also to make people understand the white house, the ceo, is anything being reduced to a memo of standing i want to find out what is it out there what is the promise that you can say that people are telling and how are you coding it so you can go back to the ceo and say if you're going to do your gonna do it. >> first, what we think about requirements of every student. >> please come to order. >> the committee meets to talk about the city on the fiscal year 2018 budget requests.

we welcome secretary mattis for the first time before our committee. we welcome chairman dunford ba back. the question today, as it is each year for this hearing is, how well the administration's proposal meets the security needs of the nation. factoring both the external threats on the current state of our military. this committee has repeatedly heard testimony over the last two years that our country faces more serious complex pretty challenges now than we have ever faced before. the hearings and briefings we held on the current state of our military have been disturbing. the ministration budget request of $306 billion for base requirements a 6% above the 17 an active level and 3% above the last obama proposal.

it's also $37 billion below what this committee assess last fall was needed and about $58 million below the fy 12 gates budget which was independently validated by the bipartisan national defense panel. the issue is not about numbers. it's about what those numbers provide for the men and women serving what security the budget provides to the nation. it's about whether we can defend the u.s. and our allies against north korean missiles, for example. about whether we have enough ships, planes, and other military capabilities to deter aggression and maintain piece. it's doing right by most valuable asset, our people. the men and women who serve deserve the best equipment our country can provide and i'm afraid they're not getting it. it's always tempting to divert this discussion into a broader budget debated about taxes and other spending issues, those

issues are not within the jurisdiction of this committee are these witnesses. regardless of our views on those other issues, we cannot wait until we solve our budget problems to adequately fund our military. we cannot wait until we perfect acquisition system to have planes that fly and ship set sail. the world is not stopping and waiting on us to get our act together. it moves on and it is 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 in putting off the choices that have to be made. we cannot keep piling issues under service members without ensuring the have all they need to succeed.

does the administration's budget proposal accomplish that goal? that is a question we intend to examine tonight. i yield to the ranking member, mr. smith for comments. >> thank you mr. chairman. i agree with what you said and i think the best way to sum it up is by putting off choices. that is what we have done for quite a while. not just on the defense budget but attacks reform, on all aspects of the budget as well. the impact on the military is as described. the other problem we have is a major disconnect between what we would like to do in the amount of money we are prepared to do it. as the chairman mentioned even the budget at 603 does not match with our community assessed was needed. it doesn't match what the president said he is going to do. in fact, it is distant from that. if you talk about a 350 ship navy and 570,000 person army, if you talk about all the planes and modernization they want to do, don't even begin to know

what the yearly number would be to get to that. i'm suspecting it is north of seven or $800 billion. we have all these grand ideas of what we want, we don't have the money to get there. and who is left in the lurch? the men and women of the military i left with missions that they don't have the resources to fill. we have to start making choices. i have a preview of your opening remarks and i agree with you. the house of representatives is in no position to lecture you about choices. we don't have a budget and it's the middle of june. i've been here 20 years and we have never gone this long without providing numbers to the basic appropriations bill. we continue to stall, i think it hopes the money will magically appear or will find some way to spend money that doesn't count, something. but we have to make choices and decide what wheel fund. i disagree with the chairman on

one issue, the notion that somehow as the armed services committee, everything else it goes on in the budget doesn't have to do with us so we shouldn't worry about. one thing those of barrett's revenue. how much revenue you have in my experience as a profound impact on how much money you are able to spend. i'll skip to the argument about the department of homeland security and how important the state department is. i think all of those things are important. if you want to get down to the basics and say forget about all of that, all we are concerned about assam services committee in providing for the men and women in our military. to give them the resources they need, the planes, the ships, the training, the readiness, all that is nonsensical to say the amount of revenue we have available does not impact that. it absolutely does. if were talking about putting together a tax reform proposal it will further cut taxes by 2 .

if people want to support that may come to this committee and say how terrible it is that we do not fund our military, i think that is a huge inconsistency that we need to reconcile. we have clear needs and the defense department, let's make sure that we provide the money for them. if we do not, then we need to come up with a different set of strategies. it would be very difficult. we have a very complex threat environment, a rising china to iran, iraq, and not to mention those who are out there that are inactive. we be better off doing that than a strategy we have no intention of funding. right now, that is what the executive branch looks like they're doing. they have a strategy that have no intention of funding. we have to fix that. just two quick things, i think entering with what rush is doing

is an important step for us. they are in a very comprehensive effort to undermine the values or country has fought for in the post-world war ii environment. they have incredibly complicated cyber efforts, propaganda efforts, they are doing all of the stuff to basically fostered the authoritarian regimes at the expense of democracies and to undermine alliances that the u.s. has relied on in the post-world war ii world and to maintain peace and security and protect our interests. i'll be very curious to get your take on what we are doing in qatar. hours later the president said something diametricall a post o. i agree with the secretary of state that we should be finding ways to solve that problem not ways to throw gasoline on the fire. i'm not clear what the administration strategies and considering the fact that sitcom

is located in qatar i would think that you have some opinions on what we should do to resolve that situation. with that, you'll back. >> we will come our guest -- we welcome our guest. any written statement that you would like to make will be entered into the record. >> i appreciate the opportunity to testify in support of the president's budget request for fiscal year 2018. i appreciate the committee accepting my written statement for the record. i am joined by chairmanship dunford and the undersecretary of defense, david norquest.

he is vital in getting your confidence in knowing where your money is going. this budget request holds me accountable to the men and women of the department of defense. every day, more than 2 million service members, nearly 1 million civilians do their duty honoring previous generations of people who sacrifice for country. it is a privilege to serve alongside them. we are keenly aware of the sacrifices made by the american people to fund our military. many times we have looked reality in the eye, met challenges with the help of congressional leadership and built the most capable fighting force in the world. there is no room for complacency and we have no god-given right for victory on the battlefield. it's future generation of americans earns victory through

commitment and sacrifice. yet, for four years the department of defense has been subject to are threatened by automatic across-the-board threats from sequester. a mechanism meant to never go into effect, but it to go into a effect and as forecast by secretary of defense but not a, it has been severe. in addition, during nine of the past ten years congress hasn't affected 30 separate resolutions to defend the department of defense. we need bipartisan support for this budget request. in the past, by failing to pass the budget on time or eliminate the threat of sequestration congress sidelined itself from the constitutional oversight role. continuing resolutions, by sequestration prevented service growth, stalled industry initiative and place troops at

greater risk. despite efforts of this committee congress as a whole has met the challenge. i retired for military service three months after sequestration took effect. four years later i returned to the department and i have been shocked about what i have seen about our readiness to fight. while nothing can compare to the heart ache caused by the loss of our troops during these, no enemy in the field has done more to disarm us than sequestration. our troops have historically

shouldered a much greater burden. but their commitment cannot reduce the growing risk. it took us years to get into this situation and will require years of stable budgets and increased funding to get out of it. i urge members of this committee in congress to achieve three goals, first, fully fund a request which required an increase to the defense budget caps. second, pass and fy 2018 budget in a timely manner to avoid another harmful continuing resolution. there, eliminate the threat of future sequestration cuts so we can provide a stable budget planning horizon. stable budgets and increase funding are necessary because of external forces acting on the department at the same time. the first force that we must recognize is 16 years of war, when congress approved the volunteer force and 73 our country never envisioned send in our military to work for more than a decade without pause or constrict constriction. this placed a heavy burden on men and women in uniform and their families.

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 and security decisions. north korea's reckless rhetoric continue despite united nations sanctions while iran remains the largest challenge to middle east stability. all the while terrorist groups murder the innocent threaten peace and regions, and threaten us. a third force acting on the department's adversaries actively contesting america's capabilities. for decades the united states enjoyed uncontested or dominant superiority in every tell me. we could generally deploy your forces when we want to, assemble them where we wanted and operate

how we want to. today, every operating timing including outerspace, air, sea, land in cyberspace is contested. a fourth concurrent forces rapid technological change. among the other forces noted this far technological changes one that mrs. s the tate's new investment, innovative approaches a new program starts that have been tinnitus by the when we have been forced operate under continuing resolutions. each of these four forces come 16 years in war, contested operations and multiple domains on the rapid pace of technological change requires stable budgets and increase funding to provide for the protection of our citizens in the survival of our citizens. i reiterate that security is my watchwords. the fundamental responsibility of our government is to defend the american people, providing for security and we cannot

defend america and help others of our nation is not strong insolvent. we in the department of defense over to the american public to the congress to ensure that we spend every dollar wisely. president trump will bring proven skills to discipline our departments fiscal processes to ensure we do so. this first step to restoring readiness is underway, thanks to congress' willingness to support the request for an additional $21 billion in resources for fiscal year 2017 to address shortfalls. your support put more aircraft in the air, more ships to see and more troops to train. it will take a number of years of higher funding delivered on time to restore readiness. to strengthen the military president trump requested a 639 billion-dollar top line for the 2018 defense budget.

this reflects five priorities. the first is continuing to improve war fighter ready nice beginning in fiscal year 17, filling in the holes during trade-offs majoring 16 years of war, nine years of continuing it resolutions and budget caps. the second priority is increasing capacity and lethality preparing for future investment driven by results from the national defense strategy. 2018 budget request ensures the nation's current nuclear deterrent will be sustained and supports continuation of much-needed modernization process. the third priority is reforming how the department does business. i'm devoted to getting full value from every taxpayer dollars spent on defense, thereby earning the trust of congress and the american people. we begun implementation of initiatives directed by the 2017 authorization act. we are on track to enter into a

full agencywide financial statement audit as required by statute. i urge congress to support the departments request for the authority to conduct the 2021 background. i recognize the careful deliberation that members must exercise considering it. it is one of the most successful and significant efficiency programs. forecasting a properly focused base closure effort will generate $2 billion or more annually over a five-year time, enough to buy 300 apache attack helicopters, 120 f-18's, or for virginia class submarines. the fourth priority in the fy 2018 budget request is keeping faith with service members and the families. talented people at the department's most valuable

asset, we must continually balance these requirements against other investments critical to readiness come equipped, and modernization to ensure the military is the most capable were fighting force in the world. investment military compensation, blended retirement the health system and others are essential to filling the talent we need to sustain our advantage on the battlefield. the fifth is support for overseas operations. the budget request $64.6 billion focusing on efforts in afghanistan, iraq, syria. increasing efforts to sustain nato defenses to deter aggression and global counterterrorism operations. isis and other terrorist organizations represent a clear and present danger and i am encouraged by our allies and partners to share the burden of this campaign. moving forward, the fy 2819

budget will have to make hard choices as we shape the fy 2019 to make defense budget. will work to ensure future budget request are sustainable and provide the military options that support the security. i'm aware that each of you understand responsibility we share to ensure militaries ready to fight today and in the future. i need your help to inform your fellow members of congress about the reality facing your military and the need for congress to pass a budget on time. thank you for your strong support over many years in ensuring our troops have the resources and equipment they need to win a fight on the field. i pledge to collaborate with you in our joint efforts keep our forces second to none. chairman dunford is prepared to discuss the military dimensions

of the budget request. >> it is an honor to join secretary matteson undersecretary here tonight. i'm honored to represent you in uniform and i can say with confidence that your forces today are the most capable in the world. the competitive advantage that the united states military has an is eroded. a number of factors have contributed to. since 9/11 a high operational tempo has accelerated the wear-and-tear of equipment. budget and stick ability in the control act for some to operate with fewer resources than required for the strategy of record. we prioritize near-term readiness for replacing aging equipment. we have maintained a force that maintains readiness as fast as we build it. we are building and maintaining

full-spectrum readiness. the secretary is addressed dynamic in their testimonies and i fully concur with their assessments. the on the current readiness we are confronted with another significant challenge. when we are focused on the threat of violent extremism our adversaries and potential adversaries have advanced at capabilities to limit our ability to project power. they realize that our ability to project power is a critical to defend the homeland, advance our interests and meet our alliance commitments. as alluded to today russia, china, and iran feel a wide range of cyber, space, maritime and cyber capabilities. russia and china have modernized

a nuclear arsenal while north korea has been on the relentless path to fuel and icbm to that can reach the united states. in a few years if we don't change the projector he will lose our qualitative and quantitative advantage. it will adversely affect our nuclear deterrence, or conventional deterrence and our ability to root respond if it fails. alternatively we can maintain our advantage was sustained, sufficient and predictable funding. the fy 18 budget is next important step but this will not restore readiness or arrest the erosion of our competitive advantage. doing it will require assisting investment. specific recommendations will be informed by the strategy development. we know that continued growth in the base budget were 3% of above is the floor necessary for today's advantage.

we asked for your support and we recognize the support and trust that we need for the american taxpayer. thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you and thank you for ensuring that america's sons and daughters -- >> devastating you would like to make? >> i do. >> under the circumstances it's important to hold members to the five minute rule and therefore short, direct questions and i have no doubt will evoke short, direct answers. they are known for that. and put me on the clock place. mr. secretary, when the budget

came to congress on may 23, i think other than the past week you're the only senate confirmed person in the department of defense. of the trump administration. if you look at the budget request is 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? . .

>> >> to have the force back on its feet and has not maintained full readiness. one. >> again to follow-up on mr. smith's point the president said specifically to have a navy of freedom and 50 ships and 12 aircraft carriers of the strength of 540,000 and increasing the number of fire aircraft and so this budget so far decided finance any of those goals and it gets us in the

right direction and then to grow the force of what they are talking about but also this is a $52 billion and that isn't something we can simply walking in and ignore >> i don't think anyone thinks that this is anywhere procreant for the of military. one more question so again the white house talks about developing states of the art missile defense systems and the biggest surprise to me was to look at the budget for the missile defense agency to go down from 18 from 17. can you explain that?. >> it is a worsening

situation we have a review under way but right now i am confident to go against the north korean threat until we get the review doesn't with a sustainable ballistic missile defense buildup. >> chairman you talked about howdy 18 budget and that he said he was shocked when he came back into the department to see the state of our readiness. a locale of the unfunded requirements which they are required to give a statute in there is a lot of readiness. so is it true is it not there is additional funds so would you agree with that?

so as readiness is considered operation remain since monday -- many eagerly have that aircraft is still 50% ready. as a result now to have had a distinction without a readiness. or procurement is necessary. >> that is a point we have learned over the past year. >> so to add a ball of the president's promises i have outlined some of them is there any notion of a five-year plan? if i not mistaken to be offered by

the president's budget which is unusual i cannot help but think he did not want to look at it. to see how outlandish those numbers would be. so do you have a number? or what the president has talked about. and then to get that force ready is a common understanding that is the common ground so that we can sort out what could be done. >> that we have no intention

to make promises that nobody intends on keeping so with that said to have an amendment to repeal and then to get that out there on the floor. but the budget control act was six years ago and was passed with that goal to have a grand bargain and that did not have a - - chapin it is irrelevant. and it is obvious the budget control act is a terrible way to address that. sold to have a mixed record so they have a pretty mixed record also. with the hijackers and one of the most extreme form of islam and june wheat with

the foreign minister of what they are trying to reform and move in a more positive direction but it seems odd to work with saudi arabia to go after catarrh as they do too much to support the radical extremist. so what is going on over there in russia the policy be?. >> says they manifest zero introductory and that is something president trump is attempting to do generate and reinforce as we recently witnessed in that regard to see the largest single air base that we have for the air force and central

command i would simply point out we have venter opera ability and i believe the prince inherited the situation and they're trying to turn that society and we all agree that funding of any kind of the terrorist group and that is moving in a the right direction. >> belli the disconnect. >> i believe the president coming back from the middle east is extremely focused of what they have done to get everyone to agree how we would stop funding the enemy groups. it is not black and white it

is a nebulous area. sova uc is a continued focus on that so we obviously have shared interest. it is one of those areas to have a common ground and it has been a challenge i will admit it is not tight even something we have to work together. >> saudi arabia is the country we also have to work on that issue to support that version as long as they don't get violent that pushes you right up to the edge of that violence and that logical conclusion of it. so we really need to put pressure on saudi arabia and

i will assume one of my other colleagues alaska question about russia that lack of a comprehensive strategy and i would like an update to if we see that as a critical need am i being alarmist? so i will leave that to my colleagues to follow-up. >> following on cyberwarfare command to be protected in the budget of 2013 this is a high priority given responsibilities on this committee admiral rogers testified recently to execute those missions a request to the budget of 647 million fiscal year 18

that is nearly 16% increase from 17. however the cuts with a cyberwarfare capabilities that could represent a hollow forces structure and that the readiness gap for the european command against russia against china and north korea. so general could you describe the readiness to carry out a variety of missions around the world?. >> we identified a requirement for 33 cybermitt shuns --- missions 70% are fully operational capable. and with those initialed capability to be in the coming months fully operational. so so none of those are

complacent in cyberspace given the number of threats that we face every day to be in a position to grow the force so we began to reverse that trend of warfare that we have an underfunded. >> as a follow-up we are conducting operations we have that capacity to ramp up for additional operations with the average - - adversary simultaneously?. >> we do. actually we are simultaneously conducting cyberoperations now. >> can we handle that current level of cyberactivity to handle all

those that we see today?. >> we would continue to grow before. >> so whether we doing to attract people to support cyber, as a career field?. >> so i think as a combination of incentives the that is something we're working very hard as well. >> such as the incentives to attract and keep cyberprofessionals?. >> we're using those tools now to the extent to increase use of those tools. >> mr. chairman thanks for being here as well.

and this committee cannot be expected with all the issues that we face today with those men and women that came from somewhere to get the federal student loans so how do we reconcile in your position to work with those issues while we are struggling and looking at those readiness issues that the president is cutting many presidents of those in the military but they are obese and cannot serve because they have a drug addictions and there so many issues to say that does not

relate to the military were certainly not to national security. so what is the role these yourself playing to have people focus on these issues ?. >> as you know, i am not shy about this but we are meeting their own quality demands right now but you are absolutely accurate to have a shrinking percentage of the 18 and 20 year-old that could qualify to a list from the army. so why would take no issue it is all of our responsibilities rather the executive or legislative for local school district, it is not one i can speak about

with authority when to stand up for folio but so far i would tell you it is not inhibited the request for those that rally to the flag. >> what about the other voices?. >> speak to us about your current thinking on afghanistan. so this feels much more chaotic and they're very few options for us. >> where can we go with this ?. >> we are taking a regional approach from indiana and

pakistan and afghanistan and iran that whole south asia area to have something that is lacking in some areas and to recognize the problems out of fun governed spaces like that from 9/11. they can come home to roost. so no turning a blind eye to determine now what level of support is necessary not just the americans with the international community to deal with this. >> general i know that you have served. do the numbers that are talked about are those then isolation?.

>> we have listened very a carefully to the general assessment of the situation we're all concerned of those security trends in the casualty's the afghan forces have suffered and with some options that might be considered to reverse those trends and the will consider that a regional strategy as well and then do better enable the afghan security forces so this is not about us being in a fight but doing things for the afghans to be more successful. >> do you have a the resources that they need on the civilian side?. >> as you suggest this is just about numbers or troops that the diplomatic and

economic options as well. >> eight you for being here. you referenced present troubles talk to rebuilding the military ending sequestration and called on us to help rebuild the military so long that we agree as to look at 2018 we're concerned the budget falls short so there are important needs and one as those of those is the concerns of what is needed so we currently have an army during more than it has ever done and if you look backwards to the time the army has less to do, it is a four 9/11. with 482,000 troops as an active force. then 476. president obama proposed

drawing down even further and we worked with the chairman and the republican congress prevented that drawdown which is still below that peacetime but now the general has said any 100,000 more with those ideas that we have active forces of five and the 50,000 higher than before 9/11 with an unfunded requirements fiscal year 18 enola the army has asked for an additional 10,000 active additional 7,000 and national guard that they needed and did not get and it is unusual for the unfunded requirement to have the force's request. usually it is like planes or tanks but not people. we all want to give you a hollow force if you need more.

>> i do believe we do. and as part of the requirement if there is more money available than army navy airforce i would add however to have a stable budget in the future if we bring in those troops if we don't have a good budget by next year that it will come out of the operations as a pay their salaries because nine out of the last 10 years. and with the best of intentions so to have a balanced approach. >> as you know, and so i will ask you about those conversations because

currently that is one of our problems looking at the house with an increase of spending so could you give us ideas do you have plains that can fly or soldiers that are not ready for the ammunition and training is that the budget that they gave us does not fix that?. >> we do not want to wait and then just to start reversing an fyi 18 is how we will stabilize the of problem to balance the forces to get those additional cybertroops but the real growth comes between 19 and 23 with the omb is routinely wear and president trump has highlighted set -- we have

his support on this. >> 142 of us send a the speaker of the house to put on the floor to repeal sequestration every member of the armed services committee we certainly believe it is important i am not sharing classified information when you call that meeting on north korea you said repeals sequestration that was more important than the threat of north korea. i have a question. so should we vote to repeal sequestration?. >> yes sir. >> i yield back. >> mr. secretary thanks for your testimony.

touche acknowledged the impact to state that climate change where the troops are operating today we are where these oncoming dangers if it is critical to address how the department of defense quantifies. en to respond to regional instability or fail men or climate related economic challenges. so how're you guiding dod with these tactical challenges?. >> i can quantify the cost

and it comes down to this he is more navigable. that is a national security consideration from the warming climate to take into account but it is hard to quantify the cost as that broadening appreciation of the situation. >> lambeau steps taken to identify the cost. >> that is day rubrics cuba of the of way that it impacts and other and that analysis is quite challenging. but we have to address whenever a the physical and

buyer brings. that is part of the physical environment. >> we would forward to your answer. chairman i believe the of value lies beyond the traditional war fighting domain. that overlapping impact that with the strained efforts with their present level of diplomatic across the globe with the department of education with the best in the brightest with those programs with that educational and business criteria and with those

technological changes with those adversaries and focusing on that strategy. >> so what are those specific challenges you face when they are underfunded?. >> with every challenge that they are dealing with to require assistance from the state and other elements of of a government and of the challenges that you recited. so what we have done with the fy 18 budget is to redress the resources necessary of those that you refer to. >> the state department and

the defense department are tied very tightly like isis be just as the conference here posting those 66 nations like nato and the european union that they would not talk about the combat part talk about the post combat. and do keep the next group from rising. and then to see not another week goes by and we talk five or six is seven times a week as we try to make this a tight team to address this situation. >> mr. chairman and general and secretary mattis in the

last administration did seem to take russia serious we have had a single official testified that russia will come back into compliance with the imf treaty so will they seriously confronting russia about their violations and are you prepared where will you be prepared to give us military options for their violations ?. >> we are meeting on the apparent violations what is alleged violations interagency wise as we speak. probably in a closed hearing initially to consult with those nato allies with the international understanding of what has happened i cannot give a specific date but we are engaged right now

>> general year vice-chairman testify before us and said there is no higher priority for filling all those components and we are emphasizing the nuclear mission over all other programs when faced with that choice. it can no longer be deferred we're currently depending on just the of modernization replacement. so do you share this priority on the nuclear modernization program?. >> i do. but has been reflected in the 17 and 18 budget. >> should be fully fund your request or decrease of funding? . .

>> it must be desirable and essential to meet the challenges of most concern. close quote. dr. gray points out the history of dual missiles by the u.s. and russia and says concerns are

overstated. my question for the record and i know you are a reader and you would commend this study to review the mpr. thank you and i yield back, mr. chairman. >> mr. larson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome everyone. do you anticipate as comp controller that you would be able to do so. >> in 2018 the audit will include stand alone audits and overall audit of the whole department. most contracts have been awarded.

one or two are awaiting to be finalized and awarded. but we have every expectation to be compliant and fully under audit. >> and other folks, same question. general mattis, do you anticipate this will decide on a debate or do you anticipate it will focus more on specific programs within the enterprise? how are you addressing it? >> whether it is triad or diad it will be resolved early because of the strength of the triad right now. we will continue with the rest of the review at that point. >> do you anticipate it coming

out in stages like this or one report at one time? >> one report right now. if it looks like it will come out in stages i would be willing to look at it. right now one report. part of the discussion has resulted in the conversation about giving operators and vet commanders and those below in the hierarchy more additional authorities especially with isis and counter terrorism operations. i don't have a big problem with that myself but i do believe there is still the oversight question that is important.

whether it is the set of action or what evolves into a policy. it is policy and should be coming back to us for eversight. do you think the changes on authorizations have been that noticeable or that great in the last four months? and second, what is your thought on the oversight question from this committee? >> congressman, i think the issue really is the decision making. that, more than the level at which decisions are made, has been the point that secretary mattis has emphasized since coming in. i would tell you having been in both administrations, the fundamental issues of force level authorities and those kind of things have rested either with the secretary of defense or the president in accordance with established policy so there hasn't been a change in that regard.

what the secretary emphasized is at the speed of relevance meaning to support the commander. so we have emphasized that. the other thing i would say is in my experience, the national security decision making process reflects the decision making style of a president. i am not sure that is good or bad. but we have seen the president delegate to the secretary certain authorities in order to make him more responsive. on the major issues, there has been no change in the oversight nor will it be a change in what congress is able to provide oversight for. >> i want to put in a plug for the atomic war ex-con. i urge you to make it a priority

in terms of leadership, investment, training and r & d. i think we have the pentagon where it needs to be on vw not just service to service. i would like to make sure you note that. thank you. yield back. >> mr. franks. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you secretary mattis and general dunford for your life time commitment to human freedom. thank you, secretary mattis that you keep our enemies awake at night. defense officials in south korea and the u.s. as well have confirmed claims by north korea that their ballistic launch on may 14th successfully survived re-entry. i consider that to be a significant and dangerous development.

it was testified that quote we must atume that north korea today can range the united states carrying a nuclear war head. this new and alarming judgment suggests the north koreans are making significant process. yet the president's budget request for the missile defense agency is 7.9 billion which is the average of the budget throughout the obama administration. in your best military opinion, is the threat posed now is it is increasing? why would we wait for the ballistic missile review to fund the request? >> right now i would say the

threat is growing whateverout we have now in california is jbl sufficient to buy us time so when we come to you in the program and defend it and we won't say we had it miss judged. i want to make sure what i am asking for in terms of giving us a real capability. i assume every time they fire one of these they are learning something more. we can buy the time right now congressman. >> let me, if i could, leverage off that and say on the budget request once we deploy those 44 interceptors this year we will not be able to continue to test

or improve their reliability of the system without pulling interceptors out of the ground falling below 44 uperatioperati interceptors. did you believe that is an acceptable risk in the threat environment? >> i am aware and based on what we think north korea has and could have in the near future i am confidant we can defend the country and will take steps to expand this ballistic missile threat further. in the event we have to come to you and do more. we are not starting at that point but it would take time.

we are not at all blind to this and i accept your concern 100%. >> thank you, secretary. and general dunford do you have anything to add? >> when we look at the north korean threat you point out the missile defense being critical. when we balance and you look at the investment in cyber capabilities, the intelligence community, maritime capabilities, all are designed for north korea threats. >> well, i thank you both and keep them awake if you can. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank to our witnesses and secretary norquest. secretary mattis, it was a pleasure to meet you during the cor del that our chairman led to

the shangarla dialogue. i have particularly appreciated your commitment to continued positive engagement within the region. while we are allies and partners who have been subjected to mixed messages it is my hope that the rhetoric and actions from the department of defense will signal consistency. secretary mattis and general dunford if you could speak about the forces in the endo asia pacific region in augmented your tool box what additional value is gained by having forces stationed on a u.s. territory and what flexibility does it provide and allow folks to be

ready to engage when necessary? >> the asia pacific theater is a priority for the united states and united states department of defense. the value of the forward deployed forces in themselves is for a stabilizing element. if we didn't 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 wasn't there before. whereas, if they are out there in position, then they are present and any advisary would have to consider. our sovereignty allows sustainment out there. >> the secretary outlined it but i would tell you having been to

the pacific with you last week i would tell you us being forward and it serves as a deterrent for advisories in the region as well. >> i thank you both for your comments. secretary mattis, what role do your alliances particularly the u.s.-japan relationship play in strengthening our posture and furthering our nationt interest? how is the dod strengthening partnerships with corporations into endo-asia pacific region.

>> i came in wanted to reform the processes so we get the best use of the dollar. the u.s.-japan alliance has stood the test of time. we have a technical force with them and the navy uses ballistic missile defense systems for example. this is a two-way street in terms of benefits for the defense of the home land and japan. i don't think that right now we could find them in the top defense. >> youfr japan and the u.s. in the partnership for the buildup is solid?

-- you feel -- >> i am certain. i met with the prime mip minister and he is committed to fund the move. and we will continue to work it along those lines of a prip with japan and get the marines in place. >> thank you for your support. i yield back. >> 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. it is important to have leadership from the top. i hope we can couned on your leadership among the uniform sourc

sources. welcome to a terrific team. you and i were having a brief conversation to start the hearing and at your experience it was dhs. >> yes. >> they have now finished four years of audit financial statements. >> they had an audit and we implemented the process to turn it around. dhs has now had four independent investigations. >> thank you for bringing your talent and leadership to the task. a 3% above the inflation is necessary it was said to keep pace. could you give us a dollar amount assuming what the dollar amount would be? would you put in the record what the math looks like? >> you want it for the record?

>> i would rather have you state it. >> 39 billion and 3% is 18-20 billion a year. >> thank you very much. you mention brack in 2021. it takes a lot of money to implement that. they result in a construction and demissioning all kinds of expansions going into the that. saving the dollars on the bag end are important. could you talk about the oprationale region? there may be things other than dollars and cents leading us to make the hard decisions.

>> the money we free up from closing an unneeded base continues to accrue. once the unnecessary cost go away you are gaining the money for training, buying new equipment and modernization. i am not comfortable we have 20% excess. we will take a look at it but it is a great way to free up money. >> in the 2005 bracket may be saving us today. are there operational reasons, training, better locating folks together and been in separate bases across.

separate and apart from the savings that would accrue in the future. >> i am sure we would have to find that. we would have to look at each individual case. we would build new places in other spots in order to train better and employ quicker thank you for jour your service and i yield back. >> i would like to go back to the budget and the context.

we have had strategic reviews including the quality review and we had the structure last december that put an exact number saying we should build a fleet of 355 ships. we had an accelerated ship plan which was sent over and showed a road map in terms of how we can jump start that process and we have navy arbturb -- architect

studies. on the 24th of may it grew a ship. you know, there is just no debate really about the fact that what is going on is living off a legacy fleet. i don't understand the hesitation in the budget in terms of taking advantage of all the work that has been done over the last three years to have a more robust ship building plan than what was sent over. >> yes, sir. i think once we get a review done so we can get a compelling brigade and we have got to weave this whole fabric together to

have a joint force ready to fight. i would love to have more ships. there are nine ships in this 2018 and we know that we need pore but we have got to get our plan together. as you know we have been in place only about five months and we need to get our information harvested and come up with a planned road ahead. we have to have the budget to support it and i cannot ignore the things we have to spend money on. >> it wasn't just a wish list

out there. youfr to send a demand to the big yards and the supply chain which went through a holiday in the early 2000s and really destroyed a really healthy industrial base and supply chain. i think this budget undercuts that demand signal that people were really starting to believe in in terms of what we have seen over the last last -- last few years. we hear in person from commanders they are playing zone defense against the china and

russia navy and that is not acceptable particularly given the fact we will see legacy ships coming offline in greater numbers than the replacement volume that a nine-ship budget calls for. that is a 308 eight ship budget sent over. i have the highest respect for all of you and i think you understand what is going on out there and the fight over there. >> i want to continue along the lines of ship building. secretary mattis, you stated what i think is extraordinarily important and that is the need for us to understand we have been marking time, at best, here in the last several years and

our advisories are advancing. that is problematic. you talked about the capabilities they have and the ones they continue to develop. u.s. presence is critical. the navy marine core team is a critical part of this. i want to build on the question asked before and that is across the spectrum, i haven't heard anyone agreeing with saying 355 is not a number we should direct our efforts toward. and this year's budget has us on track to get to the outdated plan.

it does seem counter intuitive to do eight to nine sips. i understand maintaining those but this counts a billion out of the ship building accounts. why only nine ships this year and more fundamentally with cutting that number from the accounts how do we see hoar navy getting to 355 ships? the cbo did an assessment about when we bleed we can get and we think we have the industrial capacity. give me your perspective about those two elements.

>> we didn't get in this in one your so we will not get out in one year. we cannot put a marker down in one year. it is not realistic. you will see people digging out of the operation maintenance hole and engaged in operations where we have to ask for overseas funding. when you get done, there is a carrying capacity we can carry as part of the president's budget. we just have to recognize that.

>> chairman dunford? >> this highlights the debate inside the department. as a result of not modernizing in so many areas, i am confidant we have the right priorities i understand the global force manager is trying to meet the demands. this does reflect the challenge outline in my opening remarks. this year and last year it started and we are coconfronted with the challenges. we are trying to get the right

balance within the top fine we have been given. it is why i highlighted minimum 3% to maintain the competitive advantage we have today. and that is saying if we want the number of things required it will take sustained growth over time. and that is why 19, 21, and 22 are so important. >> it seems as we are talking and you are giving voice to the variety of threats we face whether it is those wishing us ill or responding to cyber or making sure we are making all the appropriate investments. it is a dual track challenge.

it is clear to me the military services you need to recruit from a talent pool that is as broad as possible. you said how important it is to secure our competitive havenadve and secretary mattis you talk about having the most capable war fighting force in the world. it was estimated 29% of young people 18-23 are eligible to serve after you apply all the filters that rule people out and i think you referenced that number. more than 51% of the eligible population happen to be women. less than 20% of today's active duty force is comprised of women. the area remains on the decline and it seems to me it is every

more important we recruit from the entire population >> i don't think in any way we disregard but we are fortunate for decades now to have had out standing women. i think the quality standards are being made across the board. men and women and officers in rank.

i would just tell you without the pressure of the draft, we are getting volunteers of eye watering quality. >> the reality is of the larger pool, only 20% are seeking to serve. i was glad to hear you were committed to having men and women serve alongside each other as long as all parties met the standards necessary.

my question is how are you planning on assessing the progress of ongoing integration efforts? >> i would have to see if they have identified a problem. if there is a problem we will assess it and softball it. >> it has been a brief tenure. are you monitoring the efforts? >> i have met with the joint chief of staff, the service chief, i did it in my quarters quartly meeting and none surfaced problems. >> in the wake of the social media scandals, what do you think needs to be done to preserve the respect of the

department as a whole? >> i believe it is important as we recruit from american society we make it clear not just what the military stands for but not what it stands for. a unit cannot be effective in combat and i don't whether it is dui or sexual harassment. when a unit doesn't maintain discipline standards it is a less capability on the battlefield. we maintain a mission orientation and make it clear what we will not tolerate and field the force. >> thank you, secretary mattis. >> thank you secretary and general. secretary mattis, current law requires a military that

military pay is to keep pace with the projections. the administration submitted a budget request cutting the service members pay raise. secretary mattis, was this based on budget restraints or your belief budget pay should not keep pace with the projections? >> we have a responsibility to take care of your families and troops and make certain we are paid what we need to draw very good people and they don't go off to combat worried about if their family is taken care of whether it is health care, retirement pay, all those go into the making sure we keep the faith with them. i have a responsibility to ensure we can win on the battlefield and provide them the best equipment and are doing the research and development. it is a balancing act as we try

to balance what we need to outfit them with to bring them home alive with victory and what we need to maintain them. how do you maintain the all voluntary force if you don't pay them competitive wages? >> i think our analysis shows them we are paying them very competitive wages when you stack them against high school graduates. we probably have a better benefits package than most places. there is some in silicone valley that could beat us. across the united states we are

drawing in high quality people. >> secretary mattis, one thing i would like to take a look at in terms of containing cost, where we can shift those resources around and that is to look at every opportunity to shipt capability to the reserves. i think we need to look beyond that in terms of our force structure and maintaining capability. but at a lower cost.

>> thank you for your leadership. we are looking at tax cuts that might create a 3-7 trillion deficit. a state department budget that will call for a 30 billion reduction and a dyad and triad. how would you prioritize these? >> in my role maintaining safe and secure nuclear deterrent with a decisive conventional force that can fight the warfare. dr. colin pointed out the enemy will also move against perceived witness.

we cannot decide we will only upgrade the navy because the enemy moves against our weak area. safe and secure. >> we don't have to make choices. we can do all of the above. >> i believe we can. i believe that america can afford survival. yes. >> even though it is estimated to be a trillion dollars for the nuclear? >> we have gone through this twice before where we had to hit an upgrade time and both times it happened yes. >> should the new national defense authorization act

prohibit contact with russia? >> i think we are carrying on with deconfliction in the syria area. i believe there cannot be business as usual military to military. there may be advantages to us deconflicting and perhaps having talks once they are led, first of all, by our foreign policy and state department to set the conditions for the military to military talks. >> we should continue to prohibition on military to military? >> i think congress should give a sense of direction? >> i think it would be best. >> you mention a new sea opening up. i assume you are referring to

the arctic. is the u.s. coast guard an intergral part of the defense? is a heavy ice breaker necessary? >> i believe the coast guard is essential and intergral part of the defense. i am not an expert in that area >> an ice breaker is about a billion a copy. a heavy ice breaker. should we allow the budget to be used to go to an ice breaker? >> this is beyond my expertise. i would prefer to study before answering it.

>> you testified before congress regarding the long range stand off cruise missile program. here are a few quotes from secretary got miller's testimony where she said were focused on three key points. first: the lrso is consistent with arms control system and the president's agenda. second, the lrso support strategic stability and doesn't undermine it. there is no evidence that the the lrso or nuclear modernization program are catalyzing an arms race. the lrso is valuable at maintaining strategic stability and it is the absence of a nuclear arm cruise missile that

might lead us more vulnerable. future presidents may find themselves facing the choice of responding to nuclear attack. so mr. secretary, as the nucleus process continues and you examine the program, how will you and your team consider the input of the nation's senior diplomats? do you agree with her position that it enhances strategic ability and is important to assuring allies? >> her representation stands on its own merit. as far as whether or not i would stand on the lrso i will wait until we have the study done and

i will let you know. i have no reservations about taking the ideas onboard. no reservations at all. >> great. i hope you will ready her comments and testimony on that. i want to shift gears here. in 2012, the obama administration ended the u.s. strategy that requires a redness label that requires fighting two wars at the same time. times have changed and the united states no longer faces on par with the soviet union. this world view was quickly disrupted by russia and do we

need to fight a war at the same time and are we currently able to two fight two wars at once and if not what do you see is the greatest capability threat? >> we will have a closed hearing on thursday night and i would like to talk to the construct and challenges we face in a closed hearing if we could do that. >> you agree it is important to address them all at the same time? >> 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. more than 60% of our navy strike fighter planes that are launching attacks against isis cannot fly. i am pleased to be the fy18 request including 14 fa-18 super hornets and another 10 super hornets as the top priority. can you talk about how important new procurement is in the effort? >> yes, ma'am. the bottom line is we cannot simply repair to bring enough fighters up to the full strike. when you look at the 21 billion that congress gave us as fy18 supplemental much of that went into buying spare parts for fighters for the very reason you

are highlighting here. and admiral moran highlighted. we have to keep the modernization going but we will need gap fillers. we will have to have more strike fighters to address the problem. we share your appreciation of the problem. mrz >> ms. spear? >> thank you. i wanted to say thank you and i believe the american people are breathing a sigh of relief. i will ask you three questions were the record. i will ask them and move on to a

question that you can answer earlier. the annual report on sexual harassment and violence at the military service academy was just released a couple months ago and it is stunningly left of answers to the most jarring statistics. 48% of the service academy cadets indicate that they are sexually harassed. of those that actually report sexual assault they suggest there is a restaliation rate of 47%. i would like for you to provide to me and the committee what you would like to on what is is a staggering statistics. there was a reporter that broke

the marines united case and i think all of us were shocked by the revelation. it is not just in the marines but all the services. we just recently was told that he has debarred by the deputy commander. and i would like to thank you for your staff that participated in events.

the one i would like for you to answer publically, secretary mattis you have been talking about your assessment of russia as a particular threat to the united states, russia has been relentless in the provications flying long rage bombers to alaska and violating gine nf. the president has been silent about this action. there is much speculation as to my . general dunford, how to you plan to respond to the russian military provocation?

>> at this time, congresswoman, i do not see any indication that mr. putin would want a positive relationship with this. that is not to say we can't get there as we look for common ground. we has chosen to be a strategic competitor with us and we will have to deal with that as we see it. >> general? >> congressman last year in fy17 we requested 3.7 billion and this year 4.8 billion. that money is designeded to increase our foreign presence in europe and teams and additional equipment. it increases the exercise we conduct in europe all of which is designed to deter russia and assure partners we can create the nato alicense commitment. we have changed our posture in

europe and again our exercises and capability development with our partners in response to the growing russia capability and aggression. >> do you believe that russia is our advisory? >> i think we have an advisorial relationship, yes. >> secretary mattis? >> mr. putin has chosen to be a strategic competitor, yes. >> thank you, i yield back. >> mr. scott. >> thank you, mr. chairman. gentlemen, thank you for your service. just to refresh people's memory on the budget control act, it was put in place to effectively create so much pain on the discretionary side of the spending that it would force formula changes. one of the challenges.

we as a congress have been reactingive but it created a challenge for the three of you at the table. >> we will have challenges to make happen but the sooner the

better. the budget control act forces determination of the contract early. as we talk about those tough choices, a lot of countries were mentioned. some countries that were not in your testimony were venezuela, honduras, colombia, mexico. i had time visit with admiral ted in miami and we talked about the narcotics flow in the united states from those countries. approximately 50,000 americans died from drug overdoses last year. at a minimum, half of those drugs originating from the south

com area. a lot of countries down there are chaos that are going on outside of the transnational criminal organizations. what additional resources do we need to combat the organizations within the region given the threat they pose to americans. why is this not a higher u.s. national security priority? >> we have not been able to able to maintain the program. >> they were short funded.

there is a flood of cocaine coming into the united states. 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 intervention. over 50,000 americans died from drug over doses last year. significantly more than those that died of acts of terrorism. that war is on our border and it is right here and on top of us. with that said, i appreciate your service to the country, your commitment to the country,

and look forward to getting to know you better and thank you for your service as well. with that, i yield the remainder of my time. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you gentlemen for your service and joining us here this evening. >> secretary mattis, after the attacks on 9/11 the leaders of our country made a commitment they would go after and fight al-qaeda. we have not done that and as a result 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 doesn't include any mention or dollar to go after al-qaeda. my question is is this for military reasons or political

reasons namely that al-qaeda is a allied and so deeply intertwined with qutar and other states fighting to overthrow the syrian government.

>> the 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 they are at in syria makes them very difficult for us to reach frankly and we would have to deconflict even more via the russians. let me ask general if he has anything to add to this. but they are embedded deeply and hard to get to. >> i know you visited and you probably know and could argue whether we had sufficient resources we have a dedicated campaign against al-qaeda and syria. we have specific resources dedicated just for the fight against al-qaeda. but it is fair to say our priority in syria has been isis because we have operating largely in the east. ....

>> do you think we could startoh 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. >> 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, isn't that right. >> we use that authority, yes. the challenge is that right now we have a greater clear and present danger with isis and you so why in 2014, we went after what we thought was the priority danger to two different, through what administration and now at this administration. >> i think the reason why isis is a greater danger is because it wasn't taken seriously from the beginning. that is a concern with al qaeda,

it because it has been largely ignored it has grown to a point where it has now become difficult to take on. and it presents a greater threat to the united states. this must be addressed. >> i think that is fair. we are addressing it from yemen to somalia, other areas and we're certainly look at what you're talking about. it's not that we are not addressing it there, is that we don't have the reach right now and we will take a look at it. there's plenty of enemies in syria and i would agree with you on that. >> thank you mr. chairman. i want to thank everyone for being here tonight i know we have had a long session. mr. scott asks some of these issues and i'm concerned about quite frankly i came to congress to be on this committee and maybe i might not be as empathetic as some of the other

issues that are going on, everyone has their own area that they're interested in i'm sorry what is going on in the world and everything else your testimony is so important and we've had testimony about being c3 and c4 which translate and quite frankly by the senate know exactly the implications of not being ready and that means basically if it goes up we're going to have to commit troops to conflict with they're going to die, or at least be wounded. so that is a big priority with me. so we'll have this debate and a continuing resolution. i think it would be so stupid if we send that message again.

even worse if we don't and that sequester. now, my question, you know where i stand but i will be damned if i will bury anymore marines on my watch. if we are, if we continue with that as i described and we have units that are c3 and c4 and we have all of these commitments in europe and all over the world, what kind of message was sent to our allies and in this case particularly our nato allies that we have been after them to meet their 2% commitment, yet we ourselves cannot have our units combat ready. in light of the rand study, if you could adjust that in terms of the 28 countries is actually

29 now with montenegro in the what kind of message would we be sending them? >> we share your priority you place on this. that is the reason my we came for the 517 supplemental. it is why this budget grow significantly. i share the concern it does not grow enough, but again we're trying to balance a lot of things along with the debt. i have to recognize that this is going to take some type to get out. what is the message we send? i said the message to our allies is worrisome, it would not be reassuring but more importantly it is the message to our adversaries that would concern me. that this is the time to test us. >> i think you raise two issues. and the secretary spoke about one of them. the first is i think history tells us the perception of

strength has a lot to do with the probability of conflict. if adversaries look at us and we are strong and the perception is we are strong, that drives on the probability that we have to fight. the second thing he raises if deterrence fails it will become as you are. the cost of not being ready is it in time to account for objectives in a casualty. i cannot agree with you more. when our allies a nato or elsewhere look to the united states, what they see is what gives them confidence that we can meet our commitments to be strong. it is fair to say they have concerns about that. >> i yield back. >> mr. secretary, i went to begin by extending my sympathies to you and to those who are serving currently in afghanistan

and to the families of those who lost their lives in afghanistan this weekend. i think so much of what we are talking about and the support you are asking us to provide is to ensure, as you mentioned, that we are insuring the readiness of the ability of those praise service members to do the job that we have asked them to do. we also mention i think accurately so, that congress has sidelined itself from some of its key responsibilities and effects of those are very serious. i would add that i face congress sidelined itself from its ownership in the wars that we have been fighting. i want to make sure that we work more effectively together to ensure we are doing our part.

in this budget, in the projections for this coming year, what should we expect to see in afghanistan? how many service members to have their now? , do we project to see over the course of the year we have the budget for, or the proposed budget for? >> we have a little under 10000 u.s. service members there at this time. the commander on the ground, in light of the situation has asked for more, those discussions are ongoing right now with the president. and the chairman is also advising him. i think the decision will be taken soon. we have got to come up with a more regional strategy. so that what we are doing is connected to the geographic reality of where this enemies fighting from. it is not just from afghanistan. we are 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 few years. >> are the proposals in the ongoing conversations reflected in overseas contingency operations numbers that you presented earlier? >> they are not right now. >> a supplemental request depending on the outcome. >> there would be, yes, sir. we would have to have a discussion with you. >> something that you told us when we first had a chance to meet with you that has stuck with me is that the united states has two principal powers. the power of intimidation and the power of inspiration. to bring it back to the subject of the hearing on 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 use afghanistan again? you mentioned tomorrow 32 powers, how could we complement the extraordinary service of those were deployed in those whose lives are in the line with the resources necessary to provide the inspiration side of the equation? >> the inspiration side is more than just what we do play with. however, in the deployed category where we are out there 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 exchanged tours, there is a host of things we do in terms of broadening the americas inspiration. so it is actually a player in this competitive against competitive ideologies right now. are we doing enough? you can always do more. but you can always do more in the military and we tried to get the right blend. i think we're going in the right

direction on the. >> to think we need to do anything fundamentally different in afghanistan to achieve a different result as we approach almost 16 years in? or by large lippy more of the same for the foreseeable future? >> i think we have to do things differently sir. it has to be looked at as across-the-board whole of government, not just military efforts plus allied efforts and internationals. so the same lines of what secretary tillerson has orchestrated against isis right now. what nato is orchestrating in afghanistan. but even broader than what we're doing it up until now. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. secretary and general dunford, thank you for your dedication and service to our country. we appreciate that.

secretary mattis, i want to ask you about research and development for space and research and development for missile defense. i know you see the need for both of those important areas in your testimonial page five the you said outer space sanctuary is now contested. this creates the need to develop capabilities and capacities for more resilient satellites designed to withstand persistent kinetic and non- kinetic attack. in your written testimony point out the need for more capacity and more capability for space. also missile defense, you are proponent of exploring boost phase missile defense when the adversary missiles are at their most vulnerable state. so, i'm just concerned that the chairman asked you this at the

beginning of the hearing, you're cutting the budget for missile defense, research and development. in the space r&d budget it is at a 30 year low. in both cases we are not putting our money whether our mouth is. president trump wants to have a state-of-the-art missile defense system. how do we square the needs out there with the fact that we are cutting and mr. norquist will ask you to jump in, why are we not putting our money where our mouth is? >> sir, it is a prioritization. as you know, right now we have the ballistic missile defense capability at fort greeley in california. i think right now we can first to the study to make certain we know what is the requirement, what are we lacking, defined the problem well enough that we are

targeted like a laser beam on exactly what we need. boost phase is geographically dependent and that may not be something we want to put a lot of money into. it just may not be as relevant as increased naval capability that we can move around would be one example up and down her coast to help defend. i want to get this right before we come to you and spend a lot of money. you can count on us that we have done our homework and i have not yet done it. that's the best answer i can give you as far space, we are taking advantage of some things that the intelligence service are telling us. but i would prefer to study this a little more. i'm not disagreeing that we don't need the r&d in these two areas. >> thank you.

mr. norquist i'm sure you're itching to answer questions here tonight. >> thank you. i don't know how the r&d breaks out among the individual programs but overall the science and technology peace is 13.2 billion which is up 600 million from the 17 budget. there has been an investment in research and technology in the smt area. >> that is dod wide correct? >> correct. there has been an increase in that investment in that area. >> but you would agree with the idea of space and missile defense research development in particular, wouldn't you? >> correct. >> general to have anything to add. >> i do not. >> thank you mr. chairman i yelled back. >> mr. secretary, when i was a

second lieutenant standing in the kuwaiti desert you gave me confidence asthma division commander. i to say that you give me a lot of confidence today so thank you for continuing to serve the country. >> suffice it to say we are lucky to have you as well. >> speaking of that confidence, do you have confidence in our post muzzle, in our day after plan and iraq? i would never have believed standing in the desert 14 years ago that would still be there today with the plan as it is resource today, are you confident that we will be able to win iraq once and for all it is going to going to be a long fine, even in iraq as we throw

isis out. we are going to have to deal with the aftermath. i would tell you that we are working this by, with, through allies. i do not have the same control over the day-to-day activities of what is going to happen, for example in west mosul in the post calm back phase. but will have to work with the government and the post- combat pre-reconciliation face so that we do not end up in the same situation again. we are committed to working with the government iraq and the prime minister who visited here two months ago. >> from your view does the state department have the resources it needs to support the iraqi government? >> i believe they do. i would defer to the state department evaluation of that. >> in order to do your job you need to have a workforce.

personnel of the department of defense and there is been concerned about filling positions. how many positions do you have unfilled today? >> i need to take that for the record, day by day we're getting more people through the process. as you know the senate armed service committee has high ethical standards higher than any other department that come to work. it takes a while for some to disentangle the finances. it's challenging. >> have there been nominations or names rejected by the administration, names not requiring senate confirmation? >> i'm not aware of any rejected at the white house. there is some we're told would not make it through capitol hill, but i had no and that i

can think of rejected there. >> is there anyone you have brought on for the department of defense that has subsequently been pulled out for political reasons by the white house? >> i've only had a few brought on and with the air force controller i have not had any pulled out. >> i would like to move on to the role of congress. you have outlined as the chairman the responsibilities that we have to ensure proper budget, proper resources to come to grips with the financial situation of the country in which people in your position has cited as one of the greatest threats to national defense. if you can name the top five programs or projects that you do

not want to of the department of defense, but we here in congress force upon it, thereby taking away resources from requirements that you need to fund, i think that would be helpful as we go through the process. >> i better do a little homework and get back to you on that. i have mention that black is one that i do want, congress may not want but i think i can make a persuasive argument on the. i cannot think of something that congress is forcing it now. i will look into this and get back to. >> which he be able to get back to us before the markup with atlas? >> i should be able to get back to this week. i imagine if there's something out there i will find a quick. >> thank you both again for your service. we are proud to have you. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. secretary had think you'll

find broad bipartisan support for the budget request that we have received which increases defense spending a little bit. i think you'll also find bipartisan support for even more. as a forming navy pilot currently serving in the national guard i used to fly counter drug missions. i like to piggyback on what mr. scott from georgia was talking about. they supply the night wolves. in 2013 mice quadrant was eliminated. he was responsible for busting about two alien dollars for the cocaine every year on the high seas. that cocaine now comes into the united states and of course i think you mentioned 50000 americans dry and drug overdoses every year which is more than all we have lost in vietnam, if

not close to more. this is a big concern is for is the capability gap. understand when you mention the concern is if we spend too much too fast it could end up putting us in a position where it's not sustainable and we could and up with a hollow force. i would also say there are a lot of unfunded requirements that ultimately we could be working on today. i've asked general dunford that when we deploy a fad missile battery are we doing that with full missile preceptors? >> we have some challenges that plead over into the navy weapon systems. >> are you aware that when we deploy one there's underway switching of one from the other. >> i am. so these are examples of unfunded requirements that

ultimately would not put us in a position to have this in the future. >> today we have requested resources that get to the maximum amount that industry can produce. industry can produce at the level of prediction that have right now. they can only produce so much today based on what we tell them tomorrow. one area that has been highlighted is predictability in the future. the only way we'll get around the challenge is why we need stable, predictable budgets. we cannot buy what we need until we have that at adequate levels. industry is telling us that we are producing at the maximum rate we can. if we could tell them what

resources would be available down the road they could increase the industrial capacity we been living year-to-year with a number of crs that we've had we have not been able to get it to meet our requirements. that's a story of precision. >> you for doing a defense appropriation annually, how do we address that? >> we would have to provide our industry partners with some degree of accuracy for resources that would be available in now ears. we're simply not able to do that. >> i would encourage mr. chairman and mr. secretary to look at the budget and as we work as a body know that we fully support increasing defense spending. we have capabilities leaving on the table. if we can support you in that

effort we want to do it. i encourage you to look at unfunded requirements specifically. >> thank you mr. chairman. gentlemen, thank you for being here this evening. secretary mattis, your testimony you have fried priorities this is the support of what we call the local funding. uncle has been something i never quite understood for the time i've been here. it is originally [inaudible] budget so to speak and we reported but it's still a question of whether accounts are doesn't come. in your mind when you said your fifth priority is in support of that budget what do you anticipate the $64 billion used for. >> this is for operations

against isis and iraq and syria, it has to do with anyplace we have active areas of hostilities, afghanistan for example. this is over and above the standard budget to maintain our military. these are for the operations we conduct there. unfortunately we have seen at times things that belong in the base budget and put into the oakland. i share the frustration that the base budget should have the base budget on the should only be for those things that grow based on overseas contingencies operations. >> so that definition is the battle against isis, afghanistan, iraq, and syria, would that be correct? >> it also pays for units at home stations preparing to go to those particular fights.

we also have some outside of that with the al qaeda fight in africa. >> but it's also tied to isis. >> to some terrorist organization. >> mr. secretary, no from your history that you are an interesting person in a sense that your time at hoover you have written a lot. one of my favorite reading materials that you did was the warrior and the citizen they put together at hoover institute. >> how do you want to put together come to grips with the fact that we have a qdr in 2018, you authorized an npr in 2017 and i believe somewhere in there there'll be a reveal of the ballistic missile defense. so, do you feel that it is premature? or do you feel any of the status

could affect with you coming here and asking us for today? >> certainly it will affect it, there will be implications downstream. right now we know the situation and the threats we face today, we know the force we have today and the readiness shortfalls that we have today. i'm confident that we can justify the dollars we are asking for. certainly we'll define the problem strategic and operational project for the future that need further address. but right now, i'm confident that what we are asking for we can defend. >> you cannot come to congress on page 11 of your testimony talk about brack and expect to have a free pass at that. can you tell me, when you talk about brack and you want the ability to congress to give you the authority to consider

tracking, can you tell me what your criteria is? you must have some idea by requesting it as to what kind of quote and establishment of facilities you want to brack? you must feel it's a success it would be facilities we no longer need nor can we first see using them in the future and significant parts of our reserve. it would be the ones that we don't and the facilities that don't perhaps any longer have training capability because of urban spread around the. or we can no longer safely do it we used to do there. it would be that's a should. >> is there a list or some kind of potential brack list exist today?

>> have been told we have 20% excess capacity. as i said earlier i'm not confident in that figure. i would want to look at it again make certain we validate the criteria that was used to get there and then go back through. . .

>> >> because you want to have that motivation. the first question is how to use the the morale of our military today?. >> also like the chairman to respond to that with my discussions with the emails that i received they show initiative to help me to run this department. i will tell you that so far we have the morale and the affection of the american people is understood so i believe the family is in many cases with the

deployments of their husbands wives and i think that there is some question about the level of commitment and to put their vehicles in the field or they are deployed longer oversees to go through more extensive repairs. >> one of the of privileges is to go around and meet with members of all services by and large morale is very high but the secretary spoke about families and also if you look at these readiness challenges if you are a pilot that is flying and is in the squadron with 12

aircraft and only has six you cannot help to think that affects you. we are recruiting and retaining high-quality people. morale is higher than we should expect it should be after 16 years of for. it was never envisioned to be at war for this length of time so there is a lot of reasons to be proud but i don't take it for granted that some of those challenges that we have with people who are in the unit's will have an impact on retirement we should be attentive to that. >> sometimes the country doesn't always understand the sacrifices made by the troops and their family and the challenges they face when they are not a full readiness we would like. so that's is on us to make sure the country is aware of that.

as you look ahead with a current readiness to do less things that we would like so it is challenging to make a list of what we will do next how to be as have that step-by-step plan? traditionally we go to the next debt and keep moving on. this is a different environment that we have ever seen talk about terrorism as well as the adversary so it would be helpful to us to explain how difficult it is to be on a fully ready and equipped to compile a plan to get this where we want to be someday rather could be some peace so my question is do you have a list based on that that reflects what you need but don't have?.

>> we have an assessment that tells us what we need to be ready for and that comes to us from our regional commanders based on the treaties to protect the american homeland. for when national security looks like and based on that with the lovable of readiness that is the way we parse that out with the air force or navy for the readiness to deploy so we break that down manageable to the unit commanders of the note they are expected the brigade commander knows he needs to shoot to destroy a a an enemy so we do have

it but the commanders and the troops know. >> thanks borer being your which this late hours and the willingness to answer all of our questions so candid the. the question that was asked mentioning america his role to be a world leader and secretary mattis you said yourself in 2013, if you don't fund is fully that i need to borrow more to -- by more ammunition. so with foreign aid is about 32% and with a recent op-ed by the retired admiral mullin and james jones mentioned research has suggested been investing in

prevention is 60 times less costly than war said you increase the foreign diplomatic support by the president doesn't that undermine our stature around the world if we do?. >> that is tough to answer because i have not looked at where those cuts live. i cannot give you the authoritative answer that when the president's budget was released to to the department of defense and department of state you looked at where is the money that i have that is anticipated to be received and jointly to figure out those priorities to be a sense of teamwork and collaboration with the

department of state to try to get the best return on the money. but honestly i have not looked at his budget so i would rather not speak on that. >> so how does that relate? because if we don't put money into prevention doesn't increase the budget request? especially with isis or cyberor terrorism then what do you have to do on the back end?. >> the challenges we face in some cases are against this enemy for a long time there is probably very little they can do to rationally move them out because they did

not rationally gain perspective. that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to take the next generation and prevent them from going down this path. but i would tell you in terms of defense of the country that is what the department of defense doesn't to make the department the most we felt it could we is where the focus although a look very closely with the secretary and support his efforts. >> thanks for being so patient with us. are like to go back to the discussion earlier of the signs of our navy fleets. that for structure assessment from last year recommends 55 ships. the president and commander-in-chief says we

need to be close to one another. the cbo gives an estimate to require an additional $5 billion per year for ship building. so do you agree in general with the cbo analysis what we need to be spending per year on shipbuilding?. >> i have seen that and it looks right based in my experience. have you heard questioning we know that we're not going in that direction with the proposed budget to 2018 proposal at one point will we spend that extra $5 billion?. >> chairman thanks for asking. my characterization it is the second year in a row that we begin a trend that was eight years in the

making and will take several years to get us out of the whole which is why i just highlight to my opening remarks that relative competitive a vantage today requires 3 percent above inflation so in the coming years and we don't have a long-term program now when we think about what is adequate in the future in the context of those requirements with their real growth that is required. >> you made an important point. so every year to push the time line further do you have any concerns we push that time line back further with some of the ships that are presently in the fleet?. >> so back to that example

since we tell them with predictability with a copper wiring but the fact we're not able to provide predictability for things like shipbuilding that means we cannot make those requirements. i am concerned we're late to get after these requirements and also to provide predictability means we cannot afford getting to this number of ships. >> secretary, your boss the commander-in-chief once 350 ship fleet. you just heard what the general said. with the pace we're on right now where d.c. the fleet being at the end of president trounced presidency at the end of in

2025?. >> there is a lot of variables. >> based on the budget request i know you are planning for the years out what d.c. 80 years from now? i need to come back to you with a reply that was researched. the challenge is we're in a position right now that we try to address this sow will take a budget of around 5% growth in order to get to where we want to go.

3% philosophize so i strongly support to give you those resources that you need to protect americans that means we need to repeal the budget control act i am prepared to do that. i yield back. >> banks for being here secretary and general i cannot tell you every the dam so you provide great adult supervision to this administration i am thankful for your service and the where you are at and

following up on that question regarding climate change one of the many reasons why to withdraw from the of paris climate accord is because of the security risk if we do not address climate change. for example, rising sea levels will affect the coastline that is not limited to california as they are higher risks and with over a 38 military states sites in the quantity devastates are facing risk because of sea level rises

with it a fact of sea level rise in climate change in general especially in terms of protecting critical military infrastructure and how can climate change complicate our strategic objective in terms of asia pacific rebalance strategy? and withdrawal from the paris accord that they would not do anything about it. but not that they would not address climate change. so what they do to address this inside the of military is consumed by the situation in korea for gore do need to get some specifics but with that physical infrastructure

of that is a significant concern with the effects of water whether hurricane or rising sea levels. i don't have a good answer for you right now but i will get you one. >> secretary mattis it is estimated to cost $1 trillion to sustain and modernize. so we need more nuclear weapons. so that is nuclear proliferation. and with nuclear proliferation. >> a think nuclear non-proliferation has not received enough attention over quite a few years and i

met with former secretaries of defense to gave their perspective then they are coming to see me tomorrow afternoon when i get done testifying in the morning on the senate side on this very issue. and for what was mentioned earlier by one of your colleagues i think this is critical. we have a responsibility to reenergize that non-proliferation effort. >> thank you very much. >> i want to talk about north korea kim jong un noone with that ability to hit the united states and seems to be assessed and he

believes that existential threat we don't have to wait until it is here to start addressing it. >> exactly. to use the conventional capability and what is left of north korea it is a war like nothing we have seen since 1953. and we have to deal with it with whatever force is necessary. that is not the most articulate but it would be a very very serious war.

>> so with regard this 25 million people in seoul, korea and those other within range of missiles and artillery pieces of four i've no doubt of rigo to or we will win the war. we will be successful to accomplish the objectives and i am equally confident that secretary mattis that we will see casualty's the we have not seen in 67 years in to expose and that we could not mitigate. >> the american people need to understand the gravity of the situation and we will win but this is something like we have never seen an

should diplomacy fails. >> so in that scenarios on the hook to give up plans i am pleased to see the president's request that is nine operational squadrons and to that would be grounded soon so right now on the dmv there is day playing to deal with the threat from russia and therefore generals have testified they're willing to go down june 6 squadrons so you have agreed you want this capability and i appreciate getting to that point so we want that

capability but if we were to provide that funding would appreciate having that capacity of those nine squadrons?. >> absolutely the priorities are right where they are right now but if you have the money for the additional ones it would increase our fighting capabilities. >> i thank you understand the dynamic so to meet the requirements right now i need all of your legacy capability and more and i also need you to take that up line to drill the air force for what we need tomorrow so they have that about right within the top line they have been given but the truth is there is more requirement bin capability and capacity. >> i yield back.

>> thank you for your service and your presence this evening and stamina and patience. the question is primarily for secretary mattis you are not only will read but into this evening for what you co-authored that you wrote for the past 20 years that they have been marching largely operated by strategy and while we would have experienced those successes that doesn't add up to a strategic victory. as a credibility and a national treasure for pro so

as to how and why you then say you're confident today looking at a proposal of fiscal year 18 budget with a future year defense program my do with knowledge in your written testimony that you stated to make hard choices as redevelop the new defense strategy that is informed by national defense strategy but as we sit here today would you say this is a costly undertaking without a strategy? there seems some silence on what decision rules for north to react capabilities or what is the acceptable and state and there are other components

going into a strategy so what we see now seems more like a budget for tactical success and not a strategic victory. >> we have to do is define very clearly with the number of studies that have been mentioned this evening to help in that definition so the point i was making in that article from the blue print from america that i was referring to is wiry going into korea or vietnam, or iraq and why did we end up with those victories it is an interesting article by the president emeritus of dartmouth university and

said why do we go into these wars if we don't know how to end them? the point was to find a political and state you cannot figure how to end the war notice i left out of desert storm there was a very clear political guidance given but when you shift from those tactically vince then we can define the threats to this country. that is why i am confident. >> for you confident we have a strategy post isis or syria or iraq out how we share stability? so secretary tillers and in his role as secretary of state with those military factors the foreign policy of the united states is drawn up by

the state department and is putting that together very well so with our officers in that fight i am confident it is being put together but i know we have to fight the enemy no matter what. that is part of the current situation and does not require a fully fleshed out a strategy yet but we will have to have one pretty darn? >> so that reduction of 29 percent of the state department budget but is that proposed? you talk about that whole approach so does that informed of budget that we see in front of us?. >> your state department dollars is that reflected in

the numbers?. >> i don't believe so. by have diplomats serving alongside us right now. but i don't feel that i am knowledgeable enough to give you a detailed understanding of what those cuts are. 1/2 touche deferred juice secretary of state. >> thanks for being here tonight. so probably there is no greater historical example of what happened in the philippines 1942 of a bite to read some excerpts from one of the soldiers that was there there were 2,000 americans thus rendered 650

died on the death march all of those that survived were weakened and had horrific suffering more than two-thirds died one of the survivors who've seen the american army from starvation and sickness not prepared or superior enemy forces a lonesome feeling i've seen a country we were defending occupied the early inefficiently and completely i saw the american way of life change in one moment on the bill wilder faces of the high command as it tried to comprehend the enormity of what to instruct them and veteran officers schools and traditional authority and routine command a change be

tired and beaten and just try to keep walking from american soldiers from generations of liberty in our blood we became the chattel we said if what is happening could have been here for just one week would change in their attitude about the future of our way of life. use the prayers of our people the planes are faster so in the back i say let's have what it takes. i do not know of those people if they will understand and it they will act accordingly. united states did business and there is no cost to

great you stated in the remarks tonight that the enemy will move against the we kerry is and has risen to the challenge and we're in one of those moments now. if you take the president's budget the defense related dollars are subtracted over the president's budget why could the president not take congress's lead and what budget would best prepare the military?. >>. >> i read about that

campaign with no right to the victory on the battlefield. and how we got into this situation i was shocked. so to move bin a stable way we could not recruit right now the troops for the u.s. military with that the dollar's trend earlier if young people are even eligible right now to build the number of ships even repealing a the budget control act we literally could not do some of this to

raise armies and sustain navy's. we will have to work together if this is the will of the congress i am confident the commander-in-chief. >> thank you for our service to our country and their families. and want to bring us back to a couple of things it is obvious we need to invest and eliminate the budget act issues. and with those other issues associated but we have a

situation where is much as you want to know we want to know where you want to go when the future. and with $19 billion and to talk about $5 billion for additional ships with $24 billion, pounded over the years. that is just a statement that i have a concern if we get to next year and where we will get to be with the larger scope than congress has before and a second, as secretary for those that were competitive with salaries and high school diplomas and we are not

asking these young men to do work in the united states. to put themselves in harm's way. and with society today. the back to the secretary of state issue. betty international development that talking does one thing to get to the hearts of the people that

reducing regional chaos to foster a coherent order that former chairman admiral mollen stated in this manner put the men and women in uniform can we have an agreement that it is critical with the highest level necessary camry can stop those wars and the bloodshed we were trying to prevent and we want to make sure the diplomats understand against the will funded u.s. military can provide bringing on

mr. norquist i think you have us a challenge to have not met and i yield back. >> the russians and chinese are allocating resources and to make rapid gains in with that hypersonic missile one year ahead of schedule the defense analysts said is a quantum leap of technology. are we where we need to be against these threats? but with the rapid technological change to increase the

hypersonic r&d effort. >> you believe bin compartmentalization in these areas are sections? but to get acquisition reform and bringing in people from private industry to identify those problems well enough. from inside the department so i think right now 75 million i am not sure where the money will be taken from more of it is added on but i know we have to put more money into hypersonic funding.

>> bin the responsibility and i am sobered by the irresponsibility that each of you have and thanks for your service. so with that secretary to listen i was fortunate to go to afghanistan with this special forces and to do their responsibilities with the state department with those plans that are developed moving long-term plans with the infrastructure? so to

ensure we have the than them approach. >> if there is a collaboration. >> with great if there were documents to show the collaboration to how to address that situation that with those current troops and general nicholson and others made a very persuasive case that 5,000 more troops were forced protection to replace them with their private contractors made since to save money and build morale to help out. in may a report came out that the intelligence community was 50,000 more troops.

so can you put us at ease with that current level of force protection or 50,000 more troops?. >> i give no credibility of 50,000 more troops for cry can assure you nor the commander in the field or the chairman of the jury chiefs has given me any request like that. not even close. that is somebody's fantasy i assure you. >>. >> also said this. >> so the general was your that the additional activity rand from manipulation with the involvement of the occupation from cry me an attempt with france and

elsewhere with the of a propaganda campaign with a cyberactivities with the infrastructure from ukraine. but russia is attempting to discredit that relevance of the west. so forget about the united states now. so with that hybrid warfare we talk heavily about the highbred warfare disinformation and what can we do?. >> i will have the chairman speak to this russia chose

to be a strategic competitor they wanted veto authority over those security interests. the changing character of for. >> and beyond that outright corruption to undermine the government's. >> absolutely so how do we adapt for the enemy? so what we have the chairman answer with a heavily military education as well. >> we spent a lot of time looking at this issue. >> we will break away from the hearing as the senate will gavel back again and then we will bring you back to this hearing on c-span2. the clerk: the senator from