the overseas Contingency Operations numbers that you presented earlier . Theyre not right now, congressman. There may be a supplemental request depending on the outcome of that conversation . There would be. Yes, sir. We would have to have a conversation with you, explain it. Something that you told us when we first had a chance to meet with you thats stuck with me since is that the United States has two principle powers. The power of intimidation and the power of inspiration. And i guess to bring it back to the subject of the hearing and what the cost is of those two powers, do you feel that we have the appropriate balance of the two . Are we trying to do too much around the world through our powers of intimidation and to use afghanistan, again, and you mentioned doing more with regional powers, how could we compliment the Extraordinary Service of those who are deployed and lives are on the line with the resources necessary to provide the inspiration side of the equation . Sir, the inspiration side is more than just what we deploy with. However, in the deployed category with usaid, u. S. Diplomatic service, that sort of thing, our education efforts, where we Fund Students to come back to the United States on exchange tours, theres a host of things we do in terms of building the broader power of americas inspiration so that its actually a player in this competitive against competitive ideologies right now. So are we doing enough . Well, i mean, you can always do more. But you can always do more in the military and try to get the right blend and i think that were at least going in the right direction on that. Do you think we need to do anything fundamentally different in afghanistan to achieve a different result as we approach almost 16 years in . Or by and large will it be more of the same for the foreseeable future . I think weve got to do things differently, sir. And its got to be looked at as across the board whole of government, not just military efforts. Plus, allied efforts. And internationals, along the same lines as what secretary tillerson is orchestrating against, for example, isis right now. What nato is orchestrating in afghanistan. But even broader than what were doing it up until now. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary and general dunford, thank you for your dedication and service to our country. We we all appreciate that. Secretary mattis, i want to ask you about research and development for space and then research and development for Missile Defense. I know you see the need for both of those important areas. In your testimony on page 5 you said outer space, lon considered a sanctuary is now contested. This creates capabilities and capacities for more resilient satellites to persist attack. So in your written testimony you certainly point out the need for more capacity and more capability for space. And also, in Missile Defense, i know youre a proponent of exploring boost phase Missile Defense when the adversaries missiles in the most vulnerable state. So, but im just concerned and the chairman asked you this at the very going of the hearing. Were cutting the budget for Missile Defense research and development and in the space r d budget its at a 30year low. So, in both cases, were really not putting our money where our mouth is. And i know President Trump wants to have a state of the art Missile Defense system. So how do we square the needs out there with the fact that were cutting and not necessarily and mr. Norquist, im going to ask you to jump in on this, also. Why are we not putting our money where our mouth is . Sir, its a prior toization. As you know, right now, we have the ballistic Missile Defense capabilities in california, van derberg. I think right now we can do the study to make sure we know the requirement. What are we lacking . Define the problem well enough that were targeted like a laser beam on exactly what we need. Boost phase as you know is geographically dependent, for example. And that just may not be something that we want to put a lot of money into because it, you know, it just may not be as relevant as increased naval capability that we can move around. It would be one example. Up and down our coast to help defend. I want to get this right before we come to you and spend a lot of money. Youre going to count on us we did our homework and i have not yet done it and thats probably the best answer i can give you. As far as space, we are taking advantage of some things that the Intelligence Services are telling us. But id prefer to, again, study this a little more. Im not disagreeing that we dont need the r d in these two areas, at all, however. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Norquist, youre probably itching a lot of questions here tonight so jump in. Thank you, congressman. Two things. Im not i dont know how the r d breaks out among the individual programs but overall the science and technology of r d, the research edge, 13. 2 billion up 600 million from the 17 budget so theres been an investment in research and technology and the s and t area and on the thats d. O. D. Wide, right . Correct. I dont know the individual piece of it but d. O. D. Wide theres an increase in investment in that area. Im glad to hear that but you would agree for the need of Space Research and development in particular, wouldnt you . Correct. Yeah. And general, do you have anything to add to this conversation . I dont, congressman. Okay. Okay. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield back. Mr. Moulton. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, when i was a young Second Lieutenant standing in the kuwaiti dessert, you gave me a lot of confidence as my division commander. And i have to say that you give me a lot of confidence today as our secretary of defense. So thank you for continuing to serve the country. Mr. Chairman, ill withhold my praise for you lest i be unduly accused of favoring the marine corps but suffice to say we are lucky to have you, as well. Speaking of that confidence, mr. Secretary, do you have confidence in our our postmosul, the day after plan in iraq . It would be i never would have believed standing in that kuwaiti desert 14 years later we would be there today. Are you confident that we will be able to win iraq once and for all . And bring the substantial number of our troops home . Its going to be, congressman, its going to be long fight. Even in iraq. I would tell you that we are working this by, with and through allies and so i do not have the same control over the daytoday activities of what is going to happen, for example, in west mosul, in the post combat phase but i think that we are going to have to work with the government of iraq in the what i would call the post combat prereconciliation phase so we dont end up in this same situation again and we are committed to working with the government of iraq and Prime Minister beatti as you know viz ited here in washington two months ago. From your view, does the state department have the resources it needs to support the Iraqi Government as you describe . I believe they do. I would defer to the state Department Evaluation of that, however. Okay. Mr. Secretary, in order to do your job, you need to have a workforce. You need to have personnel in the department of defense and theres been a lot of of concern about just filling positions. How many positions at the pentagon do you have unfilled today . Congressman, i need to take that for the record. Day by day we are getting more people through. The process. As you know, the Senate Armed Service committee has very high ethical standards, higher than any other department for the people that come to work so it takes a while for some to disentangle their finances. Its challenging. Have there been any nominations or any names that have been rejected by the administration, names not requiring Senate Confirmation . Im not aware of any rejected at the white house. There were some that we were told did not make it through capitol hill. But i had no one that i can think of rejected there. Is there anyone that you have brought on to the department of defense who has subsequently been pulled out for political reasons by the white house . I cant ive only had as a few as you know brought on. Secretary of the air force, comptroller. I havent had any pulled out by the white house. Okay. Mr. Secretary, i would like to move on to the role of congress in all of this and you have outlined as has the chairman the responsibilities that we have to ensure a proper budget, proper resources to come to grips with the financial situation of the country. Which people in your position have cited as one of the greatest threats to our National Defense. What are if you could name the top five programs or projects that you dont want at the department of defense, but we here in Congress Force upon you, thereby taking away resources requirements that you need to fund, i think that would be helpful as we go through the nda process. Congressman, i better do a little homework and get back to you. On that. Ive mentioned that brac is one that i do want that congress may not want but i think i can make a persuasive argument on that. But i cant i cant think of something that congress is forcing right now but ill look into this and get back to you. Mr. Secretary, if you could get could you get back to us before the nda markup with that list . I should be able to get back to you this week. I would imagine if theres something out there, ill find it quick. Okay. Thank you both again very much for your service. Were proud to have you. Mr. Chairman, i yield back. Mr. I think you will find broad bipartisan support for the budget request that we have received which, of course, increases defense spending a little bit. I think youll also find some bipartisan support for even more. As a former navy pilot, currently serving in the Oklahoma Air National guard, i used to fly counter drug missions. I would like to piggyback for a minute what mr. Scott from georgia was talking about. I flew the hawkeye, the night wolves. In 2013 my squadron was eliminated under the sequestration. Responsible for busting about 2 billion of cocaine every year on the high seas. 2 billion. That cocaine now comes into the United States and, of course, mr. Scott mentioned i think you said 50,000 americans die in drug overdoses every year, more than all the americans we lost in vietnam if not maybe close to if not more. So, this is a big concern. As far as the capability gap, i understand when you mentioned that the concern is if we spend too much too fast it could end up putting us in a position where its not sustainable and we could end up with as you mention add hollow force which is a concern i think for pretty much everybody on this panel. I would also say that there are a lot of unfunded requirements that ultimately we could be working on today and i would just ask general dunford, when we deploy an aegis cruiser or a thaad missile battery, are we deployed with the full compliment of interceptions . We have precision munitions challenges that bleed over into our navy weapons systems. And are you aware that when we deploy one aegis, theres an underway switching of missiles from one to the other . Im aware of that, congressman. These are examples of unfunded requirements that ultimately we could meet today if the resources were there that ultimately wouldnt put us in a position to have a hollow force in the future. Congressman, id like to just address that precision munitions challenge. We today have requested resources that get to the maximum amount that industry can produce but theres a caveat to that. Industry can produce at the level of prediction they have right now. In other words, they can only produce so much today based on what were able to tell them about tomorrow. So one of the areas that the secretary has highlighted is the need for predict and stability in the future, as well. The only way to get around the challenge, thats a great example of why we need stable, predictable budgets. We cant buy the precision munitions we need until we have stable, predictable budgets at adequate levels. Again, industry is telling us today were producing at the maximum rate we can. But if we were able to tell them what resources would be available two, three, four, five years down the road they would be able to increase the industrial capacity and actually address that particular issue so thats one of the second order effects of the challenges of living year to year with the number of crs we have and not able to give predictability and the story of precision munitions. If we are doing a defense appropriation annually, how do we address that . We would have to with a program provide Industry Partners with some degree of accuracy to rough order magnitude of Resources Available in the out years and we are because of the budget situation right now not able to do that. Okay. I would encourage mr. Chairman and mr. Secretary, as you look at the budget and as we work as a body here, know that we fully support increasing the defense spending. That we have capabilities that we are leaving on the table and if we can support you in that effort, whether its long term or next year, we want to do it and i would encourage you to look at unfunded liability or unfunded requirements specifically. I yield back, mr. Chairman. Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, thank you for being here this evening. Secretary mattis, i your testimony you have five priorities. The fifth, of course, is the support of the what we call the oco funding. Oco has been something that i never quite understood for the time ive been here. Its sort of originally it was not even on budget sort to speak. Then we kind of report it but its stale question as to what whether it counts, doesnt count. So in your mind when you say that your fifth priority is in support of the oco budget, what do you anticipate the 64 billion to be used for . This is for operations, congresswoman, against isis in iraq and syria. It has to do with anyplace that we have active areas of hostilities, afghanistan, for example. And this is over and above the standard budget to maintain our military. These are for the operations we conduct there. Unfortunately, we have seen it at times things that belonged in the base budget put in to the oco and i share congresss frustration, the base budget should have the base budget and this should only be for those things that grow based on overseas Contingency Operations. Overseas Contingency Operation definition is the battle against isis and its afghanistan, iraq and syria. Would that be a correct statement . Go ahead, yeah. Congresswoman, it pays for units at home station preparing to go to those sites and afghanistan. Africa, as well . Tied to isis . Tied to violent extremism. Some terrorist organization. Thats right. Mr. Secretary, i do know from your history that youre a very interesting person in the sense that your time at hoover, youve written a lot. You have thought a lot. One of my favorite Reading Materials that you did was the warrior and the citizen that you put together at hoover institute. So given that philosophy that i call it, your philosophical bent on a lot of this, how do you want to put together or come to grips with the fact that we have a qdr in 2018, you have authorized an npr in 2017 and i believe somewhere in there theres going to be a review of the ballistic Missile Defense. So do you feel that its premature or do you feel that any of these studies could somehow affect what youre coming here and asking us for here today . Certainly, it will affect it there will be implications downstream. But right now we know the situation, the threats we face today. We know the force we have today. We know the readiness shortfalls we have today. And i am confident right now that we can justify the dollar that is we are asking for. Certainly, we will define the problem strategic and operational probables for the future that need further addressal but right now im confident that what were asking for we can defend. Mr. Secretary, you cant come to congress and on page 11 of your testimony talk about brac and not expect any of us to just just have a free pass at that. So can you tell me when you talk about brac and you want the ability, you Want Congress to give you the authority to consider bracing, can you tell me what your criteria is . You must have some idea by requesting it as to what kind of, quote, establishments, facilities, whatever you may want to call it, you want to brac because you must feel somehow its a excess and we dont need i. Facilities we dont need nor foresee using them in the future even if we have to mobilize parts of our reserves. It would be the ones the facilities that dont perhaps any longer have training capability because of urban spread around them. Where we can no longer safely do what we used to do there. It would be that sort of a situation. Mr. Secretary, is a list or some kind of a, you know, potential brac list exist . Does it exist today . There is a ive been told we have 20 excess capacity but as i said earlier im not confident in that figure and id want to look at it again and make certain that we validate the criteria that was used to get there and then go back through it. Before my time runs out, can you provide us a list, whatever you have . I cant right now, maam, because im not willing to put my name to it. I want to study it first. Thank you. I yield back, mr. Chairman. Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for for your service, especially in an extremely challenging time for our nation and for the world. And neither of you have to be here and youre choosing to do it and its a tremendous challenge as i said. Our threats are so many. Its so multifocal. Its so multifaceted that its even hard to list and the chess board is more than three dimensional in my opinion. You know, with that in mind, one of the thing that is you mentioned, mr. Secretary, its going to be a long slog. A lot of these things are going to be long, drawn out. You know . As a soldier in the field, when you know thats the situation, then you look for your short gains, right . Because you want to have that motivation there. So i guess my first question is, how do you see the morale of our military today . Sir, id like the chairman to also respond to that. In my discussions in the emails i receive, the young people are quite they show a lot of initiative in helping me to run the department. I would just tell you that so far, i think we have got the morale is holding. The affection of the American People is understood. And that has a lot to do with why the morale held. That said, i believe the families in many cases have become brittle with repeated deployments of their husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, whatever. And i think that there is some question about the level of commitment when people cannot fly the airplane that they know theyve got to be good at flying. They cant put their vehicles in the field, the ships arent going to sea on schedule or theyre deployed longer overseas because theyre waiting for the ship that had to go through more extensive repairs but let me ask the chairman to give a few words on that, sir. Hes a little closer. Congressman, you know, one of the privileges is a chance to go around and meet with members and families from all services and i think by and large morale is very high. But secretary spoke about families and i think i do see some challenges with our families. And also, if you look at some of the readiness challenges, they cant but affect morale f. Youre a pilot flying ten or 11 hours a month and in a squadron of 10 aircraft and has 6 it cant but help affect you. Were training and maintaining qualified people. I think morale is higher. Theyve never envisioned to be at war for this enduring period of time so i think theres a lot of reasons for us to be proud of the morale and the quality of people recruiting and retaining but i dont take it for granted and i do think some of the challenges we have with the families and people who are in yue knits most affected by these readiness challenges, those are going to have an impact over time and we should be atentative to that. Yeah. I think that sometimes the country doesnt always understand the sacrifices that are being made by the troops and their family and then the challenges that they face when we really dont have them at full readiness the way that we would like to. I think thats in part on us here to make sure that the countrys aware of that. And as you look ahead, you know, are there things, our current readiness state as you just mentioned, has us doing less things than wed like and so to me its difficult and challenges for you to make a list of what were going to do next, you know, how do we have a step by step plan . You know, i think traditionally in wars, you know, we take this land and go to the next step and keep moving on. This is very challenging and different environment than we have ever seen and youre talking about terrorism as well as near peer adversaries. So i think it would be helpful to us to be able to explain that how difficult it is, if we arent fully ready and equipped to even compile a plan that can get us where we want to be some day where there may be some peace and so my question is, do you have a list and based on that does it reflect what you need but dont have . Sir, we have a we have an assessment that tells us what we need to be ready for and that assessment comes to us from our regional commanders based on any treaties that were in, the protection of the american homeland, theres all sorts of thing that is figure in to what National Security looks like. Based on that, we know a number of forces that we need and what level of readiness, how fast they have to be ready to deploy. So thats the way we parse it out and then we look at what each of those forces needs, an air force, navy, this sort of thing, for readiness to deploy. So we break it down in to something thats manageable by unit commanders who know what theyre expected to do, an Army Brigade Commander knows he must move, shoot and communicate with so we do have it, it is broken down in complex to make the joint force work. The commanders know and the troops know and the nco know, sir. Mr. Rosen. Thank you for being here into this late hours and your willingness to answer our questions candidly. A question that was asked a few minutes ago of americas role of inspiration and secretary matt mattis, 2013, you said yourself that if you dont fund the state department fully then i need to buy more ammunition ultimately. We know the president s budget slashes funding for the state department and foreign aid about 32 . The reason i bet by retired admiral mullin and retired james jones, suggesting in preventions is 60 times, i will say it again, 60 times less costly than more than post conflict cost. Do you support this decrease of foreign diplomatic support by the president . Thank you, i guess what i want to say is how does that relate to what you are going to request . Is that going to increase your budget request and especially regards to isis, cyber and terrorism of some of those issues if we are not stopping and preventing then what do you have to do on the back end . Well, the challenges that we face in some cases having fought the enemy for a long time, there is probably little that we can do to rationally move them out of where they are at because they did not rationally gain their perspective. That does not mean we should not try to take the next generation and prevent them from going down this path. I would tell you in terms of defense of our country, thats what department of defense does when it comes to the site and making the department the most lethal it can be is where i focus in, although i work closely with secretary tillerson to support his efforts. Thank you. I yield braack my time. Mr. Burns. Thank you mr. Chairman, thank you for being patience with us. If you dont mind i would like to go back to the questions that we have earlier of the size of our fleet. Our president , our commander in chief, says he knows we need 350 ships so we know where we want to go. The Congressional Budget Office gave us an is estimate to build0 navy ships, general, let me start with you, do you agree in general with cbo analysis is what more of what we need to spend per year on ships building. I have seen that study and it looks about right based on my experience. Looking at this years budget after you heard the questioning from chairman wittman, we know that we are not going in that direction with proposed budget for 2018. At what point in your estimation general are we going to get to the point where we are pointing that extra 5 billion to get to the size of fleet we are trying to get to. No chairman, thank you for asking that question. My characterization of 18 is the second year in a row and we begin to turn around a trend that was really seven or eight years in the making. It is going to take us seven years getting out of the hole which we are in right now. Maintaining today, well have that in the future. When we think of whats adequate in the future, we need to have it in context for those to identify and the real growth above inflation will be required to realize that. Mr. Kourtney, you made an important point. When you are building ships, the time line is very long. So every year that you wait, you push the time line back further. Do you have any concerns that you are pushing the time line back further with whats happening. Congressman, i do. The other thing i have a concern about is you know back to the examples that i use of precisions it would cost less. The fact that we are not able to provide predictability and making multi contracts for things like ships building means we pay much more. I am concerned on two fronts. I am concerned we are late to getting after these requirements and concerned a failure to provide predictability means we wont be able to afford getting to the number ships of the top line envision. Secretary, if i can turn to you for a moment. Your boss, the commander in chief wants a 350 ship fleets. You heard what general dunford said. Where do you see the fleet being at the end of President Trumps presidency and of january 2025 . Congressman, i think that depends on whether or not sequester is repealed or we are going to multi year contract. There is a lot of variables here. Assuming that we dont have sequester, i know that you are planning for years out from that, where do you see the fleet eight years from now . Sir, i need to come back to you with a reply thats researched here. The challenge is or that we are in a position right now that we got to get the fleet back to see that we have now and we are trying to address this and trying to eat this elephant one bite at a time. We are going to have to increase, i would think it is going to take a budget thats probably up around 5 growth, real growth in order to get towards where we want to go. It 3 will not do it or suffice, i will tell you that. It will have to be up to 5 . Well, both general to zu the secretary, i said that when we are together in sing par ofapor couple of weeks ago, i strongly support of what you need to do and protect america, if that means we need to repeal the budget control act, i am prepared to do that. With that mr. Chairman, i yield back. Thank you very much mr. Chairman and all for being here. Secretary mattis and general dunford, i cannot tell you how relieved i am that you are in the position that i am in. You provide great adult supervision to the administration and i am extreme grateful for your service and for you being where you are at. Secretary mattis, i would like to follow up on the question regarding to Climate Change. One of the many reasons i find President Trumps decision to withdraw from the climate accord is disturbing because of all Security Risk that well face if we do not address Climate Change. Rising sea levels will affect stability of military sites on the coastlines, not limiting sites in california, virginia, north carolina, georgia and florida as they are at higher risk of severe flooding and other extreme weather events. In 2008. The National Intelligence counsels found over 30 military sites in the continental United States are already facing elevated risk because of sea level rise. Secretary mattis what actions does the department take . Two, how can Climate Change complicate our strategic objective especially in terms of our asia pacific rebounding strategy . Congressman, first, i would say that withdraw from the paris accord is not the administration is not going to do anything about it. Theyre going to do it under a different framework but it is not that theyre not going to address Climate Change, a warming climate as far as what we do to address this inside the military, i frankly been a little consumed by the situation in korea and europe and some others. I need to get some specifics on this but i know that we look at protection of our physical infrastructure where ever we are at along the coast, obviously, it is a significant concern with the effects of water, you know whether it is hurricane or rising sea levels. I dont have a good answer for you right now. Sir, i will get you one. Thank you. Secretary mattis, it is estimated that it will cost 1 trillion to sustain modernize the Nuclear Deterrence over 20 years. However in in area that we tend to sideline is a threat of nuclear proliferation. What actions are you taking and how vital are non programs . It has not received enough attention over quite a few years. I have met with former secretary of defense to gain from them and their perspective when they were in the job i am in now. Former secretary defense is coming into see me tomorrow afternoon after i get done testifying in the morning over in the senate side on this very issue, it was mentioned earlier by one of your colleagues, i have met with her in brussels. I think this is going to be critical to what we have turned over to our childrens generations. We have a responsibility to reenergyize the non proliferation effort. Thank you very much, i yield back. Thank you mr. Chairman, i want to talk about north korea, kim jongun is Building Nuclear war head and seems to be obsessed to gain that capability. I do, congresswoman, he does not have it yet but we dont are to wait until it is there to start aking cting on eit. We need to use capabilities to deal with this threat. Can you paint a picture of what that entails and left of north korea when it is over . It would be a war like nothing we have seen since 1953 and we would have to deal with whatever level of force is necessary. I am not the most articulate on this, maam, it would be it would be a very, very serious war. General dunford, do you want to comment on that . You asked about north korea, congress mcas a whosally, let m about that. I dont have any doubt in my mind if we go to war in north korea that well win and well be successful in accomplishing our objectives. I am equally confident. Well see casualties unlike anything we have seen in 60 or 70s years. In my of those casualties it will be the first three or five or seven days of the war, well not be able to mitigate initially. I think the American People need to understand the gravity of the situation that we are dealing with and our enemy needs to know that we are discussing challenges, well win. This is like something we have never seen in my lifetime anyway should deterrence fail and diplomacy fail . One of the capabilities that you will need in the scenario, i am on the hook of the war hawk, i was pleased to see in the president s request of 383 aircrafts which is nine operational squadrons. We dont have the funding in there for winging 110. It will be grounded soon. It is on your unfunded request which is good. Nine skrquadrons is not enough. Last week we have generals testifying theyre willing to go down to six squadrons of a cut of 30 . You agreed that you want this capability at least until 2030 and i appreciate finally getting to that point. I realize that limitation that we have fiscal in 28 years. If we were providing the funding for the remaining of 110, the priorities are right where they are right now. If we got money for additional ones, it would increase on our war fighting capabilities. Thank you. What i tell the chief of staff air forces, to meet our requirements right now, i need all of your legacy capabilities and a little bit more. I need to take your capabilities offline to grow the air force that we need tomorrow. They really have come in and i think they got about right in terms of priorization within the top line. There is more requirements than capabilities of 55 squadrons. Thank you gentlemen, i yield back. Mr. Brown. Thank you mr. Chairman, gentlemen, thank you for your service and presence here this evening. Your stamina and your patience. I think my question primarily is for secretary mattis. You are not only well read but well written. One of your work referred to this evening and i had an opportunity to read an essay that you coauthor resecuring our community. You say that while we have experid successes, they dont add up to strategic victories, in fact, they cause lives and soldiers and diplomats and global creditability. I am a little confused as to why and how you can say that you are confident today about whats being proposed when we are looking at a proposal for a fiscal year 18 budget year. I do acknowledge in your written testimony that you stated as well will make hard choices as we develop new Defense Strategy for fiscal year 1923 and thatll be inform by national strategies. If we sit here today, would you say this is a costly under taking that you are asking us to take without a strategy . There is been some conflicting comments of filing the issues what are the decision rules regarding north Koreas Nuclear capability and chinas aggression of the South China Sea and there is a lot of components that would go into a strategy . What we are seeing now seems more like a budget designed for tactic. Can you respond to that . What we have to do is define clearly of what is the threat that we see and in fact a number of studies have been mentioned here this evening that have helped in that definition so far as the point i was making and the article of the chapter you read there on george schultzs blueprint of america. What i was referring to why did we go to vietnam, korea and vietnam and why did we end up with a tactical history and not a strategic outcome. There was an interesting article of jewuly 2013, why do go into these wars and we dont know how to end them. If you dont define them, you cannot figure out how to end the war on a positive note. Notice that i left out one more. Of a clear political guidance was given. When you shift from those kinds of tactical events to broadly. We can define the threat of this country pretty well right now. Thats why i am confident, congressman. Are you confident that we have a strategy for the post isil, syria and iraq how we ensure security instability . Thats being put together. We have been here a couple of months, secretary tillerson and his role of secretary of state, i informed him of the military factor but this Foreign Policy of the United States is largely drawn up by the basically the state department and i believe hes putting that together very, very well. His diplomats are serving alongside syria right now with our officers who are in that fight. I am confident it is being put together and it is not complete yet. I know that we got a fight with this enemy no matter what. Thats part of the Current Situation that we have to address. It does not require a fully flesh out strategy yet but we are going to have to have one pretty darn quick. Thank you, finally if i can get this in. I dont want you to comment on what you think of the reduction of 29 of the state departments budget but is that propose proposed you are talking about a whole of government approach, the reduction, does that inform the budget that we see in front of us . That means more Defense Department dials, is that reflected in the numbers . I believe so sir. I have diplomats from state department serving alongside right now. I have not been affected by a reduction and state Department Budget. Again, i dont feel that i am knowledgeable enough to give you a detailed understanding of what those cuts are that i have to defer to secretary of state. Thank you very much mr. Secretary. Thank you mr. Chairman. Mr. Russell. Thank you mr. Chairman and thank you each for being here tonight. Probably there is no greater historical example of unpreparedness and what happened in the philippines of 1942. I would like to read a couple of brief exerts from one of those soldiers that was there. There were 10,000 americans that surrendered and 650 died. All of those survived that were weaken and endured horrific suffering and more than twothirds of them died. One of the survivors stated i am one of the few americans lost the war who have seen an American Army over run and defeated by a common of starvation and sickness and unpreparedness. It was a lonesome feeling. I have seen the american way of life changed in one moment and seen the stun of the be wirwild faces as they try to comprehend of the normality of the blow that just struck them. I have seen 30 beaten old men just tried to keep walking. We used to say if what is happening here could happen to everyone in the United States for just one week, what a change it would make and their attitude of their future insurance of their way of life. Use the prayers of our good people but remember that prayers work better where the guns are bigger and planes are faster and the regiments are more numerous. So in the back of all of these plans, lets say lets have what it takes. I do not know all the people of the different nations will understand our high ideas and unselfish motives. Theyll know what force we have to backup what we say and if it is big enough theyll act according will i. T the United States is bigger than you and i and there is no cost too great to preserve it. Secretary mattis, you stated in the remarks tonight that the enemy will move against our weak area and congress has at times risen to the challenge to provide what the military needs. I think we are in one of those moments now. When we take the president s budget and what this committee is proposing. When the deal and defense related dollars are subtracted. This committee is proposing about an additional 25 million based line dollars over the president s budget of 574, why could the president not want to take Congress Lead and which budget would best prepare our military . Congressman, thank you for what you read. I have read about that campaign and i share your appreciation either, you dont want to be in second place. We have no right to victory on the battlefield. That takes commitment and leadership and how we got into this situation, i mean i told you i was shocked when i came back and saw this. We are going to have to move this forward in a stable way. I i will give you an example. We cannot recruit right now 100,000 more troops for the u. S. Military, additional right now. You heard the acknowledgment earlier about what percent of our young people are eligible. We could not right now have the Industrial Base to build the number of ships even if you are somehow repealed the bca, repeal the budget control act and say you are go i think to pass budget on time and we literally could not do some of this that would fully address what you rightly bring up in your role to raise army and sustain navies. I would just tell you that we are going to have to Work Together and this is the will of the congress that they one willing to spend that amount, i am confident that the commander in chief would be in your corner all the way. Thank you mr. Secretary and mr. Chairman, i yield back. Thank you mr. Chairman and thank you for your service of our country and those you lead. I thank you for their service and their families. I want to bring us back to a couple of things. One of them is a cost herb. It is obvious that we need to invest and it is obvious to me that we need to eliminate the budget act issues and all the other issues associated with it. We have a situation here as much as you want to know where we are going to go before you, we need to know where you are going no the future. We heard the issues of studies so far and we talked about 19 billion plus a year for inflation at 3 . We now talked about 5 billion potentially for additional ships and 24 plus billion dollars not compounded over the years but just at todays rates. And i just this is just a statement, i really have a concern with being able to get to the next year and where we are going to be with the angelina jolilarger scope of budget needs that congress has before us. Secretary, you mentioned that for the enlisted people they were competitive with salaries of High School Diplomas and we probably are. We are not asking and i am not saying you dont know. I want to make clear that we are not asking these gentlemen to go to do work here in the United States and move their families around and put themselves in harms way. This is something that we need to be better than the competitive atmosphere in our society today. And, i want to go back to the secretary of state issue. The cut is 32 to the state department that includes the us agency of International Development and cut of nearly half to development a system. These are program that is obviously, talking is one thing you have to be able to negotiate with the package and stop terrorism by getting to the hearts of people and these are what a lot of what these programs are for. Secretary, you have made a statement that reducing regional chaos with our partners of a coherent order requiring adequate diplomatic resources. Former chairman, admiral mullen, stated cutting the budget of this matter putting the lives of our men and women in uniforms at risks. Can we have agreement that it is critical that our state department be able to function at the highest level necessary towards working unison with you and the Defense Department and other agencies so that we can stop wars and stop the bloodshed that we are trying to prevent both the Kinectic Energy and the state department. Yes, sir. Thank you secretary and i just want to say thank you for the great work that you are doing right now and bringing mr. Narquist down, mr. Chairman, i yield back. The russians and chinese are allocating more and more resources towards weapons and making rapid gains in these areas especially hyper sonics. Russia recently conducted tests of hyper sonic missiles of nearly a year before schedule. When it comes to hyper sonics, do you feel like where we need to be to meet these threats . This is fourth mentions of we got to increase our hyper sonic and rnd efforts. Do you feel our budget process is putting us in a vulnerable position in areas such as ours indeed . There are areas sir where we need to get acquisition reform and we need it quickly. I am bringing in people from private industries from those specific skill sets in order to identify to use the problems well enough where you can see the solution here. Some required of the legislative relief Much Required inside the department. Part of your reevaluation of the missile Defense Budget, i think right now 75 million has been set aside. I am not sure where the money will be taken from or added on. I know well have to put more money into hyper sonic rnd. Thank you, i yield back. Mr. Sauzy. You know when i am in the hearing room, i am sobered by the importance responsibilities that we each have and by the responsibilities that each of you have, i thank you for your Great Service. I was fortunate to go to afghanistan in april and was impressed by the four year plan that there was of the strategy of building up the afghan army and air force and special forces and putting pressure. I am trying to get more of pakistan to do their responsibilities. I did nod st see a four year pl with the state department. Are you developing plans together that are longterm plans in conjunction of each other as a whole of government. Secretary tillerson and i are tied at the hips on this. I achssure you that the plannin are going in keeping in steps of one or another. Its got to be a colon realizati collaboration. It would be great of do you meanations documentations of longterm plan or short term plan how to address it. The requests for funds is for the current of 8,448 troops. When we went to afghanistan, general nicholson and others made a persuasive case of 5,000 more troops of forced protection and to replace some of these private contractors made a lot o sense and well save money and build moral and be effective helping out. In may a report came out that the Intelligence Community is pushing more 50,000 more troops. It looked like it was a move away. Can you put us at ease as to what the current thinking is regarding the current force level verses an increase or forces of protection. I give no credibility of any report of 50,000 more troops. I can assure you that neither the commander in the field or the chairman of the giant chiefs have given me any requests like that and not even close. Thats somebodys, i assure you. This strategy we are going to continue in the foreseeable future. Perhaps a little more regional approach. He said additional russian activities and examples including russias out right denial and attempted of annexation and crimea, and cyber activities directed against infrastructure of the nations of ukraine. Russia is attempting to exert its influence and expand its power and discredit the capabilities and relevance of the west. You know we hear this all the time. A lot of it is caught up in partisan ship these days. Russia is a bad actor especially in Eastern Europe and forget of the United States everything is in the news these days. Whats the dods responsibility regarding come back and we talked heavily of troops, what are we doing to combat this hybrid warfare from the dods perspectives, what can we do and how else can we assist you . I will have the chairman to speak to you in a moment. What you defined of he is words there, russia chosen to be a strategic competitor. They want to veto authorities over the diplomatic economic and security interests of their nearer abroad and deeper than near abroad. The changing character of war, this deniable cyber, beyond corruption, theyre trying to make money by under minding government in europe. How do we adapt to this . It is the changing character. Let me have the chairman to give a few groups on this. It is a heavily military education issue as well of our own. We spent a lot of time looking at this issue. If we break it down to political and economic coercions, our Cyber Capabilities are an important part of it. The one thing that russia is able to do is very quickly integrate their entire government to advance their interest in europe. One of the things that they are doing is under minding the credibility of our Alliance Structure and nato and whether we can meet our compliance commitment. Three out of the five major areas or areas where there is a military dimensions and the thing that emphasizes and of what you describe, i call it advisarial. I used up all my time, thank you mr. Chairman and i look forward to discussing this further in the future. Thank you. Doctor abraham. Thank you mr. Chairman and thank you for your endurance tonight, gentlemen. I heard some phrases used tonight. It all goes back to the budget control act. We are not giving you guys the money that you have to do and i know secretary mattis, your burden must be really great of trying to balance it on a daily basis. All of congress we got to put our money literally where our mouth is and break this budget control act and i know that we on the committee with the chairmans leadership would love to do that. One o your priorities with your 2019 and testimony was to keep the faith with the servicemen and women and their families. In italy, for example, you got two naval hospital, theyre on a closure list. I worry that when and if those do get shut down that standard of care for Service Members and families will suffer greatly and i guess my question, secretary mattis is, what is your opinion on that and whats your take on the closure of those three hospitals and hospitals like those, where would these people go and i am worried about this being lowered and i will let you answer. I have got to look at it, sir, i have to look at the specifics of the location but the bottom line is we cannot deploy troops and families where we dont provide sufficient hospital care. Let me look at those three in italy and come back to you with what we have in mind and what we are going to do to mitigate in the lost of capabilities. I cannot give you an answer right now. Give back to me as soon as we can. It is been referenced of the main issues there of the particular hearing that we have been told that by others we are short and about 3400 maintainers short. You got the commercial airlines that are pulling pilots from the military daily and even with the commercial carriers inve incentivizing with perks and money, theyre not able to meet their demands d theyand theyr talking about reducing route commercially. What is the dod doing to retaining and build a pilot and is it solvable with money, where would it go . Congressman, you identify an issue thats keeping the chief of staff the air force and the chief and operation awake at night. There are collaborations radigh now to look at this problem of both the commercial sector as well as the department of defense. We are looking at what will it take to rebuild the pilot to meet both commercial need and in the near term, one thing we use is to keep our pilots in. A key incentive is not just base pay. We call of quality of work, it is the number of hours that you fly. Those are the areas that the chief of staff, air force is focused on the squardron levels. Well, like you, i have the highest faith in the chief of the air force. I yield back mr. Chairman. Thank you mr. Chairman. Te secretary mattis, i a new congressman and i have to tell you i was surprised by the amount of engagement that we have across the globe. I quickly became a disciple of a 355 ships navy. You have spoken in your testimony or at least alluded to that our future Defense Strategy may change or evolve, i dont want to put words into your mouth, sir. My initial question is this, i understand our National Defense strategy to be capable of fig fighting conflicts with an actor. Do you envision that aspect of our National Defense of strategies changing overtime . Sir, if the enemy, our adversary has four course of action that i am prepared for, i am confident that number five will be the one to be used. I am saying we have a fundamentally unpredictable phenomena that this community is dealing with. It audits everything about the military. So how do we create a military thats got a shock absorber in it so that when surprised strikes, we are ready for it. I believe well have to be ready for more than what adversary at one time because we are up against thinking and engage in one arena, they have mischiefs in miend and theyll take advantage of our distractions. In creating a military of a shock absorber in it, well have to be prepare to do more than one thing at a time. I would also ask and i know it was mr. Kourtney but someone asked you about the billion dollars reduction in the shipbuilding account and i have to confess that i either missed your answer or did not understand your answer. Would you mind repeating your answer as to why that justifies at this time . I would not justify reducing the shipbuilding account. Right now we are trying to prioritize readiness and we have ships that you already bought and we have man that cannot go to sea. In some cases, what we are doing is putting money in to readiness while trying to save the ships readiness account. We have tomorrows readiness being constructed today. This is a matter of priorization, we deal with the realities of too many years of these ships not being maintained. What we cannot do is seize to put in operations and maintenance money there because we are putting into build new ships as much to what i love to build of new ships is a balancing act. Mr. Secretary, would you reject the characterization of why fy 17 is produced . No sir. In order to do that, we cannot always build or put the money where we would want to if we did not have to deal with this reality that comes from years of working under the budget control act where we have been unable to maintain the ships. It is not the option that i would prefer. And i apologize if this question has been asked. At what point in the future do you see us making strives towards that 355 ship or positive strives whether it is getting out of whatever hold you perceive us being in or just what . I think even this year with nine ships in the budget, sir, it starts us in the right direction. It is only a start and i share your concerns and impatience about it. In 2019 to 2023, obviously, we node to kind of growth that chairperson dunford was referring to of thr3 to 5 a y. We need a larger fleet. Sadly my time is used up. I thank you, sir. Mr. Kelly. Thank you mr. Chairman and thank you all you gentlemen for being here. I currently serve in the national guard, i served there for 33 years. I read in the level is not what i see in my entire career. There are units that are really good and equipment, we have got to maintain our equipment and get back to the level that we can sustain and i dont think that we can do that on the budget proposed of 603 million. I think we need to be around 604 million. Equipment, we have got right now what i am seeing and it is all under handed and nobody said this. This is all trent kellys assumptions, what i am seeing most of the active services are eye balling equipment and reserve. And following on their stuff to help us get through. I dont blame them for doing that, that did not help us for longterm readiness. If you want me to fight the enemy as a National Guards man. I cannot deploy an m68. When we start to take equipment from one to ship to the other, in the old army that i grew up in, you did not hot rod tank and you did not use other peoples equipment and you painted your name on it and you own it and took a lot of pride in it. Our soldiers dont have to do that anymore because they dont deploy of air equipment, they deploy with somebody els. The guys back here cannot train because of readiness. What are we doeing to get a Current Fleet across the board, no not the transfer but actually building the unit. The first was the 21 billion that Congress Gave us for the fy 17 supplemental was directly targeted on this. This budget this year is designed to further that but sir, it took us a long time to get here and i again share your impatience with this but i would tell you too that oco will not tell industry of any confident that they should put in another line or put in the money or industrial plant because they dont know if thats going to be there. This has got to be the budget plan if we want them to make the industrial contribution that their stockholders are going to have to put money up for. For them to go broke, it is not part of their responsibility. Oco does not help us to expand, we can get max out the Industrial Base, theyre not going to build more on the Industrial Base on oco. Why dont we ask for 640 instead of 603 . Well, thats an option, sir, as you know we are already coming in asking you the violate the budget control act. At some point, with e have to recognize the law that you pass. I dont have an answer because that law was passed with the idea that it would be so endure yous that it would never go into effect. The department of defense cannot change that law and only congress can. I agree wholly, we got a great sequester in the bca. I do think we need a higher number and the certainty to go with that. If we give that to you, can you spend that on training soldiers . Can you spend that money and use on things to training these soldiers in equipment if we get that bca busted and if we give you the money on the top line . We can, sir, it would help if that was in multi year money so that we can help a program that we know it is going to implement over a couple of years it would help. If it came in budget on time and not a continuing jering solutio. With fiscal discipline, well do our level best to spend every bit of it and address every problem you got. We share your assessment of what the problem is. Thank you all for your service, thank you mr. Chairman, i yield back. Mr. Conner. Thank you mr. Chairman and thank you gentlemen for your service to our country and for being so patience to taking questions from some of the junior members. Secretary mattis and staffs tell me how respected you are at home and i appreciate your service. I have two questions. I want to read from the 809 interim report which you are aware of the Commission Panel created to help streamline the defense acquisition process. They wrote according to dod, the last major defense downturn in the late 1980s and early 1990s resulted in more than 300 prime contractors and Platform Providers and sub tier Company Merging of five megaprimes today, boeing, lockeed martin, raytheon and general dynamics. What steps are you taking to create more competitions . It is hard for us to create competitions based on how much budget we have and how many Different Companies feel they can compete and stay healthy. We saw this coming in the 1990s and what the Defense Department did. I happen to be the executive secretary of two secretaries of defense William Perry and william co william collins, they looked at each case. But, there was no way to maintain the vitality financial, of the company and if we stood in the way of it. It was forced on us and we were worried about it then. We saw it coming, frankly, we were unable to sustain an effort to maintain the wider Industrial Base. Well, i hope you will consider things we can do to have more competition if it is possible. My second question concerning, your testimony was eloquent where you said our nation havs been at war for 16 years. This is been in part and while our resources is strained. If you were to look objectively at iraq and afghanistan and libya, and ask has our country met the objectives we set out to meet. You would get people on both sides of the isle saying thats not the case. As you know both much better than i, talibans still control 40 of afghanistan. When i come from Silicon Valley when you have a business and they come for funding, one of the questions is well, is st. Patricks day pl strategic pl working . I have great confidence in our troops. I have less confidence in our policymakers. Do we need a clear sinense of wt the strategies are going to be so we know the last 15 years that we have not achieve our goals that well achieve our goals in the regions. I think we do need to change in strategies. Its got to be one that starts with a Good Exchange between the congress and level of resources they believe as appropriate to the department of defense and i would start there by saying that continue bca which makes congress, spectator to all this is a responsible way to go. I am much more comfortable coming up here to defend the strategy and a Good Relationship and good discussion back and forth than i am coming up here as we all watch bca putting us in a position in some of the serving members who have been in the National Guards and arm forces saying it destroys the military readiness so it is a balancing act of getting a Strategic Dialogue determining of what level of the governments treasure and we are willing to put in defense and make certain of what we got and well define objective that is we are going to accomplish. I am not going to condemn of whats before me. I am here to deal with the reality of the threat of our country today thank you for your answers, i yield back the balance of my time. Mthats pretty close of bein the case, congressman, i remember those numbers a the marine core at the time. The navy assessment of a greater threat environment. Despite this trend, your budget request does not support another ship until fy2020. Na your fy 18 request reducing the plant from six instead of three. I guess my question in light of that, does the fy18 request or degrade of the navy project power . Congressman, i have to go back and check the numbers, it certainly does zen han does enh capability. You chosen to prioritize readiness over longterm shipbuilding. I dont understand why we cannot do both at the same time. You look at reagans first year budget, he added 3 billion on onm. Why are we chosen this false choice, thats my word between readiness and longterm ships budget. It is a good question. I dont take any issue of where you are going with it. I just tell you that when we ar where youre going with it. I would just tell you [ inaudible ] understandably or at least some members would understand our judgment. Weve got to at least deal with this. If you would come out and tell us, this committee has stood by us through thick and thin, this committee is not the problem, nor are your colleagues on the senate Armed Services committee. You know where the problem lies, its more broadly. Please guide us, talking to us. Were eager to do what youre talking about. I guess my only difference of opinion on that approach is it suggests that the pentagon and the president are passive spectators in this process and have priced in what sort of the congressional market can bear. We know that sort of leadership from article i can change the Market Dynamics themselves. Article i, if i remember right article ii. Yes, sir. If you are indeed urging us to you both condemn dca. Why does the budget extend reductions from bca from 2021 until they expire in 2027 . Are they just placeholders . When youre looking at the out use numbers, those are placeholders. Secretary mattis has referenced, when the right now theyre just placeholders. Going back to a line of questioning that mr. Conaway and ms. Hanabusa brought up, you said a round of brac could allow us to buy 120 Super Hornets. Whats the departments assessment of what we could buy from the last round of brac . We could go in and show the amount of money that we saved. Obviously it goes into the Defense Budget. We can give you some examples of i was showing examples of what that savings would translate to in terms of combat capability. We could certainly go back, show you what weve saved from past bracs, then tell you what that translates into in terms of number of ships or airplanes or tanks or whatever. And i think we all appreciate that, and also an assessment of what investments and readiness were prepared to forego in order to fund another round of brac. In other words, sort of reverse the dynamics and say, how many hornets would it cost to fund brac. You mean for a couple of years until it started paying off. The costs on the front end. Thank you. I yield. Mr. Secretary, the last round of brac took more than ten years to break even. So just part of the reason theres concern on this committee is, and the last time i checked with cbo, they didnt have it breaking even yet. Thats been a year or so. So but theres no doubt, it took more than ten years to break even. Not a couple. And so that has left a bitter taste in a lot of folks mouth. So it did not achieve the savings promised. Just an editorial comment. The last is not a very good basis to go on. I would try to align i told you, i dont accept the current and i appreciate that. Well look at what can we do to make certain what we get rid of this time starts paying off in five years, not ten or 20. It has to be a different approach. Yes, sir. Mr. Bacon. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you for your patience in being here and for your leadership. A lot of great insightful comments, i thank you for them. Just the fact that we have this huge bow wave of modernization, as the chairman pointed out. Youve had to work with the top line youve been given. Its a great summer of what youve had to contend with here. My first question, to the chairman dealing with reconnaissance, today only 30 of our combat commanders, airborne surveillance, are being mugged by their commanders. Were choosing between counterterrorism or collection of peer competitors like russia or china. Is 30 good enough . And does the current Budget Proposal by you or by the executive branch here, is it helping to narrow that gap . Congressman, weve actually grown the isr enterprise by 1200 since 2001. Weve increased the number of platforms by 600 since 2008. Were currently meeting 30 of the requirements. So this is one of those areas in the department, i actually dont think we can buy our way out of. And its probably number one not probably. It is number one for me in terms of notation initiatives, leveraging big data, and finding a way to do decisionmaking. We wont be able to buy enough platforms to meet whats required by the Combatant Commanders. Yet we still need to get intelligence necessary to feed decisionmaking. I guess what im suggesting to you is that were growing now from 60 caps to 90 caps over the next couple of years. Thats our program growth. Thats a 50 percent growth. And at the end of that period of time i suspect well be somewhere at 34 or 35 . So the areas we need to burn some intellectual capital on, this particular problem is at the top of the list. Secretary mattis, do you have anything else to add to that . Sir, as our military has shrunk in size, the need for more precise intelligence is one of the ways we mitigate the risk of a smaller military. Part of this is a growing need for a level of whats over the next hill, wheres the enemy, whats going on, as weve gotten a smaller military that we are still committing, as you know, around the world. We didnt pull everybody out as we had anticipated a few years ago and reconstituted at a time when we could have put more effort into this, more finances into it. Were going to have to continue to work this. What were doing right now is challenging for us. Very challenging to shareholdri gap. Another area of concern is Electronic Warfare. When i came in in 1985, we had a dominant Electronic Warfare capability compared to our near peers, well see. In the 90s and 2000s, we had atrophy. Now the russians and chinese, capacitywise, exceed us. This budget, chairman, does this help narrow that gap in the Electronic Warfare realm . Congress, it does. We started in 17. I couldnt agree more that our competitive advantage has eroded over time in Electronic Warfare. When we talk about adversaries like china and russia, specifically targeting our ability to move into an area and operate freely in that area, Electronic Warfare is one of the key areas we need to improve our competitive edge. Mr. Secretary, anything else to add . Thank you very much. I yield back. Mr. Banks. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And thank you to each of you, sirs, for joining us late into the evening tonight to talk about these important issues. Mr. Secretary, general nich nicholston endorsed efforts to add troops to prop up of the Afghan Security forces in the face of aggressive taliban attacks. I want to dig more deeply into testimony about the budget related to afghanistan. Why would a total of 13,000 troops be decisive, who justen few years ago, there were over 100,000 troops in afghanistan . The afghan army, as you know, has been fighting hard. You just have to look at the casualty figures to see that reality. The troops that are being asked for by general nicholson, i dont want to characterize all of them, many of them will be train, advise, assist. These are troops that are specifically trained by our u. S. Army to go out in the field, and you apply them with the brigades, the afghan brigades. Now, remember, weve been operating what we would call the prestar headquarters, the core level headquarters. Below them is the twostar division headquarters. Then you get down to the one star and colonels in the brigades. Were talking now about putting people we call nato air support down at the brigade level, so when they are in contact, the high ground is now going to be owned by the afghan. Its a fundamental change to how we bring what i would call our real superiority in terms of air support to help them. So in other words, were not talking about putting our troops at the front line and saying somehow a few thousand more troops in the front line alongside them are going to help taking the hill by closing with the rifles and machine guns. Either theyre going to be people specifically designed, trained, and organized and equipped to go in and advise them how to take the hill, get them the air support, the artillery support, the rocket support that will enable them. Does that help to address your question . Mr. Secretary, like you, im supportive of ensuring that al qaeda and groups that want to attack the u. S. Homeland are unable to gain safe haven again in afghanistan. And i support those efforts. But when it comes to corruption, and ensuring to the american taxpayers that the investment is a sound one in afghanistan, what do we need to do to ensure that our support for the Afghan Security forces is used appropriately and effectively . Yeah, i think corruption has been probably the biggest strategic vulnerability that we faced in terms of the government of afghanistan gaining the respect and the trust of their own people. The authorities we give and the expectations we give to these troops that were plugging in down at lower levels for one thing will help to change that. Furthermore, i went to afghanistan here a month and a half ago, and i met the officer who has now been put in charge of going after corruption. I find a fellow who is serious, but as you know, this is a so the thats run by reciprocity. Its a Tribal Society by and large. And were going to have to deal with the corruption in a way consistent with that society. They recognize the problem there. They recognize that somethings got to be done about it. This is a critical problem. I would say the biggest strategic problem we face is corruption. And we will be dealing with it. President ghani has a program to deal with it. Well do our best to address it. Weve got to. Thank you very much. I yield back. Ms. Cheney. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you very much, secretary mattis and general dunford, i appreciate your time here this evening. First of all, i am the to say i completely agree weve got to repeal the budget control act. I believe theres no more important obligation we have as members of congress than providing resources necessary for the defense of the nation. It doesnt matter how much Health Care Reform we do, how many tax reform we do. It doesnt matter if we balance our budget. If we get this wrong, none of it matters, and we cant get this right without repealing the budget control act. Having said that, im very troubled by the budget the administration has put forward. I think that in both of your written testimony to the committee and in testimony here tonight, youve done a tremendous job at laying out the gravity of the threats that we face, laying out the seriousness of the situation, the pace of advancements our adversaries are making against us, including in areas we may not be able to counter or defend against. And dominance loss. In particular, general dunford, in your written testimony you talk about within five years the potential that we would lose the ability to project power. Yet the budget thats been presented to us is at best a Holding Pattern, a best. When we face an existential threat from north korea and this budget cuts Missile Defense, cuts energy funding, which in your testimony, mr. Mattis, you said is crucial. General dunford, how can we possibly justify, we heard tonight that this budget is a Holding Pattern until we get to real growth. Why isnt it better to begin the real growth today when we should have begun it yesterday . Congresswoman, all i can do is say if our priorities are correct within the top line that ive been given. And when i talked about that five years, and well talk more in detail on wednesday night, we came up with that by analyzing our peer competitors bifunctional areas, taking a look at where will we be in five years based on projected resources, where are our adversaries be in five years. I cant solve it, i can tell you we have the right priorities in the top line weve been given. Ill also emphasize, if we dont turn around the trend, if we dont change the trajectory were on, thats when well be at a competitive disadvantage in five years. I appreciate that. Who gave you the top line . Are we talking about omb . Thats correct. Its a growth of about 5 , a little over 5 over 2017. And its as i said, its 52 billion above the bta cap. At some point weve got to get some freedom, and omb will need the same freedom. Right, but with all due respect, mr. Secretary, we are in a hold that may be greater than weve certainly been in since the 1970s, were facing an array of threats, you said in your testimony that is basically more volatile than at any time in your career. So im trying to understand how it is that we could possibly have an administration thats saying that its okay, we can wait until next year to begin the serious buildup. I dont think anyone is saying that, maam. 5 growth, thats a bit of a change, to say the least. Its 3 , as i understand it, mr. Secretary. Over 2017 . Over the Obama Administration request for 2017. Okay. Well, congresswoman, were growing the budget. Were dealing with readiness problems that we inherited, that the congress has watched for some time. And we are going to do our best to create combat capability as swiftly as we can, using an allvolunteer force, and trying to get ships back to sea, trying to get airplanes back in the air. Im sorry, mr. Secretary, i just dont understand, when you say were doing it as quickly as we can, why tonight you said were going to begin real growth next year. Why are we all right to wait until next year to begin that real growth . For one thing, maam, we have to put some money, a lot of money into readiness where were already in a hole. I mean, ive looked at the unfunded priorities list, and after the priority weve already set, i agree with every one of the unfunded priorities as well. And thats 33 billion more. But the bottom line is, youre asking us to come in with a budget request beyond what we have now that would be even more of a violation of the act that congress has passed. I mean, we need some direction from you as well. I mean, frankly, as i recall my civics textbook, the president doesnt even have to send a budget. Thats up to you. With all due respect, i know my time is up, just to echo what my colleague mr. Gallagher said, the president has got to lead on this. And, you know, in terms of the Budget Proposal that came up, and i know you dealt with this issue of the proposed caps, but the president s budget extends the budget control act out six years. We can say its a placeholder, table f7s foresees the budget caps beyond what weve got today. I think we all agree we have to repeal the budget control act. Its crucially important. But we cant be in a Holding Pattern, in my opinion, with all due respect, for a year while we facial the grave nature of the threats we face. Thank you. Mr. Wilson. Thank you, mr. Chairman. General dunford, secretary mattis, mr. Norquist, im grateful tonight for the bipartisan appreciation for your service. The vice chief of the army, daniel allen, testified that, quote, based on current readiness levels the army can only accomplish defense Planning Guidance requirement at a high military risk, end of quote. General dunford, what is your assessment of the impact on our soldiers of being able to accomplish requirements at a high military risk . How many casualties does this mean for the army to incur when it started to fight at a high military risk . How many casualties at a low military risk . Congressman, without talking about a specific scenario, i cant talk about casualties. But when general allen testified, when we all testified to risk, we do look at two variables. One is the time it takes to accomplish the objectives and then the amount of casualties we estimate under particular circumstances. I think what general allen is saying is readiness translates into casualties. I would subscribe to that as well. I appreciate that general cook has reflected such concern and wants to work with you, obviously. Mr. Secretary, i want to thank you about your very clear warnings about the destructive consequences of sequestration. At the same time, the budget level in your request, how many years do you think it would take the army to address high military risk . Its a constant moving target, sir, because the enemy doesnt stand still. I would just tell you that between 2019 and 2023, we intend to significantly grow the force, the navy fleet, the army brigade, and the fighter squadrons, to reduce that risk. And mr. Secretary, im very concerned, as ms. Cheney too. The Defense Budget request states, quote, the condition of mission facilities, airfields, training areas, housing, barracks, directly impacts the readiness of the units, the morale of the soldiers, civilians, and family. Yet the budget also tells us that the army has 10. 8 billion in unmet needs. The navy has 9. 5 billion short and the air force is 25 billion short. How long will it take to fix these critical backlogs, five years, ten years, 20 years . Will we ever be able to fix these facilities for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, to train for war and for their families to live . Well, were increasing the milcon budget, sir. You know, as we look more broadly at this, as i said earlier, congressman wilson, we didnt get into this overnight. And its going to take time to get us out of it. We were given a top line as the president s budget had to deal with a lot of priorities. And were doing the best we can with the money that weve been given, which is an increase over what past years have committed to dod. Is it enough . Can i give you a timeline on this . Probably not, right now. But its going in the right direction. And i think we would all agree with that, even if its not sufficient in terms of getting us where we need to go. The congress has the pursestrings. And if the congress decides to fund the unfunded priority list, some of these issues are listed right there. Then that money can be applied to it. And specifically, mr. Secretary, the navy alone submitted unfunded requirement of more than 690 million for critical repairs to airfields, drydocks, wharves and other facilities. The air force asked for more than 850 million, the army for 820 million. What is the explanation for the committee and how shall we accept whether the budget request is adequate when the services are asking for so much, and really theres been a great subscription by congresswoman cheney that were in a Holding Pattern. We want to work with you. So how quickly can we get this done . Sir, the budget is growing. So a Holding Pattern i dont agree with. Its not sufficient to address all the shortfalls that grew over years. Ill be the first to admit that. And if the Congress Sees fit to give us enough money to do all that, then we could probably do it a lot faster. But for me to give you an estimate would take a heck of a lot of analysis and a firm, stable budget horizon that we have not enjoyed in a decade. Thank you very much for all of you being here tonight. Mr. Gaetz . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Im not sure when the secretary said he kept others up at night, he quite had this in mind. Mr. Secretary, please know that the war fighters in my district, northwest florida, are as proud of you as im certain you are of them. Weve spent now four hours in this hearing to essentially answer this question if we give you more money than the administration requested, with a stable budget horizon, could you use it effectively . Yes, congressman, we could. And would that effective use of money above and beyond what the administration has requested make our troops safer in combat . We would ensure it did. And would the money that we could provide above and beyond what the administration has requested do a great deal to advance americas interests throughout the world . I would presume so, yes. And as we sit here today, is it accurate that the average airplane in our air force is about 27 years old . I would have to confirm that, but it sounds its in the ballpark. At any other time in the air forces history, has the average age of an aircraft been higher . I dont believe so. But again, i would have to look at the specific data. And today, in the air force, would we have to say that more or less than half of our fighter squadrons are fully spectrum red . Congressman, again, i would prefer not to get too specific in open hearing. But i think youre about right. And the fact that we have an air force where perhaps readiness is less than optimal, with aircraft that are older than at any other time in the air forces history, could you take just a moment and reflect on the impact that has on our ability to project power and the safety of those that we send into combat . Congressman, i think youve heard from the chairman tonight, we have pilots who are not flying enough to stay current in their aircraft or have confidence in the aircraft. We have readiness problems across the force. And these, for anyone who has been on this committee for more than a year, probably this was not a surprise. It was a bit of a shock for me, coming back to the department. What youre outlining appears to be a pretty good definition of the problem. Earlier in response to a question, you indicated that you thought qatar was moving in the right direction. I appreciated that characterization, because its quite binary. In a world that is always moving, things are always going in the wrong direction or in the wrong direction. What characterization do you apply to turkey . Are they going in the right direction or the wrong direction . In what regard, sir . In the same regards in which you answered the question as it related to qatar. Qatar was in regard to whether or not they were moving away from funding, and much was private funding, not governmental, but funding of any kind of violent extremists. In that regard, theyre moving in the right direction. Im not aware of turkey violent extremists. Then in the broadest sense, mr. Secretary, of turkeys interaction with the world, with our allies, taking into account our utilization of turkish airspace, military assets, also taking into consideration the challenges that we have in the aegean with the greeks and the turks, is turkey moving in the right direction or the wrong direction . Turkey is a nato ally, as you know. Its got internal political issues that theyre dealing with. They provide an air base that has been invaluable in the fight against isis. Its a mixed bag in that regard. But i think right now, were doing the best we can to work with turkey in areas where we where common interests in order to take advantage of the situation that they provide, being on the border, being a front line state against terrorists. Thank you so much, secretary mattis. I yield back, mr. Chairman. Thank you both for responding to all the questions that this committee put to you. I think you can tell theres by partisan interest in going above 603. There is also by partisan interest in working with you to reform the department to be more agile and more efficient, which is also a part of the equation. So needless to say, weve got lots of Work Together yet to come. Without objection, members have three legislative days in which to submit extraneous material for inclusion into the record consistent with the Committee Policy limits. And with that, the hearing stands adjourned. [ indiscernible conversation ] on news makers this weekend, minnesota representative tim walz, top democrat on the House Veterans Affairs committee, talks about congressional oversight of the Veterans Affairs department and the veterans accountability act, which was passed by the house this week. He shares his thoughts on what the Trump Administration is doing to address veterans needs. Watch the interview sunday at 10 00 a. M. And 6 00 p. M. 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 your cable or satellite provider. Next, treasury secretary Steven Mnuchin outlines the president s 2018 budget request before the house ways and means committee. He also testifies on other priorities for his department, including the debt ceiling and the president s tax policy agenda. This hearing is just under two hours
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.