reemergence of competition by powers. with russian china's priority we need to meet the challenge of north korea, iran, and violent extremist organizations.

china and russia continue to invest in cyber, space, and conventional capabilities. most states are trying to undermine our the credibility of our alliances. they're also adept at advancing below the threshold of our own conflict. north korea has been on the relentless pursuit. they made it clear that their intended to threaten the united states and our allies. iran continues to create instability. we've made progress over the past year were grappling with the violence extremism including a sits, al qaeda and others. defending our allies requires us to maintain a balanced inventory of ready, lethal and flexible forces relevant across many operations.

we have begun to arrest the erosion of our advantage in our developing the path to meet our current and future challenges. this year's budget builds this in and reinforces our effort to have the capabilities both today and tomorrow. i and all the senior leaders in the department are making a commitment that will make every dollar count. will support the auditing initiative and maintain an ongoing dialogue in addressing our current readiness challenges in building capabilities. to restore our competitive advantage we require sustained, sufficient and predictable funding. the funding is sufficient. i look forward to making it sustained and predictable. thank you for your support.

>> my understanding is that you do not have a oral statement. >> that's correct. >> many secretaries on test questions. let me just pose one for you. made reference to a study that showed a 40% increase in aviation mishap since the budget control act took effect. over the past three weeks there's been criticism about the amount in the funding bill that was passed and signed. it's important for this committee in the country to hear from you about the significance of the funding bill that was passed in the two-year agreement that most of us voted for in february to raise the budget control. how does that affect the men and women who serve our nation and our national security?

>> thank you. i believe this committee is keenly aware of the readiness challenges we face. ever since i got into this job you have been part of the solution, all of you have been part of the solution. right now, we can't repair our way out of the situation. we will have to buy, in some cases, the capabilities have simply worn out and had to set aside. whether aircraft were squadrons don't have enough, or ships that can't go back to see on time because when we open them up long-overdue for maintenance we find things wrong inside that lengthen their time in the shipyard. when he put it together, it's way you can have young officers getting promoted to major that is not had the same flight hours

you expected that a lieutenant or captain had. because we have not funded for. aircraft's are not available and maintainers have not been there. this is not pointing the finger, it is where we are at. we'll deal with it. with your help, we are going to be will to come out from underneath and put our readiness where you expected to be. when we put it all together it did not have the kind of budget support is needed for a balance force. we can spend every dollar, the audit will find problems. we will correct those problems in working with you and we are aware that we have got to deliver more ready force

objectively, quantitatively that we can lay out. it is necessary with what you've given us. it's up just to spend every dollar where you expect us to spend it. >> to want to add anything general dunford? >> it is an agreement that allows us to balance the needs of today and tomorrow. we used to look at operations and maintenance money is associated with the future. i believe there's a distinction without a difference. we have to modernize the force to be ready against the challenges. as a result of 15 years of erosion we can collectively think of these as discrete. today is tomorrow and the investments we make the same as

we need to make sure the brigades are up and running today. >> thank you. just out of curiosity a response for fiscal year 19 i believe if you count the doe portion is $647 billion. it's not not counting others. the budget cap number is $567 billion. about an 80 billion-dollar cut. are you planning on having to absorb that cut? are you hoping there some way to avoid the budget control act in 20 and 2021. . .

that includes requests from us but right now i would suggest that in light of percent of the gdp we are putting out for military security fence and america can afford survival in our job is to make what we bring to you is only what is required and i don't want to lock myself into since -- >> i'm sorry, if i may enter but that basically what you're saying is you believe that if we go back to the budget caps of 2020 and 21 we will be putting the country at risk and you do not accept that number and you are not planning on the number. >> sir, i owe you my best.

>> but i want your honest opinion. >> i love to see the budget go down in the world were looking at i don't think that is going to the case. >> right. well, you don't think that would put us in a position to provide for the national security if the budget went back to the cap numbers in fy 20 and 21. >> i do not consider. >> the problem with that is, of course, the debt and deficit that i talk about in my colleagues i would say that whatever disagreements we may have on exactly the numbers the defense budget should be we are headed towards an enormous problem unless he can continue to borrow north of a trillion dollars every year basically forever and so there are big picture budget things we need to deal with even if we disagree on the exact number for the defense budget going forward. it will create -- we will be back in the answer to the a year

from now if you don't come up with some confidence report to our budget challenge. last thing i will say is, you know, i think given the budget we face we have to try to find ways to save money as much as possible had this discussion before and i just want to put it on the record that i don't think we need to spend one point to trillion dollars modernizing our nuclear weapons and we certainly need to modernize them but again, i said this for hearings china has 275 nuclear weapons. that is it. we have 15, 20 times as many. they have set up deterrence and very credible determinants because people don't know that you weapons these days are roughly a thousand times more powerful than the one that dropped on your oshima. we ought to be able to come up with a nuclear deterrent strategy that costs us a lot less money and also if there are fewer nuclear weapons out there and not just on our side, granted, but on all sides there is less risk of stumbling into a nuclear war.

i am deeply concerned about nuclear modification in terms of what it really does for national security the risks and places for nuclear conflict and also just for the budget because i will say this i am one of percent with the chairman on the readiness crisis of the way you described. we are not providing the equipment for the training for our troops that we should right now to make sure they are ready. i want to find money wherever i can to make sure that we are in is one big area that i will be looking at. if it is okay you can send me your comments for the record and i want to let other people get in but i wanted that on record. i go back. >> as all members were notified we are going to pick up the questioning today where we left off when the secretary was with us in the worry and mr. lamborn is organized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank you both for your service to our country. for either or both of you

everyone knows that russia is in violation of the inf three and you expect the russians return anytime soon to verifiable compliance with that treaty? >> right now, congressman, we have very modest expectations that they would return to compliance as a result in a nuclear posture review we are looking for a way at the lowest possible cost to check make them and make it in their best interest to return to compliance. >> general, do you have anything add? >> i would say that one of the things we are doing in this budget that we submitted is there is research and development for noncompliant weapons that has allowed the treaty and that is in the budget for fy 19 so we're not looking for operational concepts and ways to deal with the russian violation but we are also at least posturing ourselves to develop weapons should they be

required. >> and i think we should stress the point that even as we stay in the tree, although i'm skeptical that they will come back into compliance, and we are unilaterally tying her hands in her back we are legitimately allowed to do research for noncompliance and is that not correct in we are doing that and it's in the budget congressman and as we modernize this nuclear deterrent our effort will also be met at the state department by placement on arms control and nonproliferation. there are two thrusts to our nuclear strategy. as a result we have got to do something that would make it in russians best interest to return to compliance and that is why those funds have been requested. >> i'm glad they are being requested. how important is it to have additional options in our nuclear stockpile to address

possible threats in the future? >> in order to keep a deterrent fit for its time it has got to be one that adjusts to any changes that we see an adversary potential adversary making. in this case, you will notice that there are several adaptations. one of them is to return possibly the nuclear cruise missiles to the navy ships and we had them there before. a second one is to put a small number of low yield weapons on board navy submarines, ballistic missile submarines. this is because we have uncovered and it's been upfront with the idea that they could escalate or de-escalate and what that means is use a low yield their weapon in a conventional war to compel surrender,

basically. our point is they say you can't do that and we are going to have a low yield weapons and were not confronted only by using a high-yield which they believe we would not do. in order to make certain that deterrence works they must know that we don't have a choice only between surrender or suicide. that is why we are doing these kinds of adaptations to stay fit for our time. >> led to that because is going to the budget some folks may argue that having additional options is destabilizing. we all want as much stability as possible when it comes to these powerful weapons so it is your belief that it is stabilizing to have more options -- is that not

correct? >> the entire point of the nuclear modernization is to maintain a nuclear deterrent that stabilizes and deters any use of the weapons and that is why we have looked at the research and development as authorized under the treaty and it's why we are looking for low yield weapons as well. it raises our deterrent effect of what it has and reduces the chance of nuclear war. >> thank you so much. i proceed what you do for our country. mr. chairman, i am back. >> i played the gentleman keeping all questions and answers within five minutes. let me encourage everyone to do that. this way we can get to as many people as possible. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to both witnesses. i proceed the remarks the past of the omnibus on march 201st and it was a bipartisan effort and it is important to note that not only was a bipartisan bonita caucus by itself was able to deliver the vote to pass it by

itself so it truly took a coalition of, again, your repeated testimony last two or three years about the harm that the sequestration caps were causing in terms of readiness and other issues. again, you are a big part of the external effort to get us to that point. obviously to create a two-year horizon with a bipartisan budget agreement. secrete matters, on page three of your testimony it states that the 2018 national defense strategy provides clear strategic development and direction to reclaim an era of strategic purpose which is, i think, a aspirational goal for our country to get a clear picture that budgets are tied to a stable strategy unfortunately the events of last week's we have comments coming out of the white house that regarding syria

which are disconnected to that goal. on march 28 the president was giving a speech on info structure where without any prompting we talked about leave syria. soon and again when the pentagon was asked that they referred to the media to the white house to get an explanation. on april 3 at joint appearance with president of estonia, latvia and lithuania he double down saying they wanted to get out and that the us wants to get out and forth said it would be within a few months and on aprie chemical attack which, again, resulted in a generation of comments coming out of the white house talking about missile attacks and yesterday morning russia faust to shoot down any and all missiles fired at russia and get ready russia because they will become a nice, new and

smart. again, in terms of trying to align those messages with clear strategic direction for our country i am not asking you to answer any questions about operational that you are considering right now but what is the policy of the department of defense regarding a strategy regarding the assad regime, its future and civil war or is there a strategy? >> yes sir. thank you for your comments about my role in the bipartisan omnibus but i would tell you that without this committees bipartisanship that you have right in this room i think my comments would have been whistles in the dark. i think it was the example you set on syria both the last administration and this one made it very clear that our role in syria is the defeat of isis and we are not going to engage in the civil war itself. now, you can look back to your ago when we did fire missiles into syria unrelated to crisis

and that was the use of chemical weapons and some things are simply inexcusable beyond the pale and in the worst interest of not just the chemical weapons convention but the civilization itself. the recognition of that means at times you will see contrary impulses. he saw president obama try to deal with chemical weapons when he was in and enlisting the russians now it shows were complicit in syria retaining the weapons and the only reason president assad is in power is because of the russians regrettable potatoes in the un and the russian military so how do we deal with this complex situation? first of all, we are committed to ending that war through the geneva process and the un orchestrated effort. it has been unfilled because, again, russia has continually blocked the efforts but that

doesn't mean we give up. we work with the international community and the united nations to get the geneva process underway and make certain that we don't allow this work to go on. icing refugees from asia and europe and kosovo to africa and i've never seen refugees is traumatized is coming out of syria. it has got to end and our strategy remains the same a year ago is to drive this to a un brokered peace but at the same time keep our foot on the neck of isis until we suffocated. >> think the gentleman. mr. whitman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for joining us and for your service. secretary mattis, i want to begin by going to your words in your statement we talk about the downward trajectory of our navy inventory and of navy legality. in response to the last year this committee authorized 26-point to billion dollars and

13 warships and many of us were bitterly disappointed when the appropriators cut that number 223.7 billion in ten warships. i think our effort will be to continue to have the path of rebuilding the readiness incapability within our navy and obviously the navy marine corps needs that in the mission going corporate in your test money you state the fleet will continue to grow to meet capabilities needed in the future and maintain an industrial base healthy enough to adapt and evolve a dynamic environment. i'm still concerned, though, as you saw last year we authorized 6 billion essentially appropriated 24 billion essentially this year in the fy 19 request was for $21 billion for shipbuilding. i expected more because we had lifted the caps last year so i thought there would be as you talk about a response to that

downward trajectory. let me ask you this. if given resources is our military have the need for additional submarines and do we have a more efficient and effective way to purchase aircraft carriers? can we build amphibious ships for our marines on a more cost-effective timeline? >> sir, we always need more submarines we always need more ships. in a world i would have and i would tell you right now that i would have a 350 ship navy. i have to deal with where the ball lies and not where i wanted to be. i think that as you look at the trade-off and the balance and we tried to go with current capabilities with the future rolling challenges of space and cyberspace that have got to be accommodated we have probably did very well on shipbuilding.

can we get more affordable aircraft carriers? we not only can but we will. you will not see another one that goes through what you all experienced as you went down to normal and saw that beautiful ship. it's too late and over budget and there are ways to prevent that in the future. we're going to make better use of the dollars and make them more affordable navy and there are some strategic decisions to be made about how we do that to include what we do and cyberspace so each ship is more capable but also i would tell you that this is part of an integrated force and nobody can integrate their forces in the world better than we can right now. >> thank you mr. secretary. i want to talk about the ready reserve perspective is projected that are ready reserve force carries over 90% of readiness lift if called upon and already reserved for us today, 46 ships average 43 years old.

in fact, we have maintained some of the only hosting plans left the world on board ships. they are essentially floating smithsonian institute displays. some have speculated that in a conflict the limiting factor will be c. general, i know you talked about that about where we are that. what steps are we pursuing to address what we believe is a strategic agency. >> i want to take that photographer and i met with the commander of the sea left and there is a way to make the ships and not just modernize them at just a cheap price and we are also going to buy certain types of ships in the future. i believe there right now we've got a pretty good plan for it and the prioritization of it and

what does the army really need to bring. the army is trying to adapt as well and that is significant impact on what is the requirement and want to make certain i get the requirement right so i don't come in and tell you that i built something i didn't need five years from now i need to be there. i will get back to you something on that, sir. >> very good. thank you. mr. chairman, i am back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome to you both. i appreciate you being here before us. i, too, would like to focus on syria. the chemical weapons attack against innocent civilians in syria over the weekend is but the latest tragic atrocity in the country. secretary mattis, you referenced a refugee crisis in human rights watch has reported at least 86 verified chemical weapons attack there so we know what a terrible situation exists there. in response to the most recent attacks the president has signaled that the administration is reviewing possible military actions. there are compelling uncertainties surrounding

renewed strikes in syria just to name a few -- how these actions fit into a broader strategy and what you try to address in some form the nature of the support from international partners in our condemnation of president assad's atrocities and how any renewed action in syria particularly should escalate into a broader conflict would impact our ability to engage in other areas of concern around the world. not the least of which but i hot it is clearly time for congress to review existing authorizations for use of military force and to engage in the consider debate this these times require. as we speak the administration is reviewing possible military courses of action. i appreciate the timing of your appearance here today. as you are considering possible steps forward military actions you might take what you hope to achieve by any military action that the administration might eventually decide to take?

>> christmas, i don't want to get as you will understand into the details of a potential decision by the commander-in-chief do to this latest attack which is absolutely inexcusable. there been a number of these attacks in many cases you know we don't have were not engaged in the ground there so i cannot tell you that we have evidence even though we certainly have a lot of media and social media indicators that chemical gases were used. as far as our current situation is, like last time, we decide we have to take military action in regard to this chemical weapons attack then like last time we will be reporting to congress just as we did when we fired a little over a year ago slightly over a year ago. as far as the counter violent extremists -- >> before taking any action you would report to congress as the nature of what that action might

be? >> i will speak only to the fact that we will report to keep open lines of medication and there will be notification to the leadership was prior to the attack but we will give a full report to the congress itself probably as rapidly as possible. on the counter violent -- requested for this. would you take action support from our allies? i know that the administration is engaged in talks with france and the uk and would you think to have them involved in any action we might take? >> as you know, ma'am, congresswoman -- >> with abby a precondition for track. >> our strategy is to engage with allies and nothing to do. i do not want to discuss the current situation because i owe confidentiality to our allies

due to the sensitive nature of military operations and the need to keep those secret. i think you'll find nothing inconsistent with your view in what we are doing without going into details. >> what worries you most about any military actions we might take given the highly complex landscape in syria and the many actors that are engage their. >> there's a tactical concern, ma'am, that innocent people and we don't add and do everything humanly possible that we are trying to stop the murder of innocent people but on a strategic level is how do we keep this from escalating out of control if you get my drift on that mac i get your drift. are you back mac thank you, mr. chairman.

thank you so much for your years of dedicated service to the united states. secretary, you mentioned that in previous testimony today that we don't have confirmation yet whether or not there was a chemical attack and the only reasonably don't we have enough evidence to certainly believe that there was an attack in the fact that they didn't russians and the syrian assad government to not grant immediate access, i believe, that was requested and could you speak to that? >> i can, congress can. i believe there was a chemical attack and we are looking for the actual evidence. the opc w is the organization for the chemical weapons convention and we are trying to get those inspectors in probably within the week.

you know the challenges we face with russia projected in the un and made certain that we cannot get investigators in. we will not know from this investigating team that goes i in -- if you get them in -- if there is a muslim and we will not would you did it. they can only say they found evidence were did not and that each day goes by, as you know, it's a nonpersistent gas so it becomes more and more difficult to confirm it. that is the rat right now, certain. >> thank you. the question on the aircraft. the air force is currently testing a aircraft that may be required by the department for use as a cost-effective way to provide close air support of counterinsurgency, armed reconnaissance and another combat operations in a more when

in a more permissive threat environment. i think an f22 was recently used to attack a taliban and dru labd that was in terms of the operational cost and the aircraft approximately thousand dollars in terms of its operational cost in our. i wonder if you could speak to having them in our inventory and where again, in a low threat environment where we don't have air threat or limited ground air threat and also be able to sell those in terms of formulas to our allies that can afford and as 35 aircraft and to foster a better military relationship

with many of her alleys. could you speak to that question. >> yes, sir. you hit on all the right points. we are looking for affordability and where we don't need an aircraft that costs 17, 20, $70000 of white our we need to look at it as a way to deliver readiness and combat capability on an affordable basis. we are looking at it come as you know the chief of staff air force blue and to check it out and i thank you should on all the right points there about why we're looking at this. >> general dunford. >> congressman, and the role i played is identifying the capabilities of the needs of what you describe is a capability that we need in the chief of staff of the air force i know is committed to delivering that lower capability at the most cost-effective way possible and that is why these are ongoing. we support the attempt to get the capability at the best cost can meet the criteria you outline. >> german, you back.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you both for your service. mr. secretary, proximally how many transgender troops are currently deployed? >> i do not know, congressman. >> to provide that to us? >> i i can. i'll give you the best data i can come up with on it, yes. >> do you believe that the current certainly transgender troops are beginning readiness? or reducing lethality? >> congresswoman, on this one i submitted my recommendation and put it out publicly in my recommendation to the present is it's a highly charged issue from some people's perspective and it is an under litigation right now so out of respect for the courts i will tell you that the current policy stays in fact and the last initiation policy has directed by the courts and i

have submitted to the president what i think is the best military price. >> mr. secretary, i want to introduce you to staff sergeant logan ireland. he was a noncommissioned officer of the quarter when he was deployed to afghanistan. he was also transgender. do you believe that currently serving transgender troops like staff sergeant ireland are a burden to our military? >> congresswoman, i think that as we look at the enlistment standards i gave a recommendation that troops, patriotic americans, do not have gender dysphoria should be allowed to serve. i did not recommend that we change the clear standards that apply to all in that regard or

make a special group. i prefer to leave the courts to their action at this point and see where they stand at the end of it and when i talk to the president i can talk to you more fully. >> mr. secretary, you rolled out this policy and now you are basically saying i'm not prepared to defend it. >> oh, i'm prepared to defend it, ma'am but out of respect for the courts i do not intrude into something that would be inappropriate for me to say something that would somehow impact in the court case going on. i think this is a standard situation and once the court is engaged. >> was there any nongovernmental individuals organizations involved in the formulation of the recommendation by the dod to the president? >> it was the best military advice i could draw from civilian overseers and military personnel both officer and

senior enlisted. >> mr. chairman, i like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record letters from medical groups reprinting the conclusions of the dod report on military service by transgender individuals in which they say no medically valid reason exists to exclude. >> without objection. whatever letters the gentle lady like to enter in record may be included. >> thank you. mr. secretary, a military times article this week revealed that the defense manpower data center failed to report the number of troops deployed in iraq, syria, afghanistan last quarter. that website was also stripped of the deployment data from previous quarters. i am very concerned about that. i think that there is no combat to obfuscating the servicemembers that were in these countries three months ago and furthermore the republic is right now. do you intend to restore that

information to the website? >> i will look at it and as you know we keep the congress fully informed right down to the week. we can update you on exactly the numbers in each case we do maintain some degree of confidentiality over the number of troops engaged against enemies in the field so i will have to look at it but we will not, of course, ever keep that numbers away from members of congress. >> i know, but this is been an ongoing website that is provided this information to the public and all of a sudden the last quarter is not posted in the have swept away all the data for previous quarters so he was suggestive in the public that you are no longer going to make that information available and i think the public has a right to know. >> i see. when i come in, ma'am, i don't

come in intending to buy things but i would just ask what would you do if you thought the enemy take advantage of that kind of data and scene transits are times of the year and what they can expect in the future but i will certainly look at it and i share your conviction that the american people should know everything and it doesn't give the enemy advantage. >> thank you. are you back. >> thank you very much, mr. german. i want to menu in your leadership and all of you to make sure that our forces ready, capable and able and deployable and i appreciate the policies in the position that you are advancing. i would like to bring up the topic of bay security as relates to rogue and careless drums. why many people don't realize is that under title 18 to interject a drone it is illegal to do that because it's viewed as an aircraft or a protected computer

and in the 1718 as you know we did dod's and new authorities to go after them which i certainly applaud but they are limited to certain areas like nuclear deterrence and missile-defense and air defense and protecting the president and vice president and i am wondering and concerned about other dod facilities and specifically a couple of things in misery that makes me think of mobility command and training bases and a potential danger threat with a robe, drone on those missions. i was wondering how would the department of defense interpret the importing provided by the fy 18 and should this authority be expanded to all dod missions that for perhaps other specific missions like mobility and training that aren't currently included. >> maybe this is very good at

something but when legislation was passed it brought together these service chiefs and leadership to look at this issue both from a material solution perspective as well as an authority perspective. he made it clear that if we had a threat forces were bases that we had the authorization we've interpreted that as the authorization to protect our people. there are still some gaps in our material solutions be able to do that and i'm satisfied particularly for our sensitive sites that we've addressed that but perhaps we're not produced the volume and permit to see protect our facilities and i've been in the room a couple times with the secretary and i feel like our leadership has interpreted the law to mean that we can protect our bases and protect our people. >> you say there are gaps and would you like to see those address? >> we are addressing now the material solution gaps in another words major that we have right amount of comment out there in the hands of those all

across automation sensations. >> we also have authority gaps though and you are exactly right. we see what they're doing overseas and we know what is coming place near us and in fact here we do need more authorities and we will outline what those should look like because we can protect those nuclear sites and that is accurate. we have sensitive situations that are basically left outside the authority so we owe to you what we think that authority should look like and make our case. >> great. thank you for that. in the national defense strategy highlights the long-term strategic competition with china is a central challenge to national security. and as you know china is very focused and they have multiple lanes of effort from espionage to the military to counterintelligence to propaganda et cetera. there are multiple lines of

efforts to note the policy and train staff and to combat and command to look at these issues is the focal point for such coordination across policy and across the services and across the command? >> inside dod it would be the undersecretary of defense or policy. however, there is a broader issue here to defend the nation a holistic and that falls under secretary nielsen of portland defense and in that case we have confronted a number of vulnerabilities that have not been fully addressed and we are putting together the interagency efforts to outline the holistic approach to that defense. >> very good. i know we only have 28 seconds but the wad is beyond just the end of pacific and their

influence and their goals and activities and their present activities and what activities are you aware of being taken by the combatant commands in the different a ors to counter the china challenge. >> it occurs in the time remaining that a global campaign for china and each one of the combatant commanders addresses china in the context of the global command campaign plan that as the pacific command is the coordinated authority but each one of the combatant commanders has supporting plans and respective area responsible for specific chinese activity and capability in their areas. >> have a copy of that? >> we will make sure you get briefed on that. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i know everyone on the panel today is very concerned about what will happen and about the four soldiers killed there.

i want to ask about the risk that we are accepting by responding to crisis or incidents on the continent of africa and wondering if you could comment on those risks and can we respond to multiple threats around and how large that but that is under our current defense budget restraint we have. >> representative, even on a key point for why our second line of effort are three lines of effort and the second one is building allies and partnerships and what we want to do is address those issues whether specific or a command or europe by, with and through our allies. when we go in such as take africa, for example, i look at how many troops are going to invest against how many this african troops we will then be training or bringing into the

fight and one american equals how many ready troops to defend their own -- our goal is to turn this to the right people's country it is and that is the way we go about it. we don't pretty take on the permission and we do a needs assessment of that specific country and in the case of this area and ron and the press that is there and in that case the [inaudible] is leading the effort in the leading nation and african nations are gathered around and we support france and the african nations. you can see how we are doing this by, with and through our allies so we don't carry the burden. >> when we were -- of course, they work on things that are very key in my opinion and in

the opinion of many others and making sure these countries know how to govern themselves accordingly so we don't have to submit as much militarily. cut back on those particular efforts how much more money would we need to be able to invest and how much more risk would we need to take on the continent of africa under those sort of restraints. i would imagine you would need more us military power to be able to address because of the expanse of the continent -- >> congressman, to follow up with the secretary saying and i think this is where you one question we have approximately a thousand forces in west africa the french have 4000 and we are working with some 20 or 30000 partners on the ground. the requirement is for someone in north of 40000 forces to do the job and our investment is only 1000 so if your question is what would it take you are doing

it ourselves, you know, it would take a large order of magnitude greater than what we are investing right now and that is by with what it means. a small us footprint leveraging capability to the work that needs to be done to address terrorism, extremism in the region. >> congressman, i worked closely with my counterpart of secretary tillerson, as you know, i now work with secretary sullivan and deputy secretary as nominee pompeo go through his hearing today but i can assure you that for example, when we have small amount of developed money given to us this committee will meet with state and align state and about development monies so there's an integrated effort and everything we do is done to enable our diplomats to speak with more authority and reinforce the foreign policy of the administration largely together by state department. we have the lead and we reinforce and it's been a good

team all the way through. >> for the continent is the best strategy governance or military right now? what would help those countries in africa and is it more of a governance issue? >> most of the challenges they face are not militarily solvable. it needs better governance it means diplomacy and development and we are working with state department in support of those efforts but it is, i know what you're driving at and i agree with you that it is a diplomatically led effort. >> thank you. i'll back. >> mr. hunter. >> thank you, mr. chairman. gentlemen, good afternoon. first question. general mattis, tremendous, you have a joint program office with the coast guard and the navy right now for experts. there is no joint strategy. the coast guard has her own strategy the navy has her own arctic strategy and i was

wondering if you entered your mind to join them into a joint arctic strategy? >> we were, as you know, very closely. i don't hold meetings with the chairman and the four stars about the coast guard in the room so we intend to stay collaborative and we have different authorities in different missions but they need to be integrated in the arctic certainly. we have not prioritized the arctic right now due to the other situations from korea and syria and the situation vis-à-vis russia, south china sea -- >> wouldn't russia be a reason to increase our presence in the arctic? >> i think what we increase their is what we would look at and what type of forces clearly search and rescue in the arctic is a high-priority and environmental protection is in some of these things are not fit or not best done by us military. i would have no problem

supporting the department of homeland security guard efforts in the arctic. we work closely together on every other part from the caribbean to the persian gulf so i'm sure it's an area we can work together. >> thank you. last question. the funding request from everything for the msp, the ready reserve fleet and the logistics train that you would use to go to war you didn't request for funding for the msp ships that the maritime security program and requested the old money which is over three half-million dollars versus $5 million a ship and the general is now working on, but for some of her, looking at if you take casualties with our ships as they load our gear and i remember when i deployed in zero four we rode a low vote in san diego and if you don't have the gear you can't go to war. you might have the people in the

first stage we won't be able to continue that. a ready reserve fleet is falling apart. the steam engine powered fleet which is ridiculous and the msp will be underfunded now and you might see people dropping on that so what are your thoughts with your grand strategy of aligning the effectiveness and killing end of the military with the guys that will make it work just getting the gear there to sustain a battle? >> projecting power, charisma, you're quite right. that's a key area of concern we're trying to prioritize inside many demands on the budget but i have met with the military see the commander and we are going to come up with a way to come out with the situation and it will be prioritized and i think the mobility requirement study that comes in later this year, i would say, probably by october, maybe november, will actually have a part of it that focuses

right on what is the problem, not in general terms but what is the specific problem and what needs to be moved and what capability do we need and how do we go forward and the problem is not been sufficiently defined yet and we see all the symptoms of the problem and we need to get it right before we start spending, you know, hundreds of millions of dollars on this. [inaudible conversations] >> i can't tell when my voice is good enough for the microphone. north korea should shoot down the same system that works in kuwait shooting down i iran to western europe for the southeast europe and you have the same system roughly same geography introductory and could you give us an update on how the missiles coming out of space and were shooting at it and were doing on

shooting it as a low and slow in going to be a. >> we are looking at left to launch and prior to launch and were looking at of the space and i prefer to do that in private with you and i can give you that brief because of the current nature of the. >> thank you. i'll back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. gentlemen, thank you for your service in particularly in this difficult period of time. in response to the questions you dealt with a lot of the issues of syria and i want to pick up one additional one, the horrific use of chemical weapons by the president assad regime. it has prompted the president to print military action. my question, secretary matus, is very specific. what is the legal authority that precise legal authority of the united states government to engage in military action in response to the chemical weapon

used by the assad regime. >> i believe that authority is under article two. we have forces on the field and syria and the use of chemical weapons in syria is not something that we should assume that because he didn't use them on us this time he wouldn't use them on us next time. right now i will have the lawyers get back to you with the broader issue. i'm aware of where question goes but i would just tell you that, you know, we've got to look at the use of chemical weapons whether it be in salsberry, england or in syria. it's something that is inexcusable and it has got to be addressed and in russia -- against it prevents the united nations from dealing with it. we can acquiesce or we can do something about it. >> you do not believe we need further congressional authority

to respond to the chemical weapons attack with military kinetic action. >> under article two, sir, the president has the right to employ the military and were power resolutions or other actions that legislative actions that cause us to come to you. at the same time i think we have the authority to deal with this. >> are you prepared to deliver this committee the precise legal authority in writing that you are referring to? >> sir, again, protection of her forces i don't think we have to wait until they are under chemical attack and weapons are used in the same theater we are operating in. >> i understand that but i'm awaiting a legal document from the department of defense specifying the exact authority

that cause you to use the protection of forces. >> yes, sir, i will provide it. >> to you very much. i proceeded it's necessary. obviously there would be a debate about this and in your testimony you indicated there was probably dollars in missile-defense and that's an imminent threat and there is also a week ago, two weeks ago, the department of homeland security an imminent threat from russia hacking into critical infrastructure systems in the united states. what is the department of defense and doing to defend against those kinds of attacks that could easily lead to shut down at the grid or other critical infrastructure thereby bringing physical as well as social and economic harm to the

united states. >> sir, as you know, we have a fair amount of money given to our cyber command for cyberspace operations and we have a number of mission teams but these are primarily has been focused on her own defense of the department of defense and offense against an adversary for a determination mission comes under the secretary of homeland security and secretary nielsen we are in close contact with her and we have the only capability to try and defend whether it be an electrical grid or financial system or something like that. i think right now we need to get a lot stronger in the defense of our critical infrastructure and all aspects of it and i realize that some of that could come under the department of defense which will be take congressional initiative and action in order to balance the constitutional

safeguards for our citizens with the reality we have to protect them and this is an area that needs a lot of work, the first to admit it. >> in hearing that it became very clear that the coordination between the department of homeland security and department of defense is lacking and i appreciate your attention to it. >> yes, sir. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to follow up on that a little bit and i know secretary matus in the national defense strategy you discussed the strategically predictable but operationally unpredictable and we are spending increasing amount of time on complex and we have evidence that someone used a chemical weapon that is aligned we can see and we know we want predictable response to that so that doesn't happen again. but with no one complex that a

line sometimes doesn't seem to exist so chairman, as we talk about no one can you discuss the indications of a potential for future proxy and war might not be the right term but certainly could work there and is this going to be the way in the future that our adversaries challenge are resolved as a country both to operate on behalf of ourselves and our allies? >> congressman, to answer your question it's yes, it is what we see and particularly with patients we have a competitive advantage in the commercial space. they realize they can't take us on conventional easily find another way. to put a finer point on gray's own i would describe that as political influence, economic

coercion, use of cyber, use of information operations and military posture so there's a military dimension to it but it is clearly a broader problem than just the military to mention. as we think about it in the military strategy we think the competition that is taking place in that gray zone is a competition for our allies important so we believe the critical thing that they are trying to do in the gray zone in military space is undermine the credibility of our alliances and partnerships which is the secretary outlined is an important line of effort for the strategy. it's critical for us is to overcome information and cyber capabilities and a military posture in the erosion of that relationship that we have with our allies and broader government peace is, in fact, what we'll see and will require the state department and the treasury department and the defense department all to come together and come together in the gray zone and it does have a political and economic and military aspect. >> if i could follow up -- it will take in all government

approach on the homeland inside of the gray zone complex -- what authorities do you have to take offensive action in the gray zone. >> what you are getting at is the important point and that is we have traditionally we do today distinguish between peace in war. the activities and the authorities that we have in place on a day to day basis reflect the fact that we are at peace and our adversaries don't have the same restraints. what they are doing on a day-to-day basis looks more like moving towards a war than being impeached and from a cyber perspective and information operations perspective we are reviewing and we do reviewing the issue and we do believe that we are limited in the activities that we can perform on a day-to-day basis and the authorities we have to allow us to be competitive. >> this is something i know is a

member of congress who will need help from people that understand these definitions and operations significantly better than i do and i look forward to your help with authorities and other things that you need to not only defend the land but take action against those who are taking these actions against us. general mattis, as i mentioned the strategic picked ability and operational unpredictability is outlined in the national defense strategy and can you briefly describe what this means for troop rotations and overseas assignments and training. >> i can, crimson. you will make sure our allies know that we are reliable and we can break through to them and get to them and stand with them in time of need. we will do it by making certain that keeping the maintenance of the equipment and the training of the troops in the family wear and tear on the families is all

kept in balance. we do this is we ensure that preparations of great power competitions are not just a rotation schedule that allows me to tell you three years from now which aircraft carrier will be where in the world. it's a great way to from the shifting line and it's no way to run navy. during the time when they would be authorized to deploy, directed to deploy, they may not deploy out of the waters. they may stay there operating an aircraft carrier down off san diego or with the army at fort irwin and cover this sort of thing is to keep our joint force ready and then when we send them out and maybe for a shorter deployment and there will be three carriers in the south china sea today and a week from

now there will be only one there and two of them are in the indian ocean. they will be home at the end of a 90 day deployment in they will not have spent eight months at sea and we will have a force more ready to serve and deal with the high-end warfare as a result without breaking the families and the maintenance cycles or reducing and will actually enhance the training times. does that give you -- >> asks her. but, the hubris of its. >> the president has indicated recently at the tension to launch us military attacks against syria and article one of the constitution gives congress the power to declare war. congress has not done so against the syrian government. section three of requires the president to consult with congress for introducing us first sources of hostilities. section two of the war powers resolution clarified the constitutional power of the president commander-in-chief and article to which you reference secretary matus. to introduce forces into hostilities only pursuant to declaration of war to specific

statutory authorization or three, a national emergency created by an attack on the us its territories, possessions or armed forces. syria has not declared war against the us and is not -- the missed missiles launched by trump last year were illegal. the consolidated appropriations act of 2018 which was signed into law by president thompson states that none of the funds made available by this act may be used with respect to syria contravention of the war powers resolution including the of us d military forces into hostilities and syria. the question is will the president told the constitution and the war powers resolution comply with the law that he signed by obtaining authorization for launching us military attacks against syria. >> congresswoman, we've not made

any decision to launch military attacks into syria. i think that when you look back, president obama sending us troops into. at the time he did he also had to deal with this type of situation because we were going after eight named terrorist group that is not actually named in the au ms. this is a complex area and i'll be the first to minute. ...

obeyed by the nations that signed it and what happened now has happened in serious and shows this is not an idle concern. >> if the decision is made, youu stated all the optionstay till e table for the president. russia already responded saying they would respond to the u.s. strike. can you justify how it serves the interest of the american people? >> know, congresswoman, i can't

answer that question. would you say that it's a highly likely occurrence given with russia stated that they will respond? >> know i have and there's a lot of ways to relate to the chemical weapons convention. one last question, the authorizatioauthorization that e forces today has been much progress made in the campaign and. they've grown stronger and stated just over a year ago that

it's now al qaeda's largest formal affiliate in history. so i do is growing stronger. where they are located right now we do not want to do another part. they don't have the capability to move into that region. >> by way of background i was one of some of the armed services committee members who in 2011 voted against the budget control act and sequestration is disproportionately cut.

$12.5 trillion in total deficits over the next decade and the total 33.8 trillion gross federal debt by 2028. it is the largest creditor at $1.2 trillion. here's the problem i if americas predators simply stop earning american money something they have every right to do, the federal government is immediately the next day it

faces an immediate $800 billion shortfall. if this $800 billion shortfall is equal it translates into devastating 400 billion-dollar cut to the national defense. they testified in the very same room the most significant threat to national security is the be best. when america's gross federal debt was roughly $20 trillion. you confirmed the greatest threat to the national security is our own federal debt. will you please help the

american people understand why you believe america's out-of-control deficit and exploding debt. it cannot maintain its military power in th and a connection toe department of defense that concerns me so much. it's also why we solvency and security to pentagon. we need solvency first, so we are a land of the situation i face is a worsening security situation in the world. so, then even with that thesis i just mentioned, i come in asking for an awful lot of money.

it wasn't a war year and we were spending 5.7. what we were asking for is 3.1%. so we believe america can afford survival and i recognize the competing tough decisions on domestic spending, health care, defense. as we try to bu guide the time security wise to put the fiscal situation under proper order. >> in the accumulated debt at some point they are currently in national security threats. >> got hit on my opening

statement. do you believe people illegally in the united states should be able to take opportunities from the citizens and lawful immigrants? >> i'm not quite sure. very bluntly, we need every qualified patriot he can get our hands on but we do not support illegal activity in the recruiting. it's at a much higher rate. we recruit very well from them

and are overrepresented in the ranks. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. secretary, what earlier you said in response that we haven'd made the decision to launch attacks in this area. yesterday the president said russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired. get ready because they will be coming and keep quotes. i go to a meeting where the national security council would be meeting on this and took

forward the various options. these missiles will be coming that sounds to me that the rest of the world like a decision and for the legal justification to fire in response of the chemical weapons attacks you said we have troops in the field and we are not going to wait for them to be attacked before we take action i'm going to have to have my lawyers start taking these questions. i look for the legitimate protection of the american people and their interest in the secretary of defense and i didn't pick up a law degree on my way to the job, so i need people to get m need for a specific answer.

>> we talked today about north korea and russia and china but we haven't talked about the threat to the country of mexico opposed to us. the president also announced recently these are his words sending the united states military to secure the border with mexico. can you share with me what that will cost how long it will last. >> i cannot tell you the cost yet. we are in support of the departmental security personnel and we have about 800 deployed governors authority we are paying for them out of the title 32 fun as.

those would mostly be helicopters and observation type forces they will not involve themselves with the migrants themselves to have any law enforcement duties. >> probably the part where if i need the wall were to put a fence along next to the border i don't care who they are. >> in 1997 then-president clinton sen1997 then presidentcr a united states marine shot and killed an 18-year-old u.s.

citizen. it should be something for which we've learned. this is a grave mistake. given all of the other challenges and threats and priority is around the world you also see the opportunity cost of sending the united states military to the us-mexico border at a time that it has never been more secure, more safe where we have the lowest numbers since 1971. this is a gross waste of the taxpayer resources and it sets the stage for another tragedy if we do not manage this and i would urge you to advise the

president to withdraw the commitment. we do not need another mission for the united states military. with that i will yield back. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. i want to thank the panel today for their service. it's been a tough budget year. i cannot stand the budget control act and the big supporters behind the audit i think that is important so that we don't waste money and get the most cost efficiency. i want to switch and here's a little bit. you talked about allies. it's been about the cost, the problems, and i think that we have come a long way to direct a vote of the problems.

but it's not cheap. now we are talking about the candidate that dropped out for dot and there are some of us on this committee that are concerned about turkey and its behavior as an ally and whether we should if for some reason they drop out of the program or we prevent them from buying back, is that going to significantly increase everything in the future and obviously the conversation today the budget that we are trying to do something about. >> we look at it as a program that we've got to drive down the

cost on and that is both the purchase cost of the flight cost, the sustainment cost of spare parts, so we have the press working with a contractor in order to drive it down. we have other allies around the world and right now if some drop-in others are going to pick it up i will tell you to focus on driving down cost and getting access cost we have had success already and i've got two very capable people. it is revolutionary. i realize how great it is and it's got to be affordable.

>> were you going to comment on that at all? >> we have to get back to the specific implications. they don't have the data on what the implication implications foa we owe you an answer for that. >> for any member of the nato parliament we are concerned about our allies. we have some very good analyzed in terms of their commitment and there are some that are about half in and half out. >> you used the right word. the treaty said every nation will provide enough for their

own defense and the defense of fellow of members. article five of course where we stand together in the threats against one and all and the message that president trump directed me a year ago when i first returned to the headquarters. if you have 15 nations that are on the right track for a pledge they made for the secretary-general to the former prime minister of norway is pushing hard and comes to the summit with a national plan showing how they will get to the 2% of gross domestic product committed to defense.

>> one of the concerns is russia and i'm following up on my fellow concerns. we asked for the report about what would be in the report asking specifically what kind of resources and locations in genital to get more information so we can come up. we are about to go back again so i wonder when that were report will come out.

i confess that at times we have been late on a few. i don't know about that specific report, but in the submission and broadly speaking it addresses the infrastructure for the locations. those are the three pieces that make up to $6.5 billion i think that we have a very clear picture of how that is allocated. we will take back the requirements referred we plan to

spend the defens defense initiad have a way. is it more specifically putting the locations they need to with the forces? >> did you say specifically in nato? >> we have with your help the last three years increased the level that we believe is sustainable. >> would you be in favor of that for the right budget putting more positions in the territory?

>> right now the secretary laid out the strategy. we believe to meet the requirements we have the right u.s. composition in place right now. one that i've seen is a picture i've been told that we have a problem in the eastern european theater when dealing with russ russia. do you agree with these studies and how to fix it? >> them math problem is accurate and the number of american tanks so what we are trying to do is make certain that the american military is there in support of

the nato alliance got at the scene can come everyone's got to step up for this thing. right now we can always rotate more again givin during a periof heightened tensions, but overall we are working with the nato partners to get their forces us on this as well. >> gentlemen, thank you all for being here today. appreciate it. the director of the cia talked about russia undermining our defenses and foreign-policy. russia is trying to undermine the investments in europe and the science committee detailed

how they've done this. in a declassified report it detailed the active measures concerning missile defense and the report stated and i quote the campaign covers a whole spectrum of efforts to create a pair of nuclear war to covert measures including forgeries and disinformation. so my question is to believe yoe they are carrying out these measures today what are we doing to counter them i talked about this before i signed it and you see russia registered as a competitor. we didn't want that.

we were trying to make a partnership of sorts. for the u.s. peacekeeping obligations that is in the past as we watch what they've done to. when you look at the issues brought up this is where rush put in a lot of effort, they think deniable efforts that they can undermine our belief in democratic processes and elections to undermine financially. they have a lot more to gain by working with europe.

is that how we may be countering their efforts? this iis that how they are takig place? i think you violated what is taking place but how are we countering that? we have the ability and the focus. there's a lot going on right now. i wouldn't told you that we are aware we need to be, but we are going in the right direction. that is the threats we face.

one thing we are where we need to be. we are in an environment with offensive operations that will outpace the defense if operations, so that is one of the areas being looked after by expertat byexperts and departmef homeland security and so forth is what is the right organization and activity every day so we can have the momentum and offense? >> i appreciate that response. a quick question for mr. norquist. as we go through the audits, do you anticipate that this would lead to what is needed to other areas where we discover how we are spending money? >> i appreciate the question. evethree benefits we will see te first and foremost is better data which will lead to better decision-making and second is

the transparency and accountability and it's how to help drive reform so that crosses a number of offices in the department, but the ability to drive the benefit from the accuracy of the underlying business data. thank you very much and i yield back. >> thank you very much for being here. >> last october before the committee, you stated it is in our national security interest to remain where iran nuclear deal. i think it needs to be a step if it is fixed, yes, sir. >> what do you intend to

recommend approaching the sanction tsanctioned the deadli? >> we are working on what needs to be fixed and we are also working with our allies in very close consultation with our european allies. there are three areas i want to go into detail but if those three areas are addressed it can be saved. i'm not willing to say until i can see how much of it will be saved. it is not an easily binary situation. if we can fix most of it, will that make it sufficient? the decision is to stay in or pull out. >> you testified last july that

they are in compliance with the rules laid out and since that time the iea ea continued to confirm the compliance. in your assessment and reassessment of the community, is aired on income plans video? we want to make sure all of the activity is addressed. nuclear activity, missile activity, maritime press. so we have a framework right now that addresses the nuclear peace and it's been deemed to be unsatisfactory. we need a framework for which iran poses.

>> how do you expect them to believe that we will adhere to a deal if we are so willing to pull out of the deal that the united states of america signed with iran on the same subject? >> it certainly won't be up to me to decide whether to pull out of the deal or not, that will be a political position. >> how do we expect north korea to be leaving the field if we are so willing to pull out of the previous nuclear deal? >> i'm not trying to be argumentative but you are asking me to determine the action in north korea and i can't do that. >> we discussed before the advent of artificial intelligence and its implications for the military.

right now it is our new undersecretary of research. we should concentrate the efforts since we have a number under way right now we are looking at putting them all together. >> is it just in the dod is there any effort on artificial intelligence or does it just exists the owner essentially the department of defense? >> i can only speak to my portfolio answering the broader question in terms of the defense of america obviously i know also the cia works on this issue. >> quick question, when i served with iraq you made it clear what the mission was and what he had

to accomplish before we came home. what did the troops risking their lives have to -- >> they said we were going to take isis down so they do not have a caliphate and they are shattered in terms of its ability that attracts funding and recruiting so that remains the same at this time. >> mr. secretary, general, it's good to see you again and things you for your service to the country. we talked a lot about the world today that i would like to shift to our own neighborhood in the western hemisphere import into all of us and i know that is to you to. there will be a part of it this weekend for the summit of americas. i know you believe very strongly in soft power but as you know it

can't get the job done and it's no secret is significantly under resourced to meet the requirements and in his list of requirements, he's expressed the necessity of the combat shifting his theater because he believes that the combatants are ideal for several missions including combating drug trafficking, partnership and support for special forces. currently, the coast guard is the only service providing maritime security in the region. i also believe to meet the requirements and provide the necessary supporto provide theny perform their missions is imperative that maybe play an active role. understanding that we need to invest in the capabilities across the globe, what would your solution to get the most capability for the low-cost and specifically how can we provide

additional necessary resources that are ideally situated for the mission requirements in that region lacks >> it has been a priority as asian issue he laid ou you laide accurately as has the commander. we are looking at the mix of the coast guard cutters and we also have them elsewhere in the world. what does this to be played out by the coast guard or the navy should be more for example into the caribbean in a latin americathe latinamerican area oo put some of them into the region we are looking at this issue as we speak. the chairman was some feedback in a couple as we try to sort out the right mix is it primarily law enforcement, do they need people with badges which would seem coast guard would have to shift and go to the department of homeland

security or is it because of the nature of an evolving threat we don't have the answer yet but we will have it sorted out very soon. >> did you want to respond to that? >> in the national defense strategy, the secretary directed me to do something called dynamic force deployments and ad with advancewhat that means is e areas where we don't have sufficient forces to be engaged in a day-to-day basis but to find ways to use the force in a different way to support combatant commanders. so that is exactly how the participate filling in the gaps in the un southern command. >> my conversations with leaders from some of the countries they are actually seeking the presence sometimes only for the symbolic nature but you know this better than i do. >> i would disagree with the desire to increase our presence in the southern command. as you understand one of the challenges we have right now is

the navy ships. one example i use in those that have been underway 70% of the time the previous 12 months, we have a requirement and resources and mismatch that again will be growing the force overtime. he spoke about the size of the navy and we are about 55 ships short of the study that the congresswoman identified. >> i'm a strong supporter of the subcommittee and rebuilding the fleet. a strong supporter before but now that my daughter is engaged in a navy officer of the deployed yesterday, i navy now, and i want to make sure we do everything we possibly can to resource you in the appropriate ways to carry out this mission at the same time to protect those men and women wearing the uniform. with that i was jolted back. >> thank you mr. chairman

mr. secretary-general, thank you for being here and of course for your service mr. secretary in your statement you speak to the fact the united states remains the world's preeminent maritime power and i would of course agree. you do say that the 2019 budget provides to fund ten combat ships. what is the combat ship is that you envisioned being funded? >> there will be two submarines, three destroyers. 50 when you see often in pearl harbor and out in the pacific there will be a combat ship. there is going to be two of john lucas replenishment or ehlers that are critical for keeping the fleet at sea not having to command a port. we don't wan want him coming ino

the ports we want to keep them outside. we've also got an expeditionary sea-based ship funded that is a class and also got the advanced procurement for the aircraft carrier and advanced procurement for the columbia class. these are the replacement of the nuclear missile sub marines. >> the period of time i sat on the committee, i always felt that somehow we've had a disconnect in the sense that instead of purchasing based on some kind of future needs, we almost said the policy by acquisition. in other words, what we buy sort of sets up what we are going to do. for the time i've been here, they were supposed to sort of be discontinued.

it was the ultimate ship and then of course they kind of fell from grace and now they are back again. i'm not quite sure how we make these kind of decisions. of course i don't want you to touch the virginia class. those are great but it's something that bothers me in how we acquire especially in your statement today about the fact that we want a more affordable navy. i understand we have to be affordable. i want to be sure we are not sure of shortchanging into defining what our future is going to look like because they are going to be around for a very long time and they will define how we fight, so please, can you explain to me how we come up with these decisions on

what is preferred and not preferred? >> you bring up valid points. we need to rationalize what we are doing and yet we are doing that at a time of dramatic change in information technology in certain data handling in hypersonic weapons and things that are going to fundamentally change the character of the war that we might fight or detour if we are successful in the turns. we have to unleash them in a focused way, and we've got to have output from our innovative efforts to keep us from building a ship that that class doesn't look so good. so, it is challenging. i don't think anyone said on the track that you just explain i think very accurately. but that is the stipulation you

and by confronting the responsibilities and i'm going to have to come back and convince you we have now figured out the requirement based on the threat and what can we afford to do about it in a sustainable way and that's where we are going right now with the right people on board about january 5, we will get this figured out i can guarantee that. it's a very dynamic world and maybe we here at the cutting edge of this. >> mr. secretary, that is my point. i don't want to hear again that we are battling today's war with the last equipment and then the men and women in uniform are the ones that are in jeopardy. and i know wha i don't eat eithr use the general that, but we need a great understanding of what we are getting before we engage in all of this. thank you stir chair i will yield back.

>> inc. you for your testimony service. as you have all mentioned today, we partnered with the president in order to provide a desperately needed funding boost for the troops to the deal in the readiness crisis and the erosion of the competitive edge. but the society serving in the military and being veterans the go back to the constituents and translate and have them understand how critical this is. this testimony today is so important, and i hope it breaks through the cycle and the noise that's often seen on tv when people at the dinner table to take a different approach than normal. secretary, you have a way with words, so could you in the next little bit of time not answered to me that in the laymen's terms to the people about what happened in the erosion of the capabilities and why it is so important that we all are partnering to give the troops everything they need and also

why you would b it would be impr those to join the rank. >> what happened over these years is we were engaged in a form of warfare that consumed much of our focus as it should have perhaps distracted us from other things going on in the world. the result has been we have troops that are very good at what they do. they are not trained to the degree that we want them trained. we have shift is that haven't received the maintenance be needed and we've gone through a period where understandable hopes for a lower level of expenditure for defense issues guided us and the end result of the war and of the rapid change in the world and changes especially among several countries that have decided not to play by the international rules now puts us in the

position almost every generation of americans have had to face that if we are going to keep this experimental life that we call america, we are going to have to once again fund our military at a higher level. what the zero is the reality of how we get and we should be able to defend it. for example, readiness today doesn't necessarily equate to the readiness five years from now in a time of rapid change people open up if someone has a better deal and wide open to it but we can afford survival. we are not paying an inordinate present of the gdp rates now and i don't want to pay 1 cent more than necessary to.

the american people are not the only ones listening trio. our intent is that our diplomats be engaged and we sold thing pls the way the national should.

to speak about the readiness challenges there is a sign of weakness and as i mentioned in my opening comments i speak with a high degree of confidence in the. in the dialogue we're having

today it's all about making sure that when we send our men and women in harms way we do so with a fair fight. it's a great loss to us and i appreciate that you are going to look into these accidents with the aircraft as they've been going on and i don't want to belabor that, but i want to honor his service and thank you for looking into that. i want to talk about the challenges ahead of us, people that are our adversaries, the president's message about sending bombs with russia and north korea having nuclear weapons. can you tell me is it's a

geopolitical challenge that may dictate how we are going to respond or have a possible return to testing a. of people in my state have been worried about that. i want to talk about the low ground testing. we do continue to do that to get back to the 50s and 60s.

that shouldn't be misinterpreted by anyone with a. i want to talk about the artificial intelligence. in the traditional methods of warfare especially cyber attacks, they don't fall under the traditional means. so who is going to be the lead? and how do we respond to the attacks in every area where do we have that confidence >> we have the u.s. cyber

command and they are responsible for defending our networks and attacking the adversaries. we also have nsa transitivity administration and cyber command connected per the congressional guidance they will separate the two and keep them in a synergistic room together. we need to figure this out and there will be most of the offense and defensive capabilities. >> speaking again to the security challenges when you do this and we move to the cloud in the partnerships as we move to the cloud is going to own some of the proprietary information? what if those businesses go out, who holds the keys to the kingdom on the private side and

as it relates to the military readiness in the future as thing is to move forward and we may drop certain technologies in favor of others? >> is to enhance the availability of the information among us right now we have to also quickly advance the national security. we have over 400 different data centers that we have to protect. and we've watched very closely in terms of security and service from their movement to the cloud. it is a fair and open competition. that will be a full and open source.

to know with certainty they will not be holding and will this make certain the performance tells us where we go in the future we know what you're doing right now has to change. >> thank you very much. >> he came from my district and we appreciated his service. there are certain things that have been said. the speed of relevance is one of the things i appreciate very much and it's how we get the path intplatform to the militars the most important issue of defending the nation so i believe that it's important. taking that information to the next level might mean saving money and it might be identifying how we get the platform to the military faster. do you believe that it will prove that not only we are going to have some savings also have

some new issues that we can get the platforms moving faster? the ones who gav give me an independent view of the process for the high cost within systems that will open up opportunities that's never been displayed before a. in the oversight of payback congress. we have a little test and evaluation. we want to make sure that it is at the forefront of what we are

doing right now especially when it comes to aerospace and moving to the next technology step. i think others have an open society. i would like to have your commitment, mr. secretary, tuesday at the top of our kind of priority list when we talk about advancements in technology. >> you are reading our mind that the dod.

this is his number one priority. we have to get something they can test and evaluate to put something in the air. so it's focused and going forward and is our number one priority, not to the exclusion of artificial intelligence certainly which will probably contribute or machine learning this sort of thing, but it's number one on the list of things to do and we have the right man by experience and personality to take it forward. >> the budget that we passed, the number one concern is always the perishable skills with a ane time of doing ground exercises.

that to me is the part the budget is now pushing back on to advance the perishable skills and increase the amount of time that we have training. is that a good assessment? >> it is, congressman and what this will do is give us the resources and fill the apartment to allow us to improve the capabilities of individuals that combines with the budge the bude production also to redo how we are allocating forces to have more time in the stations to make sure the skills that you discussed are actually developed. >> thank you very much and i will yield back. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. secretary as you know discriminatory barriers have prevented many patriotic americans from serving in the military. whenever we have about -- voices

have been ready in protest in the years before the military many argued the armed services should be used for social experiments and they read about such the change would have on readiness and cohesion. we heard similar arguments more recently about those serving openly or keeping women out of combat roles. in retrospect i think that the history has shown the arguments are wrong time and time again those that fought against the barriers have been vindicated into the military has benefited from access to even broader pools of challenges and potential service members. yet today we are hearing the same rhetoric regarding transgendered people. i read your memo to the president and i knopresident ant a professional judgment. i recognize that you do not recommend a blanket policy that the arguments arbutthe argumentf the current ban in favor of discriminatory policies in the past.

in light of the evidence from the racial integration to the repeal "don't ask, don't tell" to the participation of women in combat roles can you please explain how this time is different, why transgendered people are different? >> the cases are under litigation so there is a limit to how much i can say. that's why i hung out there for the policy recommendation was to the commander in chief. i would just tell you that report was endorsed by the president asked my military advice to keep the military focus on its legality. we welcome those in the high standards of the military. i think that without gender dysphoria if it were to not be a special category of people who medically perhaps would not have been allowed in with any of the other conditions, then i think right now the current policy remains in effect because it is

under a court order. stephe make very clear what data we use so that they knew it was not what i would call standard rhetoric. that was the very carefully. >> mr. secretary, i have to note it is ironic your decision not to comment on part of the judicial process in complete contrast to your bosses haven't always come in a matter subject to the judicial process. let me ask you this, mr. secretary. if the president had not suggested that there be a ban on troops, which you have ever issued that in the first instance? >> sure, i came in front of the the senate in a ghastly me wasted on a number of issues. i said let me make it clear i'm here to solve problems.

i don't come win but they preformed agenda. in this case, it was not the president who brought the problem to my attention. it was service chiefs to last me how do we deal and they laid out a number of issues. i said well, what is the policy and they did not have a policy. that is what triggered what you eventually read. it became aa recommendation because he asked for, but it already was engaged to figure out how to employ the policy i inherited. you can see where i ended up on that. i was unable to answer those questions. >> mr. secretary, i'm going to shift gears onit you. last year the national policy achieved a 355 battle force as soon as practicable. i understand it has reached an

248. get testimony of a 355 should battle force is achievable potentially as soon as 2030. can you explain to me how the budget requires requirement means that as soon as practicable standard. >> i can, congressman. this is the balancing act of prioritization that you expect the mouse. i've got a number of competing demands. i am absolutely supportive of where we need to go. but when you read 2048 from a u.n. i have to keep a certain sanguine view of the people who say okay come i understand what you're saying. the congress is the one that raises armies insisting me the spirit part of this is the choice of congress and what

level of funding do they wish to push forward. part of it is me bringing forward the absolute requirement that any one point in time. so it's not on automatic pilot in both of us in our responsibilities havee an impact on where we go and how fast we get there. >> thank you, mr. secretary. i yield back. mr. desjarlais. >> touched on this briefly a moment ago, but i think it's worth revisiting. you indicated you were not happy where we were and where we needed to be and thanks in large part to your efforts during her time as secretary of defense who seen a major shift in focus. my state of tennessee has a vested interest in this issue of allers the work done in our air force base. what concerns me is the aging infrastructure is the good investments required across the test center enterprise. as you are aware, the weapon

systems have significant capability requirements, but because we minimally address the long-term needs of hypersonic development in the t past, and edwards airds force base faces enormous challenges to maintain and improve existing systems. if we are prioritizing our evaluation facilities in that sense, we are really putting the cart before the horse and i think you agree and share these concerns with a sense of urgency. what would you suggest however together to address this problem and prioritize challenges faced by our testing centers. >> congressman, you're hitting on what i found the limiting factor. it wasn't just our organization. it was that we would not set up to embrace the required facility that would embrace the whole challenge of hypersonic spirit

in the budget we've addressed this to a degree, but we are going to have to have a complete program, support program for this. this is going to be a major effort. do you have anything additional? restst assured, sir, that we knw where we want to go and this is one of the key building blocks to getting a spare. >> one final question for both you and the chairman. earlier this year, mr. putin announced he addressed a new type of strategic defense arms. you agree russia should honor the terms of the treaty and agree to limit those new arms under new s.t.a.r.t. treaty? >> sir, i believe he should. but i will tell you what he brought up in that video, i studied it closely and talk to people on my staff who know these issues very, very well. nothing president putin said

that day changed my strategic calculus one day. i wish him a good arms race. >> general, do you have anything? i just want to thanko you all fr your service. we appreciate you in thank you for being here. i yield that, mr. chairman. mr. carbajal. thank you, mr. chairman. secretary hernandez, i think it's so important that they need to do the thing. when this country was started debating the possibility of african-americans, women and and serving in the military, same reporting questions are posed. how would it impact unit cohesion and affect events? negatively impact the morale of the military? the military will lose its effectiveness. it would put our readiness at

risk. especially when it is started talking about allowing women into the military and most recently opening combat positions to servicewomen. discussions revolved around the impact of pregnancy and the rise in the number of sexual assault harassments due to so-called more women serving. the nation's military is as powerful and effective today because of the sacrifice in the service of allah members who proactively volunteered. something this president has not known and even went to great lengths to not serve. it is frustrating to me that we have not learned our lessons from the past and we are here again discussing the same unwarranted concerns and implementing discriminatory policies in the military. as someone who has served in the marine corps, a brother who has served in the marine corps, and many nephews, half of my nephews

have served in the military. many who have gone to afghanistan and iraq. i find this extremely troubling and upsetting. transgendered individuals are serving inid the military and nt once during any hearing did i hear military leaders citing servicemembers as a predatory military readiness. secretary madness and general trend to come i hope our military will focus on getting the most capable and qualified individuals to defend our nation because of the race, gender and sexual orientation. now i i move on to my question. secretary mattis and general trade to come in many believe diplomacy and negotiations are pointless and this is the only way forward. looking back at the past two decades and what the men and women of this nation have had to endure as a result of multiple wars what would be your words of

caution to those who are more willing to rush and engage in regime change? >> i would just tell you congressmen in over 14 months in the most sensitive meetings in the white house at langley and around the world but their commanders and allies i have never found this piece is proposed in negotiations and diplomacy or appointment. as you can see with what we have going on right now with north korea where we have a summit coming up, the whole point all along was to drive this negotiated resolution. obviously we can't see the future but we are all cautiously optimistic we may be on the right path with the denuclearization of the korean peninsula. in syria we are driving towards

the geneva process and that again is the diplomatic outcome so we have not seen this sort of approach and i would reject it if i saw it. >> thank you. general dunford. >> i guess to reinforce the point you make there is no challenge that i can think of that we are dealing with right now that doesn't have the lead of the state department and is not primarily a diplomatic issue. there's a military dimension to our challenge in afghanistan syria iraq libya. you can name the crisis we are dealing with right now but in no case, in no case is the department of defense and the lead in achieving a final let's go solution which is an end state to all of those. >> thank you very much. i think some of the tweets that come out of this administration sometimes speak a different tone and are contradictory to what

you just stated today but really , really appreciate you. i think many of us in this country are so grateful that both of you or the two of you in this administration are there. thank you very much. mr. chairman i yield back. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you and general dunford thank you all for being here. second i'd noticed in your chart on the back the% of defense of the gdp. couldn't help but notice there was 3.9%. you go back to world war ii was 35.5%. the korean war which is i'm assuming the 1950 period was 11.3% but i think that underscores your point though war is much more expensive than the cost of the military that is capable and i don't want to go back to that site thank you

secretary mattis. i think it's important for people to understand. i want to thank the team that you have assembled for national defense. think it's so important. we start with you and we ever joint chief of staff at all the members, your secretaries of your service services all three are very very impressive, and very knowledgeable and very capable people. deputy secretary of defense shanahan what a phenomenal guy that brings so much to the table i want to thank you and the president for bringing a team of that level of talent that are solving our nation's problems. now this is for both you and chairman dunford. we do not in the american people certainly do not want to see u.s. troops employed in an open and conflict in syria however is the previous administration along with iraq a hasty withdrawal of u.s. military personnel and security assistance can have very negative consequences especially

if they are on a timeline and timeline only driven. fortunately or unfortunately whatever the case may be i saw the draw down my could see the first-hand the effects of the battalion commander of the ground from going from 17 thousandths to going to 1500 when i left. under what conditions would it be prudent for the u.s. to withdraw or remove our forces from syria? whether reusing as a catalyst and that we have achieved an objective one witness will will happen? >> congressmen who want to make certain that isis has been driven to its knees and they are no longer concentrated threat with the geographic grounds they could use as a safe haven. i think we are well on the way there and we can see right now

we have and the turkey incursion a partner force for the last couple of weeks but we are on the right track right now. the second would the what you brought up earlier and that is the diplomatic outcome. the u.n. special envoy has got that responsibility and so you have the military security piece on the ground which we are achieving and we are going to have to see that diplomats in the u.n. step up to address the political outcome. that's where i see us going. see the thank you mr. secretary and that's good to hear because it needs to be objective driven and not time driven. i know you guys in mike sill i commented on the team. doesn't the state department stabilization activity only be a strain on serious neighbors like israel and jordan which do with the instability on the borders?

>> absolutely serve. >> and the final question i just want to talk to the both of you about and it's kind of a question that kind of a comment. our state programs of the national guards states and territories that we have those are extremely effective and i just encourage general dunford and you secretary mattis to do all we can to make sure we give our state department use of those things. sometimes we can do what you sdo to your individual nations can do in have a little more leverage. if you have a comment if you don't yield back. >> i suggest that we are lined with you. again, the person-to-person connection between the guys from tennessee and the guys from the country are the guys from

montana and the guys from wherever they are serving. when you start connecting like that, you get a more enduring committee for relationship and none has a lot to do with the ability of the world in building trust on the server. >> thank you, mr. secretary. you take care of my mississippi rifles who are deploying. thank you, mr.ma chairman. thank you for your good and effective service. secretary mattis, admire you for so many reasons are you one of which is yourou candor. one of which was brought up by congresswoman tsongas earlier today about the defense manpower data center regarding troop levels in iraq, afghanistan and the area and you addressed that earlier. it doesn't make any sense we would not share that information. i written ain letter to you back in january about the special or general's report on afghan

reconstruction. this has been issued for sometime now and i said sent information regarding population in districton controlled. that information was originally listed as class divide. in response to my letter, i was told the decision to classify the data was an oversight i need a resolute support. i want to point these two things out there we are watching these things and it doesn't make sense in the context to your leadership. having taken on the issue of pakistan and afghanistan. i read the book in stephen cole spoke recently. i've been talking to pakistani officials as well as to what is going on. pakistanla claims that they have reduced violence in their own country dramatically over the past v several years, that they are starting to repopulate the ungoverned areas. they are starting to build a border fence along with afghanistan and by 2022 they will have some substantial piece of it done. they are claiming they need to

see the same thing happened from the other side, from the afghan inside to prevent this porous border from people going to pakistan, fighting a safe harbor and coming back into afghanistan when they want to. is there any discussion about border security for the afghan inside regarding this porous border? i understand from reading and talking to people and having visited afghanistan how difficult that is to do and how they would be to do. it seems like a legitimate concern if they are doing it on the pakistani side we need to figure out how they can do it on the afghan inside as well. >> i think i can answer that question. a few years ago we had a trilateral border standard operating procedure between afghanistan and pakistan and we of course serve as the honest broker. the lastse couple days we are trying to develop an effect as bilateral border standard operating procedure between

afghanistan impact and then you've been a student of pakistan so you followed the storks in the relationship even on the last two or three years. the short answer is both nations are looking at this issue, but not yet effectively have they let that in a bilateral way that allows them to make compromises necessary to put in place effective border control. i think you understand the historical disagreement about whereeg pakistan begins and ends and where afghanistan begins and ends is at the root of the problem of establishing the bilaterall sop. there is a process between senior leaders in pakistan and afghanistan that work through this issue. that didn't exist 18 to 24 months ago so there's been some progress. i think you've visited as well. this is one ofrd. the things general niklas certainly works very closely with both the afghans and pakistanis tofg move

forward. the short answer is the detailed plans will be reconciled between afghanistan and pakistan, no. is there process in place to address the concerns of pakistan and afghanistan and develop away? yes. >> what can we do to facilitate that between our country and pakistan right now? >> that's a great question. as you know, talk about the military dimension of problems and at the end of the day will be necessary to have peace and stability in afghanistan to have a good relationship with neighbor pakistan in this issue have to be addressed in the context of reconciliation in the context of developing an effective relationship between the two countries had what can we do? that's what her state department partners have to do and something general makes in his doing at the relationship as well. the pakistani army plays an outsiden role.

military engagement i is importt to be a foundational element of diplomatic effort. >> again, one of thank you very much and continued the whole of government approach we hear about all the time. the military has a clear strategy in dagestan. i'm concerned the rest of the whole of government is more like a list of things as opposed to an overall strategy. ideal back to time. thank you veryim much. >> mr. gallagher. thank you, mr. chairman. i don't have a question for you but since marines are at attention, i want to say we appreciate you being here. mr. secretary and general dunford, the presidentor has endorsed the need to revise the canadian foreign investment in the united states general and particularly the firma legislation in particular. can you offer any concrete examples of why this legislation a broader effort is important to the department and in other words what are the long-term consequences if china is to continue to acquire advanced

technologies to investment and joint ventures. >> congressman, there are technologies we do not want for defense for security reasons to see in chinese hands. american technologies, and american businesses. we have got i to bring it up today. you saw in the 5g effort here some weeks ago that we move swiftly even in advance of what the process requires in order to make certain that we do not naïvely watch a business linkup that was not in our best interests. but that was a one-shot affair. we need to look at the entire penetration of our society and what we need to protect in cvs is a key part of this. every democratic nation right now by the way that we deal with from germany to australia, canada to the united kingdom are all working this issue.

and so, this is not unique to us, but certainly one of our responsibilities. >> thank you. australian particular has been at the leading manager trying to figure out how to deal with this level of l influence. i don't know if you have anything to add to that. >> the only thing i would say is if someone asked me in what are our competitive advantages, first and foremost is the quality of our people. second is the technological edge has enjoyed over the past 20, 30 nothing more is and nothing less than a technological edge of our potential adversaries in lifting of intellectual property in the manner in which china is doing that is undermining our ability toin maintain it a logical competitive advantage. >> we are going to have to improve on the investment risk review processe because that would be the specific area where the congress could take some that and we'd be happy to work with you alongside commerce

department of treasuryme department to come up with specific things we need to do to protect what we absolutely must hold onto. >> i i appreciate that. related question, should deity permit equipment linked to the chinese military and intelligence services to be part of its supply chain? >> i do d not think that is wis. >> in particular should be servicing key military installations in the united gates or abroad? >> no. >> are you comfortable the department has the tool at a studio with white labeling problem were they -- >> i think this isis an area tht needed attention to include scene we will not deal with white labels. we need to know who we are buying from, congressman. >> thank you peer-to-peer have any concerns relate to countries

being part of the military supply chain. >> at the same concerns both here andin abroad. >> thank you you been up with the remains of my time, we've seen the services have thought to be more guarded in transparency and accessibility to the media, particularly in guidance issued by the navy and air force leadership. someone who is new to politics and often spends a lot of time dealing with the media, part of that is understandable, but transparency is needed now more than ever. i was wondering, is this media engagement posture downstream of guidance that was given to dod at-large issued by you or your staff? >> i was issued by me. however, i said i want more engagement with the media. i want you to give your name. i don't want to read the someone spoke with anonymity because they were authorized to speak. so if they are not willing to say they know about the issue

and give their name, that would concern me. if they are giving background, they should be a defense official giving background information authorized to give it. i do want pre-decisional information or classified information or any upcoming military movements or operations, which is the normal kind of restriction. pre-decisional we do not close the president decision-making maneuver space by saying things before they've made a t decisio. otherwise i want more engagement with the military and i don't want to see an increase opaque mass about what we are doing. we have enough from the american people by our size and by our continued focus overseas. we need to be more engaged here ats home. >> thank you at my time has

expired. thank you, mr. chairman. secretary madison general dunford, thank you for extraordinary service. i wanted to disassociate myself and my colleagues have been supportive comments regarding our troops. the way we handle this issue certainly reflects our values and it's an important one. i also want to ask you for a moment about the authorization for use of military force, a ums. our services committee unlike what mostou people think doesn't take up this matter. but to the extent that it would be helpful or hurtful for that dialogue, bad debate to take place, could you respond in some ways to be agnostic to it. i am wondering where you would air on the side of trying to move forward with that. the concernn is about what kind of comprehensive response wens would have.

it is not that we would just strike at the deplorable time of the attacks on the people, but where are we going with that and what kind of language in a ums might be helpful to make his certain we are moving in a direction that perhaps doesn't repeat some of our mistakes of the past. >> congresswoman, i believe what in terms of auow about this significant legal authority. i can show you our al qaeda becomes al qaeda and iraq that becomess isis. i can show a continued threat all the way through. and so when you arere up adversy like we see that is changed its name yet again, we are up against groups that change their name very, very rapidly. as we look at our legal structure our legal structures

commended got to adapt to the reality of the enemy in terms of associated movements. we just found another one we've got to go after. they are ready to attack us an ally, embassy, whatever. so we have and make certain that timelines were not addressed other than in reporting requirements. whatever you say i'm not we'd be right back in here on times the number of troop operations. i think geography you'd have to be very careful because this adversary as he now uses every border because they think we respect the border and so they can get over the border and continue what they are doing. we cannot have been a u.n. math math -- o aumf, which as we both got aumf and we don't want to find all of our detaining authority has dissipated and

we've got to start over in court of law to try and protect ourselves from people we have in our custody today. sohe if you keep the associatio, if you watch the timeline to say we -- you have the power of the purse every year, so you really have the timeline authority now. if we keep the geography, the borderland lines from inhibiting operations and yet you oversee what we are doing, and that is what we are looking for. the spirit of conversation you are with this would be very helpful. we think we have that right now. we understand and respect those that are not sufficient. >> general dunford. >> congressman, i can only reinforce what the secretary said as i sit here in ink about the threat and dealing with threats that are trans regional threats. they don't respect borders in the time that some of these conflicts are not predict the

bowl. .. time issues, the secretary spoke about, it would allow you from a military perspective to which the criteria in whatever form that takes politically, support those things. >> i may have been hearing something slightly different but in a positive way, something possibly that is broad enough and specific enough, those things are important.

helpful, not helpful? helpful if it is done right and not so politicized. does that sum it up? thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you all for your service. i fear it came at too high a price i'm glad we get are giving you the resources and tools to fight and win when necessary and make sure you are supporting our diplomatic efforts appropriately. chairman dunford, you made mention your testimony you saw iran's influence extending to the middle east and i want to make sure that is not an exclusive business, we are not really seeing them as a regional hegemon but a global threat as well. >> there are potential global threat and evidence, as an example in south america but we view that largely as a threat in the middle east and when we see their influence manifest most is in places like syria and yemen and lebanon. >> i'm interested in that nexus

where activities in latin america conserve to finance operations we are having to combat. can you speak to this budget request's treatment of the uranian backed hezbollah threatening latin america because there has been an appropriate focus on centcom and what we are seeing on the korean peninsula but i want to make sure that threat -- >> one of the themes we had today is not all the problems can be solved in a military dimension. it is really three things they need to survive, they need the resources and the narrative, the message which allows extremists to survive. we can deal with physical manifestation in syria or yemen, we are not currently dealing with them except in diplomatic economic space but it will take a whole government

approach to deal with an organization like hezbollah. >> how does this budget request we are evaluating service that threat? >> i will get back to you, to see if there is a specific way to do that other than increasing our capabilities to deal with whatever threat we deal with. >> i'm interested in determining whether we are engaged in adequate training and the right of human activities from dod standpoint -- >> supporting the sovereignty of iraqi is one way to deal with malign influence in the region, support for the lebanese armed forces -- >> i speak about the threat --

we can certainly work on it. i'm eager to see how enhanced resources are directed to the threat we face in our backyard. secretary mattis, i fear when we look 50 years out, we will not win wars with adversaries based on our frames alone, we will require the most technically capable munitions, missiles and bombs in the world to be able to win. can you speak to this budget request's treatment of research and develop assets and goals to assure we are getting good bang for the buck and diverse research and development mission underway? >> various locations, we are looking at advanced munitions from rifle bullets to bombs to precision missiles and we have a newly energized, innovative effort because we receive more money for innovation.

i forget the specific edition but it is significant i will tell you and and there is the necessity for identifying those weapons, not just hypersonic but that allow us to go over the next level. wherever you find them, one of the primary efforts is in missile defense. how do we take out missiles from the air and do it more cheaply than very expensive interceptor kill vehicles, we have to find a cheaper way to do this against the growing threat. we don't want to break the budget on missile defense so that would be one. we have a number of naval weapons for directed energy and others we are putting money into so that those are the cutting edge and we lead those weapons systems if we have to employ them. we can give you a more detailed lay down a various ordinance we are looking at and some are

novel enough they are not high explosive, they are that different, we can give you a more wholesome readout if you are interested? >> i yield back. >> i want to thank our witnesses for their testimony today, secretary mattis, general dunford, thank you for your service to the nation. we discussed syria, touched on the controversy on the southern border and the threat posed by north korea at these hearings. the issue that really is not defined by geographic location is malicious actors in cyberspace. how does that moment of defense impose higher costs on adversaries to violate norms of behavior using cyber means particularly where those

actions don't rise to the level of armed conflict. and between building capacity capability to counter these threats and what metrics we use to know if we get the balance right going forward? >> this is a growing area. and having this conversation, the dynamic threat, we have 7% increase in the budget for our cyber efforts and you are aware congress directed us to separate cyber command and nsa without losing those synergy of those organizations. as we expand not only the defense of our dod networks and offense capability but also defend the nation which is led by sec. nielsen, but we have

the bulk of the capability of this so what we are doing about it is creating offenses plans. i won't go into detail but you can imagine what they look like. we are increasing our defenses internally. the challenge is when we go to the defend the nation effort we are going to have to have agreements and authorities on what dod does inside our own country. we may have a lot of capability generally speaking, we have concentrated obviously outside the nation. that is our responsibility. so we have got together right now a cyberstrategy in support of dhs, in sec. nielsen's hands, she has been available, that is only the first step.

we have to refine it when she gets done defining the problem. we didn't address, what we submitted to her, we will keep working on the dtn effort internally, we will be going to the cloud, we have a fair and open competition going on and we examined what cia achieved in terms of availability data and using data and security of their systems and it is very impressive. those are a couple things we are doing right now. >> i will be following this very closely. it is important that -- those nations that are using cybertools and things that don't rise to the level of armed conflict but strong offense to deter them. the budget request includes

funding for prototyping. what advances can we expect to see in terms of bringing technologies that leverage prior investments for commercial, technical advancements and how does this portion of the budget request reflect investments in technical advancements for military capabilities and quantum computing, robotics and hypersonic's to build the foundation for future capabilities? >> my predecessor, sec. carter, set up the i ux in silicon valley for reason, we embraced it and strengthened it. we are looking to prioritize these various efforts due to the congress that broke our acquisition technology and

logistics under secretary it into two parts, what is acquisition and sustainment, the other is research and engineering. we brought in diversity level players and test and evaluation and we are going to move things into production, prototyping, we are not going to have more papers, we are going to move on hypersonic's, move on ai, join program officers, not a bunch of different organizations all feeling their way forward and you just listed in the list you gave me in the question you just listed exactly where we are going and we can give you a brief on this but i have a varsity level player as undersecretary of research and engineering with nasa background, dod background, he has really got what he needs in terms of experience to drive this forward not for theory, not for experiments but putting

something out for test and moving it into a capability. >> we look forward to seeing the results of that work, thank you. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you for being here today. i'm proud that we meet today to provide resources necessary to begin the rebuild. i think there are many of us who were very frustrated, a lot of domestic spending in the omnibus but made the decision our own dysfunction as a congress shouldn't -- the cost should not be borne by our men and women in uniform so we will continue to help fight to make sure we have those resources necessary. we lost significant credibility and deterrence capability when we failed to enforce the redline with respect to bashar al-assad's use of chemical weapons in 2013. could you talk about how we get that back?

>> the first point about the red line is you don't draw them unless you intend to live up to them. and we don't always even have to draw them. we can speak with our actions. you saw us do that slightly over a year ago. the syrian government with either russian complicity or in confidence carried out a serum gas attack and we took out 17% of their air force as a caution to them. i am not sure they learned their lesson but i think in this case actions speak louder than words. there are times to try redlines and times to leave some ambiguity and speak with actions. i think that is what we are doing right now to address the question brought up. >> obviously the concern is that we won't be effective

deterrence against use of chemical weapons if we fail to take action once again. with respect to north korea we have seen historically time and time again as we discussed the north koreans follow the same game plan where they create a crisis, come to the table, offer concessions, pocket benefits we give them and continue down the path of developing their weapons. i saw jim and edward and secondary matus express cautious optimism about where we are. secretary mattis, if you could talk about how we are going to guard against a situation where the north koreans do exactly that again. >> right now or today, nominee pomp is going for confirmation on the senate side and he has studied this past occasions of

negotiation, documents signed and not carried through and someone with the consent of the senate in position to guide us in a very mature way to not walk in out of the same trap again. >> of focus and attention, the risk involved in nuclear armed north korea creeping into a policy of deterrence instead of complete verifiable capability, the risk of a nuclear armed north korea.

>> i want to add a point to your question, the economic pressure campaign. and the things we are doing, with regard to nuclear north korea issues, and the capacity piece. at some point the capabilities that overcome the defenses or numbers of missiles, and i can say with confidence that we could defend against the capability north korea has today and the numbers of missiles that can reach the united states. we could never deal with -- create a defense, with north koreans. or in serial production with numbers of missiles, the

equation can never be you can never afford to defend your way out of something with offense of capability. >> there are additional questions. >> you have answered questions, come back home regarding the national guard deployment to the southern border, and in 2012 the gao report, was conducted at the direction of congress and i think it was motivated in large part by the deployments by various administrations but more recently at that time my -- bide president bush's administration decision to deploy 400526000 guardsmen, close to $2 billion.

the gao report, concerned with a lack of comprehensive long-term strategy for the southern border and in the report, dod officials express concerns about the absence of comprehensive strategy for southwest border security, to plan a dod role. dhs officials expressed concerns border decisions is ad hoc has operational requirements and in light of the pres.'s public comment where he suggested the national guard would be deployed until such time the wall is built, i have concerns and can you please address what comprehensive long-term strategy is present or in

development to frame the national guard's involvement on the southern border. >> i read that 2012 report when i was ready for the job and took it on board, what has come up more recently. the priority donald trump placed, put together a comprehensive plan, i have not read all of it. i have read enough of it to know what i needed to do to put up to 4000 until the nonlaw enforcement, no contact with migrants position, to support dhs into the governor's command and control. >> i am assuming what you said

what was in place when pres. obama and president bush, the gao found there was not a comprehensive strategy. my question is is there a comprehensive strategy that clearly defines the role of the dod, national guard and these operations, a long time in this scenario. >> the department of homeland security, customs and border patrol troops, generally an uptick, anticipatory backing up, customs and border control, as far as the larger issue on strategy that is under the department of homeland

security. >> the dhs and dod, it is ad hoc, dod said i am concerned there needs to be comprehensive long-term strategy that outlines the role, may potentially last for years given the statement of the commander-in-chief that their presence may be here the wall is built. you may not have time to fully answer the question today and i will follow up with correspondence to your office but i would like more detail about a comprehensive long-term strategy with a dod role to support dhs. i assume you do that in partnership with dhs. >> this is not long-term, the wall gets built, that is one thing.

secretary nielsen, does she need this reinforcement? it is to buy time, the defense report to civil authorities, we have limited it in numbers and location, and where they are working, and this is not a long-term strategy, this is a buying time effort. >> mr. wilson. >> thank you for your diligence covering fiscal year 2019 national defense authorization act and thank you for your success in rebuilding the american military. they are increasingly challenging from terrorism, iraq, syria and africa to the radicalism of iran and north korea and competition with russia and china, the military has broader focus than ever

before. i am particularly grateful as a military dad, four sons served in iraq under your leadership, egypt and afghanistan, appreciate the challenges that is a part of the fence faces, and manage all the key issues identified. as a veteran myself and military parent thank you for your support of the budget agreement that finally puts our military on the path to addressing shortfalls. for each of you, i am very supportive of donald trump's initiatives to provide funding for the european deterrence initiative, it goes a long way to increasing activities in the region was one concern i have is with edi, our ability to transport troops, supporting resources across europe, are

there ongoing efforts within european command to improve mobility throughout the region to infrastructure and additionally border crossings. you share the concern in europe that we may not be able to effectively respond in time and is this a readiness concern for each of you? >> it is a readiness concern for us military but all of us military. right now you can try that was cargo from southern italy to finland faster than we can move some of our troops across some of those borders due to different rich capacities, authorities, legal conditions. in one area we found we can work with the european union on security and europe, they are working on what is called military mobility across their borders. that is called petco, the

acronym for it in nato is close to the european union to remove the very obstacles in hitting our movement of forces. >> did you have -- about the infrastructure, what is the status of improving infrastructure? >> that is one of the 3 elements, the infrastructure position, the exercises. >> i want to thank both of you. the cochairman of the european union caucus, i will relay your information immediately and thank them for their efforts, for expedited crossing. additionally for general dunford, we heard the course is strained as services continue to do more with less. what is your assessment of the current status of the joint force and how is it being medicated? what is your assessment of the military risk? >> i will start with the people, recruiting and

retaining high quality people and go to the operational tempo which is causing us to be a way more than we would like and talk about rebuilding some of our capabilities. the third element is material readiness which this budget is designed to build on efforts of 17, 18, to get after those materials shortfalls, readiness challenges we spoke about. >> i'm grateful, recruiting extraordinary people. i previously represented paris island to see young people serving there, it is heartwarming and i continue to represent for jackson where secretary mattis would be grateful to see new recruits coming in, how much that means

risk assessment. we ask for your permission to lay it this year and i appreciate the opportunity to do that and the reason is i finished it in january but the secretary wrote a new national defense strategy so the risk assessment i come back to you within the for his benchmarked, with revised national military strategy. >> your service to the country is reassuring. >> gentlemen, thank you for your time, waiting out until the last few questioners. just want to direct your attention to one of your quotes in fiscal year 2018.

it is appropriate for combatant commands to incorporate drivers of instability that impact the security requirement in areas to their planning and you say i agree with the effects of a changing climate such as increased maritime access to the arctic, rising sea levels, desertification, among others, impact our security situation. next, chairman dunford, it is a question once again of being forward deployed, forward engaged and be in a position to respond to the kind of natural disasters that i think we see as a second or third quarter affect of climate change. subsequent to that a number of other quotes that went from defense secretary gaetz and so forth. all that leads up to the quote that it is a sense of congress that climate change is a direct threat to the national security

of the united states and is impacting stability in areas of the world where the united states armed forces are operating today and where strategic implications for future conflict exists. pres.s bush and obama in their national defense strategy recognized climate change as a threat to our national security but unfortunately this national defense strategy under donald trump did not. a couple questions, one, do you agree with that sense of congress, the sense in this year's in daa, in their national defense. >> i can take that one. true allies, we recognize the local nature of what happens in

the world and impacts americans. and take 3 cups of tea, we start by listening. and start solving with problems, we listen to what they have going on. and the physical environment, why are people going hungry, the only solution, and that we are somehow looking at root causes that were unable to deal with local conditions in each of these countries, i want to trim it down and focus on three things. lethal force or adversaries, biltmore partnerships and

traditional ones. and the second one is all about dealing with the real world as it exists, standing with our allies. in a pretty long document. >> dunford? >> my position as i articulated earlier, i see the military role dealing with the effects, the outcome of natural disasters, still something we have the capability to do and we use our supported humanitarian disaster relief to foster open relationships. >> would you agree we should be addressing that in the upcoming in baa, this issue with the same intent about climate change and how it affects our national security? >> when we look at what the outcome is, the origins of it are largely issues that are dealt with through diplomacy. we need to have foreign policy

guided by diplomats, backed up supported by militaries and militaries need to stay focused, that doesn't mean we can't address these situations, the outcomes. it is best addressed by usaid, state department, the one who set our foreign policy there so we are working for a purpose. >> thank you, i yield back. >> gentlemen, we are proud of what you do. i was here for your opening statements, have gone to two hearings, you are still sitting here. your training in the military has given patience and stamina matched only by chairman fortenberry as well. >> you can stop me at any time but in light of the national

defense strategy, what is dot doing differently about the destabilizing activities of iran? >> we are looking at iran domestically and the nuclear weapons program, we are looking at their counter maritime effort where our fifth fleet, us fleet draw together nations between 25, 35 nations to do exercises, not just an able message but diplomatic message from all around the world. sweeping the minds, working with partners in the area to counter terrorist activities and those go from yemen and

syria, their militia, lebanon, to buy rain and the mischief they are up to and cyber efforts working with other partners to make them more resistant and dealing with the missile program through foreign military sales and integration of allies region and ballistic missile defense capability. >> there illicit sales of advanced conventional weapons, what are we doing to counter illegal transfers? >> you are absolutely right and at bowling air force base i invite you to see it, a display that is laying out the debris, the advanced weapons that iran is shipping to other countries. they are a threat to europe, to

saudi arabia, being fired out of yemen, a threat to our forces in the area and our partners so we are exposing this at bowling, 70 nations, ambassadors in the united nations or washington, they are looking at it and continue to display everything we can show the world as far as what they are up to in the region. >> those are great answers but one thing you did very well is coming up with coalition to fight isis in syria and iraq. do we have the same commitment or do we? why do we not have the same commitment in trying to confront the uranian stabilizing efforts in the region? >> over the years there have been efforts to guide iran to a

more responsible stance, those have been unavailing. if we sum it up in one word, as a result, we are focused on destroying it, there was a lot of effort over the years to see if iran would want to turn to its leadership a revolutionary cause and join the responsible nations. from all indications they have declined that option so we are probably going to have to deal with them in diplomatic and economic and security issues to be addressed. >> yield back. >> looks like i'm the last woman standing, thank you for being here today. as you know the national defense strategy concludes the

strategic composition, not terrorism, is the main primary concern in the us national security and while i agree the department must focus more on countering threats from russia and china, i represent a district in central florida that was significantly impacted by terrorism. in june 2000 tina gunmen with sworn allegiance to isis walked into paul's night club in orlando and killed or wounded over 100 people. it was a terrorist attack in the united states take in the united states in september 11th was the public of shooting serves as a tragic reminder that violence motivated by ideological extremism is a threat to our security at home and abroad. how should the department posture itself to protect the homeland against imminent threats of terrorism while also addressing the transition to an interstate strategic competition in the long-term? >> you are hitting at the very heart of what we had to balance, to change to i dynamic

threat envelope expanding the great power competition. what we decided was we had to have a problem statement of the problem statement is to maintain an effective and safe nuclear deterrent, a decisive conventional force that has a regular capability, the capability that goes to the heart of the concern. if we don't go after this advertorial safe haven, allow them to recruit, to raise funds, that we are going to see it in your district. we do this through allies. the chairman reports to me how many americans we have in this hall where the french have 4000, we are supporting them and help the african nations in this kind of thing that is an

al qaeda affiliate. we are going to continue with our allies in the philippines or afghanistan, around the world, keeping the adversary off-balance, and violent extremists suddenly decided to become responsible actors. >> when you talk about why we have been through a huge component of that that requires diplomacy and the will of diplomats, a few questions, you believe diplomats should handle diplomacy buttressed by military capabilities. and the state department more fully, you need to have more ammunition ultimately. hopefully the left will have to put into the military budget. and yet we have seen a

significant increase in defense funding at the same time as dramatic attrition in the state department. what policies do you think congress should pursue as well as the erosion of this concept that diplomats can lead with a military that supports when they are so thoroughly underfunded? >> i am probably the wrong person to talk with because i have no visibility, i don't deal with that issue. i have a pre-full portfolio but i will tell you that my first stop in every foreign country i go into, these foreign sources officers i see out there, ambassadors and foreign service officers 10, 20 years experience filling leadership positions, clearly at the top of their game, varsity players and i think right now very well

represented. that is not to address the details of your question. i don't feel confident doing so in an authoritative way. >> the civil servants on the front lines are very qualified. my concern is the leadership changes at the state department and resources, resources enable organizations to move forward so you don't have purview over that, as you have stated there is a significant impact on your mission and how you carry out your mission. one other thing before i run out of time. earlier this year my colleagues and i were shocked that dr. victor child was moved from consideration as ambassador of south korea after sharing his objection to the blood he knows

strategy, he was extremely count -- qualified, and unimaginable trump administration moved him because of his opposition to such a strike. earlier this year you identified north korea as an international threat and said our response threatens diplomacy that backed up with military options available to ensure our diplomats speak from a position of strength. the administration still hasn't appointed us ambassador to south korea and we are 16 months into the presidency. how does the lack of an ambassador affect our relationship with the republic of korea when war with north korea is a dangerous possibility? >> i have not seen that yet. i have been through correia as you know. seems to be connected to everyone, has full access, the rok is uniquely willing and

capable ally, has a lot to do with their willingness to deal with him but you see the summit coming up now based on the pressure campaign as president moon of the republic of korea put it, the pressure campaign, what has brought north korea to the table, we are now seeing a degree of willingness to engage in cautious optimism that the diplomacy is clearly in the lead. >> thank you. >> mr. secretary. in your opening comments you stated the importance of our allies. i thank you for your work to assure our allies and work closely with our allies. i share the air and land subcommittee and head of the us delegation to the nato parliament reassembly in your leadership as i'm certain you are aware makes a big

difference with respect to our allies, your professionalism, your history, your prior work. i have two questions for you about the f 35 and with respect to our allies. last might i had dinner with the minister of defense from the netherlands with the ambassador and they spoke very highly of the time they had spent with you, thank you for the attention with all the things you have that you give our allies because you give those assurances. we spoke about the f 35 and nato partners, more specifically, who are participating in that. we share the concern on dual capable aircraft, we need our allies to participate in the of 35 program fully so our nato mission maintaining nato as a nuclear mission is realized.

we are concerned about the upcoming decision of belgium and i want to speak about the importance of allied partners, we don't want that mission to diminish at all and if you could speak about the issue with turkey and the russian air missile defense system or another if 35 partner. we are all concerned what we should be doing or more to try to diminish military cooperation between turkey and russia and a strong partnership with turkey. >> on the dual capable aircraft in europe, nato is a nuclear armed military alliance and that means nato nations have

got to have an inventory dual capable aircraft capable of carrying nuclear weapons, the deterrence only works, never to be employed but the need is dual capable aircraft, if 35 will be dual capable, hence why we support allowing our allies to buy that superb aircraft. by and large it is fully embraced, the mission is fully embraced, nuclear posture review at brussels ministerial, fully accepted, didn't run into any pushback because we took them on board early and allowed reviews of it and give input, the americans -- it is an alliance of democratic party -- >> i hope you wonderscore the

importance of participation with dual capable mission. there may be some misunderstanding as to options participating in that mission separate from the f 35. it is -- >> i'm on my way to brussels and i will make certain i do that in person, i appreciate that. on turkey, purchasing the russian missile defense system, turkey is a nato ally. once we bring a system like that in, we know right away is incompatible with the rest of the nato defenses by its very nature. furthermore there are two nato nations that provide missile defense to turkey using nato approved systems to other nations so what you're talking about doing is putting in the

same area, incompatible missile defense systems in this is hardly something in nato's best interest so we do not recommend it. we have been engaging with turkey on this to include providing foreign military sales options that permit nato compatible systems. >> mr. rogers. >> thank you for your service and your attendance today. general mattis. the two reports we called for last year, from our previous conversation you are acutely aware we find ourselves in a situation where our strategic competitors, russia and china have come up here and in fact challenging superiority in that war fighting domain. as you also know, this called

for establish of a space core to pursue that problem and the pres. announced support for a space force. do you have a viable alternative to a space force the president called for in this committee called for? >> we have to define this problem not just the space focus of a force but acquisition to employment, coordination to innovation, all those things that go with it. of a space force is the right thing to do i have no reservations. i don't want to stand up in dod which is an enormous bureaucracy and many some bureaucracies as if that will be the solution. if it is the solution, we will go there but what we are looking at is a war fighting

domain. when i look at a specific domain or cyber domain ibook for combatant commanders of those. i don't set up a specific army, a new military force, i am open on this. i did not recognize that we have a problem when we go through confirmation and what you and your colleagues have done brought it to our attention. it is a primary focus for the deputy secretary of defense, we are going to solve this to your satisfaction. i don't know what all that solution looks like, we break out the pieces, solving each of them, we will sort this out. it is not ideological opposition. when we have army, navy, marine

corps, the joint force challenging, the best in the world and we are good at it. do we want to set up another force? we have to make certain it solves the problem, for an entirely new military, recruiting, training and everything else. might be the right thing to do. >> i share your confidence. dunford come in your military judgment can you explain to us why we need a lower yield ballistic missile when we already have a lower yield gravity bomb? >> deterrence is all about making sure the adversary knows there is a credible response that is greater then whatever they do. we might like to reduce our nuclear capabilities, russia has grown those over time.

they have thousands of nonstrategic nuclear weapons. they have a mind that if they use nonstrategic nuclear weapons, we risk the homeland or we would concede they achieved their political difference. they have a low yield option, increasing deterrence because it convinces them we have credible capable responses no matter what they do, they will be met with a capable response in no circumstances under which they will do something where the cost they pay is not greater than what they hope to gain. >> icbms, giving up responsiveness. do you believe it would be wise past to pursue? >> i don't and that's particular issue, you follow it well, it has been looked at in

several posture reviews. it is more stabilizing so that is where they are so, in a crisis if you alerted them you create unstable conditions. >> thank you for your service. i yield back. >> thank you, gentlemen, for being here today. on august 21, 2017, many of us champions and welcomed the administration's change in strategy and focus to win in afghanistan to create a safe and secure afghanistan. last summer in your testimony you stated in afghanistan, investments will reinforce improvement in the afghan national defense security forces, today you stated quotemac we are working toward a sustainable approach to stabilizing the afghan government and denying terrorists sanctuary.

in february, it does not have the ability to prevent insurgency from maintaining a rural presence and training of population center or critical ground line of communication. supporting this, the latest, most recent assessment, the afghan government's control of districts is lowest, the insurgency's control is the highest since december 2015. we expect to see the afghan government's control increase while the insurgency's control decrease. when do you see it turning the corner against insurgents and other terrorists? >> thanks for the question. i was just in afghanistan for five days, visited all of our conventions, spent time with gen. nicholson to talk about how he was implement in the south asia strategy,

specifically the military division secretary mattis directed. a couple challenges, we suffered significant afghan casualties. the cooperation across afghan police, afghan army, intelligence organizations haven't been quite what it needed to be ends they were short capabilities, intelligence capability, service capability. what we have done is taken a look at what the afghans need to gain momentum and retain momentum against the adversary. our advisors are the right advisers, selected for previous combat experience, the right people with the right advice at the right level where before they were up at the core level and the capability to get to the tactical level. that is significant for two reasons. it enhances the leadership development, the afghan forces, more portly it helps deliver fires at the right time and right place and how they handle it at the right time and the

right place. the other thing i was urged about is what we call cross-border coordination, police, army and security forces, many demonstrations in january, february and march. we just now are 6 or 7 weeks into the new organizational construct. i would expect to see different results in the summer and i will close by saying we are not doing, the people would say we are doing more of the same. i would argue we did the fighting. 2013 at the peak, we did 140,000 forces, focusing the next 3 years and decreasing forces to the point we had 8000 forces in 2017. this is going to be the first season we had a fully resourced plan to support the afghans in conducting counterinsurgency operations inside afghanistan. by no means is the military dimension of the problem

sufficient to strategic success but i do believe right now the military dimension has been adequately addressed. i'm confident we have the right organizational construct, the right people in the right capabilities in place to address specific issues we identify and do failure analysis over the last few years, we withdrew those lessons learned, specific issues that had to be addressed when we deployed the force for 2018. >> with less then a minute i have left, many of us support this administration's new approach. we have since august 21, 2017. we have heard far too little from the pentagon about the success of that strategy. the american people deserve to know we are turning the corner, making progress. what can we do, what can you do to better inform the american people that we are making progress in the months to come, show them that we are doing everything we can to win in

afghanistan? >> i read through your point loud and clear, we owe them an explanation of the american people, what we need to do is deliver results as well as as the results come with this new organization now that we have a strategy not just to leave but to actually win, we are in a position to actually give the kind of progress reports we are looking for but it is a good point. let me look at it. my time is expired. >> mr. hice. >> thank you for being here in your service. secretary mattis, in your written statement you said modernizing the nation's nuclear deterrent delivery systems including our nuclear command and control is the department's top priority and

general dunford, you similarly said the nuclear modernization is the highest priority mission of the joint force and there is no margin remaining in the modernization schedule and we must deliver these critical nuclear modernization programs on these timelines. .. to elaborate, why do you think the nuclear programs are top priority. >> these weapons if used bring a tragedy beyond anyone to explain it. >> it's costly, it's a lot less costly than if there was a slip into a nuclear war, sir. >> congressman as the second made clear to us, deter nuclear war, we have to have credible capabilities. the adversary has to know, again, back to the-- that we would respond in a way that would impose a cost much greater than ever would do. and if they struck it us,

they'd be met with a wall of force. we have a threat in place to deter nuclear war for decades and unformer, we stopped making investments in our nuclear enterprises in 1990's and we should have modernized in the late 1990's. as we've seen, as much as we would like to deemphasize nuclear weapons, our adverse saris have modernized nuclear weapons and the russians opened it up and they have some nonstrategic nuclear weapons. when you look at job one, deter nuclear weapons, the force that we have and the command and control systems we have in place have to be credible enough to make sure the adversary knows we have know we have enough to respond. >> and i assume from that, you

agree with the general's statement from stat com we need to go faster on our nuclear modernization programs? >> absolutely. the good inning is, we have the nuclear review map laid out a one, i'm coming back on nuclear control, and make sure that we look at the modern element of that. in this year's budget 19 we've made investments across the tri triad. >> you would agree with that, as well, general mattis? >> i do, and i appreciate the increase on the budget-- >> secretary mattis, this is for you. do you think dealerting our nuclear forces is a good idea? >> i cannot find any positive

aspect of it, sir. as you know, the icbm's are targeted in open waters. we have reduced any sense that they're on hair trigger alert as well because we don't have to use them or lose them. it's not that sort of an issue. what we want is a deterrent. in other words, someone who wants to attack us would have to take them all out. that cannot be done with one or ten or even 100 nuclear weapons, and that sobers anyone who thinks they're going to take us on. so the icbm force, the submarines, the bombers, it's the right way to keep the deterrents intact. >> a little different way, are you worried that having part of our nuclear forces on alert is dangerous? >> no, sir. >> thank you very much. i appreciate you all being here and i yield back. >> mr. secretary, we have been

joined by some good citizens from the amarillo, texas, chamber of commerce whom i stood up about 45 minutes ago. at least a couple of them are involved in helping provide our nuclear deterrents. on behalf of them and all of us, i want to thank you both for being here for four hours and answering our questions, and for your service to the country. hearing stands [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversation [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] e today, our live coverage of the visit for french president emmanuel macron begins with the arrival simone at the white house, 9 a.m. eastern live coverage on c-span2. continuing tuesday the joint news conference 11:45 a.m. eastern live on c-span 3 and the first state dealership of the trump administration is 6:30 p.m. eastern, live on

c-span 3. wednesday, president macron will be on capitol hill to address the joint meeting of congress live on c-span at 11 a.m. eastern. >> friday morning, we're in salt lake city utah for the next stop on the c-span bus 50 capitals tour. utah governor gary herbert will be our guest on the bus on washington journal starting at 9:30 a.m. eastern. the council on american islamic relations released their 2018 civil rights report which found that anti-muslim bias increased in 2017. this news briefing is 20 minutes