on it. >> and on 8 on the presidency, alexander talks about her book, "26 seconds" a personal history of the film. >> gradually, starting in the late 60s, versions of the film began to leak out. and people began to see it. and when they saw it, because of the way that the film looks, it did not look like what the warren commission concluded. >> american history tv all weekend every weekend only on c span 3. >> up next on c pan 3.

defense under text for personal re readiness and nuclear and defense programs. this is almost two hours. >> good morning. services committee meets today to consider the nominations of mark t esper to be secretary of the army, well key for under secretary of defense for readiness, kernan to be intelligence, and guy rod insurance for nuclear chemical and biological defense weapons. i would like to say that i have

been pleased with the reaction of the secretary of defense and the administration being cooperative in responding to our questions and to our ability to carry out our responsibilities on the defense authorization bill. i think that the most members were happy with the briefing that we received concerning the actions on the uss mccain and others. and so we are glad to begin this hearing. we thank all of you for joining us this morning. we welcome your family and friends with us today. as is our tradition at the beginning of your testimony, we invite you to introduce those who are joining you. it's the standard for this committee to ask certain questions in order to exercise legislative and oversight responsibilities. it's important that this committee and other appropriate committees of the congress be

able to receive testimony briefings and other communications of information. i'd ask that you each provide responses to the following questions. for the years i have been a member of this committee, it has not been an important issue. its now an important issue. because we are not receiving the information and communication that is the constitutional responsibility of this committee. so i urge you to consider your answers very carefully when i ask these questions. have you adhered to applicable laws and regulations governing conflicts of interest? >> yes, sir. >> will you ensure that your staff complies with deadlines established for requesting communications, including questions for the record in here ings? >> yes. >> will you cooperate in

providing witnesses and briefers in response to congressional requests? >> yes, sir. >> will those witnesses be protected from reprisal for their testimony or briefings? >> yes. >> do you agree if confirmed to appear and testify upon request before this committee? >> yes. >> do you agree to provide documents including copies of electronic forms of communication in a timely manner when requested by a duly constituted committee or to consult with the committee regarding the basis for any good faith delay or denial in providing such documents? >> yes. >> have you assumed any duties or undertaken any actions which would appear to presume the outcome of the confirmation process? >> knows. >> yes. >> thank you. >> mr. will key, over half of the and you'll defense budget is spent on personnel costs to include training, health care and compensation. our forces facing a readiness

crisis. our personnel are experiencing ts strain of 16 years of continuous conflict. i wish you could have heard our navy testimony yesterday concerning the accidents that have taken place. and we all know that this congress bears significant responsibility for the lack of funding and the lack of readiness and capability of our military which then makes for 100 hour work weeks, which then leads to accidents. i'm sure you are aware of the testimony of the chief of naval operation. our forces are facing, as i said a readiness crisis, personnel is continuous conflict. the next under secretary of

defense have been a priority for this committee in the last three years. the sweeping personnel reforms congress has passed in recent defense authorization bills reflect the importance we place on these issues. if confirmed, we expect that you will work to faithfully impla meentd these reforms and be a forward thinking partner to this committee as we look to ensure that serving in defense of our nation remains a compelling calling for our best and brightest americans. admiral kernan, if confirmed, as understand secretary of defense for intelligence, you will serve as the principal intelligence adviser of the secretary of defense and will be dual hatted as director of defense intelligence and office of national intelligence. it's been nearly 15 years since this position was created. and the security environment has

changed dramatically during that time. the scope and complexity of global threats is unlike anything the nation has faced during the last seven decades. that's why it's more important than ever that this committee and the department make certain that the defense intelligence enterprise is appropriately structured to integrate and prioritize intelligence resources and capabilities throughout the department. i look to our nominee to explain how he intends to reassess this structure and ensure that the military has timely and accurate intelligence to defend the nation against a rapidly evolving series of security challenges. mr. roberts, if confirmed, you will be the principal adviser to the secretary of defense on nuclear weapons. and chemical and biological defense as well as executive director of the nuclear weapons council. as such, you will have a key

role in shep harding the modernization program so that the nuclear triad, including the bomber, submarine, icbm, long range standing weapon and control. if confirmed we will expect you to advocate for the timely execution of these programs. which remain a cornerstone of our nation's national defense, especially in the current environment. we also expect you will work with the national nuclear security administration and department of energy to support the recapalization of the critical infrastructure that supports the nuclear weapon stock piles. many of these facilities are in a disgrace full state of disrepair and strong leadership from both the dod and doe will be required to keep all of these programs on time and at cost. dr. esper, there is no clearer

illustration than our army remains at war in the combat of our loss of four nigerian officers last year. in 16 years of war, the army perhaps more than any other service has been tested repeatedly our soldiers have met the test and proved their commitment, courage skill, and determination. today, however, our army is facing a crisis. the burden imposed by our soldiers only grows as threats to our nation increase and see questions tags remains the law of the land sequestration. >> given current operational demands, restoring readiness must be the army first priority. me made progress in improving the brigades ready for deployment. but too many of our soldiers remain in brigade tsz that are currently nondeployable. and the army still does not plan to return to full spectrum readiness until 20021 at the

earliest. meanwhile, the army is woefully behind on modernization. and our soldiers are increasingly unprepared to confront the harsh realities of 21st certainty warfare. with glowing gaps in this, these problems will only get worse as our adversaries continue to modernize their forces. our army lacks the capacity and key capabilities to windy size i havely. if confirmed we will expect you to implement the modernization that the army announced last month. work to turn these bram goals into real weapons and equipment. and put them into the hands of soldiers as soon as possible. our soldiers can't afford the false choice between readiness and modernization.

building a ready modern army will have to have vision narry leadership and clear strategy. if confirmed we will expect you to lead the army to those ends. you'll have to learn the lessons of the past, make tough decisions, take and manage real risks, and hold yourself in those working for you accountable for results. when you do so, you will always have an ally in this chairman in this committee. finally, doctor esper, i would be remiss if i did not reiterate my concerns about the number of nominees from defense industry filling out the leadership ranks at the department of defense. i want to be clear that my reservations grew out of early c consul stations i had with potential nom ease including yours and others. it was then that i decided i i couldn't support further nominees with those background

beyond those we had already discussed. i appreciate your commitment. not only to recuse yourself from matters related to the raytheon company, but further not to seek or accept waivers to your recusal obligation. and i would like to submit your letter stating that commitment into the record without objection. again, let me thank your witnesses for willing to serve our nation at this challenging time. the length of my opening statement was directed directly related to the importance of the task that you will be asked to undertake. senator read. >> well, thank you very much. mr. chairman. let me join you in welcoming our nominees and to thank them and their families for willingness to serve in the positions with great responsibility in the department of defense. i also would like to, as you introduce your families, acknowledge the critical role they play in supporting your efforts and supporting the men and women in uniform.

and dr. esper, you have been nominated to lead one of our greatest insurance stooges united states army. if confirmed you will serve during a time which the organization is facing many challenges including how to readiness soldiers around the world. to grapple how to make best programs and canceling those programs that are under performing. and you have a wealth of experience including your service in the army and expensive experience in both public and private. as confirmed as next of the army, your unique challenge will allow you to meet these head on. and i look forward to hearing your views on this issues. mr. will key, you will face many challenges in ensuring first and foremost that our military has adequate numbers of ready and trained service members of sufficiently high character and talent to meet national

objectives. this includes many challenges, military costs have continued to rhys to the over all defense budget. even as the over all number of active duty soldiers air men and ma rinse has dropped from over 2 million in 1980 to 1.3 million today. despite increase to the defense budget over that time frame. mr. will key, your vast experience within the department and congress should serve you well if you are confirmed i look forward to working with you and you will be tackling different issues and i know you will do well. admiral kernan, you have been nominated to intelligence at a very critical time. intelligence are more integrated than ever before. but at the same time the dew manned for accurate and timely intelligence continues to out strip supply. this challenge is exacerbated by inefficient allegation process of available surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities

among the commands. as technical and tell begins gathering capabilities continue to advance at an exceptional pace, we are also experienced a shortfall in analytical tools necessary to make effective use of the overwhelming of intelligence being generated. given your more than 3 decades of service in the navy, you bring important experience to the position of the u.s. di. which you should serve with great distinction as you have in the past. mr. roberts, if confirmed, you will serve in position that dates back to the 1946 act. since this creation this office has assumed other important subjects. however, it's core mission has not changed, which is to serve as interface between the department defense and the department of energy national nuclear administration or nnsa. in no uncertain terms i expect

you as your predecessors to hold them accountable in meeting department stockpile needs and in particular restoring our ability to produce blue ton um pits as we capitalize our triad over the next 20 years. since 2011, following the ratification of the new star treaty, this committee has extended considerable time and effort holding the nnsa accountable to this mission and we expect you to continue it. again, thank you for your willingness, gentlemaen, to sere the nation. >> thank you. i note the presence of our respected friends, senator tillis who would like to, i believe, introduce one of the witnesses. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ranking members and distinguished colleagues on senate armed service, i have the privilege of making a few comments about robert will key. he has extensive resume that i'm sure is in the record but i think is it it bears reporting one of the important things that make him uniquely qualified for

the role. many of you met robert when he was working with the nomination of secretary mattis, we got limp over to the office of personnel tran sticks to help with the transition. he's got several years of private sector experience including working on projects that refer to reform and organization ministry of defense logistics system. he also served as in the bush administration for both gates and rumsfeld as assistant secretary of defense. and before that he served under condoleezza rice. i could go true the full resume but i won't. i can tell you being a junior senator coming in and serving with him was real honor. he started under jesse helms and in the leaders office. he has a grasp of history that is unparallel. we play a game in my office call stump robert. we haven't figured out how to do

it yet. he has a broad base of educational experience, above the lines of service. but mr. chairman, in your comments about taking readiness seriously, there is not a day that goes by we are not talking about. and one of the reasons when we were looking at subcommittees that i may serve on that he was the one to say it would be great to get the person ale subcommittee because that's an area where we can do a lot of work and we focused on it and made progress with the great staff. and i'm pretty sure most of the senate armed services staff have a high opinion of robert. i'll tell you we also call him forest gump because there is not a single story he cannot put in context of some experience during his working career or dating back to the roman times. he's going to be a great addition to the department of defense. and i'm personally, bitter sweet to lose him, but in my capacity as personnel on senate armed services i get an opportunity to continue to work with him and do great work. so i wholeheartedly support his

nomination hand appreciate the opportunity to introduce him. >> well, thank you, senator tillis, and thank you for your very good words and your opinion is shared on this diaz as well. so i thank you very much. so maybe we'll just begin with you, mr. will key, if you'd like to proceed. >> yes, sir. thank you mr. chairman. senator reed, this is the second time i have appeared in this chair. >> i hope it's better than the last time. >> yes. as in 2006, i was blessed to have my wife julie with me. we grew up together outside of fort bragg and she is the foundation of our family in both our civilian and military lives. 2006 my daughter megan is now old enough to sit here. she is escaping from her classes

from washington and lee and also representing her brother adam who is first semester engineering student at clemson university. i'm also proud to have my sister-in-law here, we too went to school in fayetteville. >> welcome them to the committee. thank you. >> i was honored to be introduced by a former member of this committee in a truly great senate leader trent lot. i'm equally humbly placed in me. senator helms said for any senator to truly represent north carolina they must understand north carolina highway 24. that is the road that connects 45% of the entire united states marine core in the eastern part of our state to the place senator reed calls the hub of the universe fort bragg.

senator tillis has met his charge and exemplifies all of us who have been part of the military life strive to be, and that is a servant leader. mr. chairman, if confirmed, i'll be charged with making life easier for the men, women, and families, military and civilian, who carry our future on their shoulders. i have been privileged to see this military life from many angles, as a dependent, as the son of a gravely wounded combat soldier, as an officer with a family in the military health care system, and as a senior leader in the white house and the pentagon. my earlier memories of the mass jumps of the 82 airborne normandie at fort bragg. i've witnessed firsthand the transition from the con script military to the all volunteer total force of guard, active and

reserve, and envisioned by the late craig. since desert storm, readiness has been the ability to mobilize and fight wars. that notion of readiness is a great place for pnr to start when assessing the quality of the total force. in my opinion, as the chairman mentioned, the department has too often been caught up in chasing the new carrier or fighter. there have been few champions for readiness to work with this committee. simply put, we need to get people back on the range and in the motor pools and prepare for the full spectrum of conflict, which now includes cyberand space. the threshold question is whether each decision made by the department enhances america's ability to deter and if need be defeat any enemy while keeping our soldiers alive and getting them back home

quickly. when they return we owe them and their families the same level of care and attention. this is not the military that senator mccain or my father joined at the dawn of the kennedy administration. yet we are ham strung by policies and procedures in place then to run that force of multiple millions, refreshed each year by thousands of draftees, and rotc graduates. today our military is vastly different. comprised entirely of high quality volunteers. 17% of the force is female. many of whom are serving in the front lines in numbers and missions unimaginable in the days of the waks. bull our headquarters are bloated. we rely on 20 year upper out model for servicemen and women forced to leave the military in their prime. promotion models often see the bottom performer advance at the same pace as the front runner. success in the information age will increasingly rely on the technical ability of our troops.

yet our assignment system values breathe this over depth of experience. recruiting could be stove piped and not reach a wide audience online. service members cannot move freely among guard to meet changing circumstances in their lives. in my father's day, few soldiers had families. today over 60% do. where our families, the center of their lives can be their military health care system. but that system has been slow to keep up with modern medical advances for conditions like autism, and other behavioral disorders as senators tillis have made clear. we still have military families making their medical appointments on paper. constant rotation, again based on a 19th center army model prey vents spouses from putting down roots and garnering meaningful employment. child care is at best uneven. the bottom line as chairman said

in his remarks to secretary mathis, if families are not happy they walk. the miracles, but frontline marine and infantry units are now down to 1 to 1.4 years. and on any given day 15% of the army is medically able to deploy. mr. chairman, we must address those hard facts or the force will break. this committee has kept pace and faith with the finest military in the world. and the solutions for many of the issues i mentioned have already gun to be put in place. if confirmed, i pledge to build on your work. and also work with the great patriots, part of the family, who man and help you keep that faith. mr. chairman, i thank you. and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you for excellent statement. dr. esper.

>> chairman mccain, ranking member reed, members of the armed services committee, it is an honor and privilege to appear before you this morning as the president's nominee for secretary of the army. i want to thank the president and secretary mattis for this opportunity and confidence in me. i would like to begin my recognizing my wife leah, and our children john and kate with me today. like many military families they made sacrifices in support of my service in the army. >> you're welcome here. >> less than a year after we married my wife experienced anxious days after my deployment to the gulf war. later gave birth to our first son in army hospital in a foreign country while i was commanding an air born that trapd throughout europe as part of a rapid reaction force. we moved four times in five years. but she always made a home for our growing family wherever the army sent us. after i transitioned from active duty to the virginia guard she

shouldered additional duties during the weekends, training and everything in between. this will continue for several years during various jobs m the senate, house, as deputy assistant secretary of defense from my retirement in 2007. i tell the story because the big thanks i owe her for the support and terrific job raising our children when i was gone. her support i know i'll lean on again if confirmed has the next secretary of the army. i also share this story to give you experiences in the army. from first day of cadet, i wore a uniform foreover 25 years. privileged to serve in the best active guard units, and top leadership schools, and serve on dwee separate con continue ents of our country. throughout military career,

fortunate to serve with the best. ment soldiers, nco, officers, and employees of the united states army whose vigilance keep our great nation safe. i've learned a good deal for all of them and would not be here if it were not be for them. today's army is greatest ground combat force in history. despite this fact, the service faces many challenges. this committee knows them well. the army is at a critical in flexion point pivoting to address the rise of adversaries while soldiers fight terrorist groups abroad and fiscal press shushs at home continue. the next secretary must lead us to success, and prepare for the future fights as well. my vow, if confirmed, is to leverage my values, experiences, and all my energies to make the hard choices and address these issues. if confirmed, my first priority will be readiness ensuring total

army is prepared to fight against the full spectrum of conflict. with army engaged in over 140 countries all over the world, afghanistan and iraq, to deter russia, and in the pacific defending against bell a coast north korea. this means recruiting the best our nation has to offer, ensuring these young men and women are well trained and well led, annie equipping them with the best weapons and technology available. every unit must be prepared to deploy and accomplish its mission. these are the fundamental title 10 duties of the secretary of army. and if confirmed i intend to do them well. a second priority will be modernization. building capacity and capabilities in the longer term, this means growing the force while maintaining quality. reshaping it to be more robust and modernizing it with the best equipment available to guarantee clear over match in future conflicts. for modernization to be successful, the secretary must articulate a clear vision,

reform championed by this committee must be fully implemented and acquisition process must be greatly improved. this includes changing our requirements, modifying the personnel system to promote success and ktd ability, prototyping and demonstrating systems early, and involving the private sector much more. in short, we must provide our soldiers the tools they need to fight and win when they need them. defense are flot where they need to be and i know the aermd service rs working hard to change that. but in the meantime army must better resources. to achieve this i intend to play a very active role in the army top acquisition programs. reduce bureaucracy, bring inefficiency out of it, and promote an audit ready culture which will facilitate much of this. we must free up time. lastly, if confirmed, our approach my duties with the values and behaviors proven to

mac feist the effectiveness of any team, act with integrity, collaborate broadly, treat others with respect, encourage innovation, critical thinking and straight talk, empower people and hold leaders accountable. these principles must be lived, promoted and upheld day in hand day out by leaders at every level. chairman, mccain, and members of this committee, thank you for your time and consideration today. having served on capitol hill i know well the critical article 1 responsibilities of the aermd services committees and when it comes to our nation's security what you expect. so i look forward to working closely and continuously with the committee to ensure the united states army is ready to deploy, fight, and win on any battlefield on any day under any conditions, and that the total army family are soldiers, civilians and loved ones at home are well cared for. i'm grateful for your consideration of my nomination and i look forward to your questions. thank you. >> thank you. mr. kernan. >> chairman mccain, ranking

member read and distinguished members of this community. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. and for your consideration of my nomination to be under secretary of defense for intense begins. >> i'm appreciative of the trust and kfd they have placed in me. and if confirmed i look forward to assuming responsibility gs of the u.s. di. a role that i view as extremely important to our nation's security. i would like to recognize nye family who are not here in person, but in spirit and fully supportive of this commitment should i be confirmed they have all influenced me greatly. my father, who left columbia medical school in 1939 to fly b 17 in world war ii. my father-in-law who flew navy core zaire during world war ii. my brother bob career navy pilot and two sisters who are active human tarrians on many fronts. most importantly my wife jan, always supportive and caring. she was alone for much of my military career raising our two

children shawn and shannon tan too often console the casualties from my command. lastly, preem end reason for me and willingness to serve is for the men and women who stand in defense of our country of the they desteer the best we can provide them. and should i be confirmed they will have my unwavering commitment to that task. phi dpelt of intelligence when combined with the skill and courage of those men and women along with impact decision making is crucial to our nation's security. during combat and operations i placed a high value on intelligence support because that intelligence allowed us to exploit intelligence on those target sites. in my experience, enterprises were routinely used to our operations. my collective and collaborative intelligence capacities, partnering and collaborating

remains firm. and if confirmed, that will continue. if confirmed, my initial priorities would include providing intelligence support to war fightsers and national decision making. pro-actively collaborating cross the department of defense, and finally, leveraging technologies and innovations where they can address any internal and external threats and challenges. in this complex security environment we must collect, process, analyst information from all domains. human, sea, air, land, space ansi bert and, must be equipped to do so as well. if confirmed, i'll get these in place. in closing, i am committed to working very closely with this committee, and other committees of jurisdiction to provide the

information needed to carry out oversight responsibilities. thank you for your consideration of my nomination. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. mr. roberts. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ranking member reed and members of the committee for your consideration of my nominee for assistant for nuclear and biological programs. it is indeed an honor and privilege to be considered for this important position. i wish to thank the president hand secretary mattis in their confidence for me and support for my nomination. and of course i owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to my family, my wife lynn, and two sons who could not be here today. but their love, support, and sacrifice have been up lifting and without it i certainly wouldn't be here today. i would also like to express my deep appreciation to the men and women who have served and who kin to serve our nation in uniform today.

their sacrifices and those of their families are enormous and as i can attest firsthand we cannot thank them enough. i feel tronger sense of purpose and if confirmed to dedicate myself to ensure that they as well as all americans with fully protected from the threat of weapons of mass destruction and use. likewise, if confirmed i look forward to working with the rest of the department defense team to support secretary mattis in implementing the president's plan to rebuild our military and to ensure the safety and security of the american people. particularly regarding modernizing our nuclear enterprise and our and tie proliferation initiatives and programs. i believe 35 years of experience participating in and negotiating multi lateral and bilateral agreements on harms control and proliferation issues and overseeing our nato make me uniquely for this position. and strategic arms control

negotiations, working in the private sector as subject matter expert on nonproliferation, training programs, and as an ac domestic violencic teaching classes on nonproliferation, americans with disabilities act control. and also as a senior official in osd policy where i worked on issues that continue to be that, including russia, north korea, nuclear deterrence and missile defense policy and rank of counter proliferation initiatives. additionally, i work closely with our 58lallies to help withr countries to prevent proliferation, and oversaw nato posture. while there i developed a keen appreciation for the importance of reg tore consultations and working closely with our allies and partners as well as other international actors and industry.

in confirmed, i anticipate continuing to work closely with our allies and partners as well as my interagency counterparts to help synchronize our efforts regarding policy objectives. most importantly, the president has prioritized nuclear modernization as highest priority among national defense requirements. if confirmed, i'll work to first ensure we have a robust nuclear enterprise with flexible ready and survivable nuclear capabilities. second, work to develop a nuclear posture that's responsive to today's threats and challenges. and, third, institute policies that in any adversaries eyes credibly convey the aggression of any kind is not a rational option. i believe we must maintain a second to none deterrence posture to come pla meant our efforts to stop the threat of nuclear mass destruction. additionally if confirmed i'll work loosely with other dod

components as well as allies to ensure that state and nonstate actors never have the opportunity to acquire and use these weapons of mass destruction and dis eruption against our forces, our allies and our homeland. finally, if confirmed i look forward to working with this committee to support developing and modernizing the needed capabilities to deter our adversaries, reassure our allies, prevent the spread of, protect against, and effectively respond to the threat of wm proliferation and use. thank you again. and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much, mr. roberts. i just like to makal comment here. and that is it the reason why these nominations have not been acted on as rapidly as possible is because failures of communication between this committee and the pentagon, which is a shame, since i have

known them for many, many years. we expect from you, as opening questions that i ask, not only communication, but cooperation. and that is something that is our constitutional responsibility. and i hope that you appreciate it. dr. esper, from time to time there is frustration on this committee because of failures of major weapon systems. for example, over the last ten years or so, we have wasted about $40 billion on programs like the future combat system, the comanche attack helicopter, the joint tactical radio system, and the distributed common

ground system army, most recently the committee has learned of the failure of the tactical, known as wint yierky, has cost the taxpayer over $6 billion and yet to meet the rir7 requirements of our war fighters. let me tell you now that is not acceptable. it's not acceptable to the taxpayers of america. it's not acceptable to the members of this committee. now, we made several changes over the last couple of years in the defense authorization bill. but we do not want anymore of these failures. you lose credibility with the american people when a program has to be canceled that costs the taxpayers over $6 billion. so please keep that in mind. and we will be exercising

careful scrutiny. we just can't keep wasting billions of dollars like this. we just can't. so i hope that that's the message that you get from every member of the committee on both sides. so could i ask dr. esper, you've got an in strength of over one million soldiers. okay. army remains one service in the greatest demand by the combatant commanders. all the while it works to build readiness. is the current budget adequate to support operations, maintain readiness and modernize the army for 21st certainty warfare? >> mr. chairman, i do not think the current budget is adequate to maintain current readiness or prepare for future readiness. >> mr. will key. >> knono, sir, it is not.

>> and mr. kerr man. >> no, chairman, i do not believe it's sufficient. >> may i just say, again, dr. esper, for again, d dr. esper, for over two years, army leaders have asserted readiness as priority number one. do you believe that the army is at a level of readiness to conduct combined arms maneuver warfare against a peer competitor? >> not least of which, most possible, is to engage a near gear competitor in a high-end fight. i think with only one-third of the brigade combat teams and 25% of the combat aviation brigades ready, engaging in such a conflict would be conducted at significant risk. >> thank you. mr. cernan, almost every day we hear of another issue concerning cyber -- either revolution --

revelations of old attacks, an increase in the knowledge that we have concerning what russians did to try to affect the outcome of our elections. and as far as we can tell, for the last eight years, there has not been a strategy in cyber, which then would be translated to policy, which would then be translated to action. now, we've got provisions in the defense authorization bill, and we have a cyber subcommittee. how serious do you think this issue is? >> sir, i think the cyber threat is probably one of the most concerning threats that face our nation today. certainly in terms of what it can do to, you know, malicious

activity inside of our infrastructure for our nation, but as well cyber activities that are recurring inside the department of defense. we have to commit ourselves. we have to commit ourselves to protecting our networks, to mitigating the impacts of malicious activity. we also need to develop an offensive and a defensive capability. again, i think it's a very, very serious threat that we have to take -- that we have to take seriously. it is a warfare domain, in my mind. it's a borderless warfare domain, and there are actors out there that are taking advantage of that domain that's difficult to be tracked to undermine our democracy. again, whether it be -- whether it be stealing our technology or whether it be trying to influence our elections. >> well, i thank you, and we look forward to working with you, because still to this day we do not see a discernible strategy on confronting an issue that could have under certain

circumstances undermined democracy. and our fundamental of selecting our leaders. senator -- could i just finally add, we intend to move your nominations through as quickly as possible. we need you to get to work. senator reed. >> well, thank you very much, mr. chairman. again, gentlemen, thank you for your testimony and for your service. and dr. esper, let me associate myself with the chairman's initial remarks about the unfortunate and -- that's a mild term -- failures on programs going all the way back through crusader, to the -- fighting systems and land systems, et cetera, at the army. can you give us a sense of how you're going to approach this issue? just kind of -- are you going to take it on? >> senator, first of all, i share your and the chairman's

concerns and the rest of the committee's with regard to the army's modernization record. it is certainly fraught with a number of mistakes in the past. it not only cost the taxpayers billions of dollars, but maybe more importantly, if left to soldiers without the tools and equipment and weapons they need, to be successful on the battlefield. so my view is that the era of minor fixes is over. we need to fundamentally relook the whole acquisition process, beginning with the requirements piece of it. and all the way through to the testing part and fielding. and to do that means you need to take a holistic approach, which looks at processes, programs, people, policies, and which are trying to eventually get at is a fundamentally new system that in the end changes culture, as well. there have been a number of reports in the past that give us a nice road map as to how to do that. the decker wagner report of 2011. there was a very good report by the homeland security government affairs committee, which i think chairman mccain was part of in 2014, which outlined that. and begins, first of all, with

requirements, getting all the right players at the table at the same time. putting a war fighter in charge of that. and making sure that your requirements process incorporates those folks is stable. and then from there on as you move through the acquisition process, doing things such as lining up the assignments of program managers and peos with the milestone process that there is clear accountability across the board. and i think with what the army announced recently, i think those steps are all in the right direction with regard to what you need to do. to me, the key is, getting ready of bureaucratic habits, closer engagement with industry, both private and commercial sector. look more to the commercial sector for off the shelf or things to be developed. prototyping, demonstrating, using other transactional authorities that the committee provided and the legislation. and really, again, fundamentally overhauling the system as it is now. >> thank you. mr. wilke, again, thank you for your service, both here and in many other places. >> thank you, sir. >> one of the issues that this

committee has struggled with, and the department has struggled with has been -- and, in fact, it's a societal issue, as we're seeing the headlines every day of sexual harassment. and the department has not yet promulgated a comprehensive policy with that regard. can you give us a commitment that you will work on that and get a policy out in a reasonable time? >> yes, sir. there are several items in that vein. the report that you -- or the policy that you refer to was set in place so that the requirement was set in place by the fy-'15 ndaa. and i think given the current climate, it is now more than ever, and shouldn't have been that long, but i will give you my commitment to make sure we move on. >> thank you very much. >> you view it as a serious issue, mr. wilke. >> yes. very serious issue, sir. >> admiral, one of the issues alluded to and one of the issues we see every day is just the

lack of overhead isr. that was one of the factors in the niger situation. in fact, general walt hauser has indicated he only gets 70% of what he needs. you probably got zero percent of what you needed. how do we fix that quickly? because we have now other demands, particularly the korean peninsula, that will put more pressure on isr. >> so isr overhead isr in general, there's an insatiable demand for that. and honestly, for the right reasons. because isr provides you the opportunity -- higher opportunity for mission success, and it markedly protects your force. so those assets are absolutely critical. the adjudication process that we go through, again, my top priorities providing more fighter support. so those isr assets sunday my charge, they're going to be in support of the war fighter. that's not to say there's opportunities where we can

support other organizations. but primarily, and i think maybe -- i haven't seen an investigation on niger, but i do believe that certainly isr probably could have benefited that, and certainly could have benefited us in south com. >> thank you. and finally, mr. roberts, again, thank you for your service and what you proposed to do. and let me just stress again, concern about the ability for the nnsa, principally to support dod through the plutonium pit production process. we're looking at a recapitalization of our nuclear enterprise, which is roughly about 1.5 to $1.9 trillion over the next decade or so. and part of that necessarily is getting plutonium pits for the warheads. can you give us a sense of that? >> senator, the -- when i first started this process, i was actually very surprised to find

out that we don't have a capability or pit production right now, and the -- the -- this committee has actually -- you know, looked at and raised this issue. certainly, if confirmed, i want to -- the highest priorities that i'll have is to work with nnsa to find out what the delays have been. frankly, i find it very perplexing, because the weapons council earlier in 2014 indicated there was a solution for this and then a series of looking at other alternatives. and i've seen the letter this committee sent raising those concerns. and i believe those concerns are legitimate and we need to work on them. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator. >> thank you, mr. chairman. well, i have to say, i'm going to blow a little smoke at you guys. because in the 30 years that i've been on either the house or the senate armed services

committee, i've never seen a group of nominees come in more qualified than you four. and i am just -- i think we're going to turn this corner now. because we have the right people at the helm. i want to ask one question, the same question of all four of you. because one of our problems, when i was trying to explain to people over the last eight years what's happening to our military, the threat that we're facing and different than any kind of threat we've ever faced before. you don't have -- i didn't have the credibility to self-add. but when the uniforms start talking about it, then that makes a big difference. and so we've had that happen. and i'm very proud them to tell the unvarnished truth about the problems we have. when general allen testified before this committee, only a third of our brigade combat teams were working, or ready. a fourth of our air brigades and half of our divisions were ready. and then general dunford said,

and to this committee -- it's pretty shocking. he said, if we don't address this dynamic with sustained, sufficient and predictable funding over the course of several years, we will lose our qualitative and quantitative competitive advantage. that's a pretty shocking statement. so i would like to ask two questions of each one of you, and just yes or no questions. do you agree with the statements by generals allen and did yunfo? >> yes. >> yes. >> and secondly, the question i have, would you be just as straight forward and honest about very uncomfortable subjects such as the threat that we're facing as these uniforms? >> yes, sir >> yes, sir. >> yeah, i believe you will, too. and it's not just -- the uniforms are important, but the secretaries are important. and so i have -- very much a concern about that. general, or dr. esper, general

milley wrote, talking about the go of the sustained readiness. he said that the go of armys sustained readiness model is to have 66% of -- and this is not to maintain, because we're not there now. but to achieve 66% of the force in a combat-ready status at any moment by the year 2023. now, would you say that under this model, do you think that we are on track to reach that goal? >> senator, my understanding is that the army is on track to reach that goal. my personal view is, that's not fast enough. >> yeah. >> and so if confirmed, i would like to look at ways working with the chief and senior army leaders to find if there are ways to accelerate that, particularly given the challenges we face right now in the international scene. >> yeah. well, let me also compliment you, because the answer you gave to senator reed's questions,

talking about our -- what our acquisition problems are and a definitive answer on how to address that, i thought was a very good answer. mr. wilke, i remember so well -- the guy who was a real hero to me was jesse helms. and i remember going to his funeral. you and i sat next to each other and we talked about that. and so that was -- i would say to my friend, senator tillis, that that's one of the main things that i look at when i look at you and your extensive service that you've had in the past. i'm grateful to know that you understand our readiness challenge. i chair the readiness committee, and i've been very concerned about what -- where we are today. and in terms of your top priority going forward, how would our -- how has our budget cuts and the bca affected our

military readiness capacity and capabilities? it's important to answer this question now, because of what we're in the midst of, and the debate that's going on today. >> senator, if we start from the premise that we have never faced, the breadth of the strategic challenges that we have now, that leads you to only one answer. that unless the department of defense, as a steady and understandable stream of financing, to plan for the years ahead, as any other business would have, then it will not be capable of playing in a field where we continue to have an unfair advantage over our adversary. >> well, it's -- a good answer. but it's unfortunate. i am concerned, though, about a statement that was made or a fact that's out there. and we don't seem to talk about. and that is, only about a quarter of today's 17 to 24-year-olds are eligible for

military service. of that population, even a smaller number are interested in enlisting or commissioning. now, i was a product of the draft. and so i would like to see what are some of the innovative opportunities we have to expand that pool. what are some of the options we have out there? >> sir, it is -- as you say, it's a society-wide problem. what i don't believe the department has done, as we have moved into the 21st century, is adopt the modes of information collection that america's young people have. we have not mastered social media. we have not mastered something that i consider to be fundamental, and that is online recruiting across the country. we've also had situations in the last 15 to 20 years where the first experience that our youth at one time had with the military, if they were not from a community tied to an

installation was junior rotc. we are losing those units across the country. now, obviously, in a time of budget crunching, that's probably low on the list. but if you are looking at the long-term, if you are looking at trying to change the perception of young americans, those kinds of interactions and the ability of the government through the department to adopt to the way young people think is vital, or we will never get caught up. >> yeah. my time has expired, but that's a great answer. i appreciate that very much. thank you. >> senator shaheen. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and congratulations to all of you, and thank you for being willing to consider taking on these positions. dr. esper, in your testimony you said that your first priority will be readiness. and ensuring the total army is prepared to fight. can you elaborate on specifically how you would

improve readiness and modernize the national guard? >> yes, senator. and as i noted in my statement, i had the privilege to serve on the guard and reserve. so i know all three components fairly well. and clearly in the last 16 years of fighting in afghanistan and iraq, if we have learned anything, we have learned that the guard and reserve are not just a strategic reserve, but a really critical operational component of that. so with that context in mind, i think it's critical as we try and put readiness on a better footing, we look at what in my mind, four key areas, improving our munition stockpiles, that our equipment is better maintained and ready to go. the training for the high-end is conducted particularly through the combat training centers, and in terms of personnel, units are fully manned. i think that applies to all three components, as well. when it comes to pushing units through the combat training centers like ntc, we need to make sure that national guard, brigade combat teams are there,

as well and they are working closely with the active. i think what most people don't appreciate is that the majority of the total army is in the guard and reserve. so it's critical as we train, we train as a total army, and all those regards across the spectrum of conflict. >> thank you. i appreciate that. and i look forward to having you come up to new hampshire to see the challenges that we face with our guard and reserve in new hampshire. mr. wilkie, first of all, thank you very much for your work as -- for senator tillis on the special immigrant visa program. that was very helpful, and as you know, that's very important as we support our men and women who are still on the battlefield. i want to ask you about the health care system and the military. you mentioned that in your opening remarks. kids evacuation is a universal vaccine program that purchases vaccines at a discounted rate from the cdc to ensure they go regardless of a family's income.

the only health insurance plan that does not reimburse or pay the kids vac or similar programs to states for vaccines is tricare. will you commit to this committee that you will focus on this issue and help get this matter resolved? >> yes, senator. the kids vax program impacts ten states. new hampshire having the largest complaint against the system. and i will pledge that i will look at that, as well as a number of other things with tricare. but getting our children vaccinated is the top -- would be a top priority for any undersecretary. >> thank you very much. mr. cernan, senator mccain talked about the importance of cyber. and you agreed with that in your response. can you tell me who is in charge of a cyber strategy for the united states? not just within the department of defense, but throughout the federal government?

>> so i would just say i'm familiar certainly with the department of defense, building a cyber strategy and that we're fundamentally committed to that. >> and can you tell me who is in charge at the department of defense in doing that? >> i think right now it's a collectively responsibility. i certainly have responsibility for cyber in the intelligence realm. and i certainly believe i have a responsibility for developing the strategy that chairman mccain discussed. i think the issue with it, it's such a prolific and important issue to be addressed, because it involves everybody in our country. not just civilian, not just military. our infrastructure, our networks, all those things have to be addressed. so i believe it's going to be a whole of government approach to the cyber. and we have to collaboratively work together, leverage technology to address the problem. >> i certainly agree with that. >> could i just add, somebody has to be in charge, mr. cernan. >> thank you. that was my point exactly, senator mccain.

that right now we don't have somebody who can be held accountable. and who everyone knows is the person in charge, if something goes wrong. mr. roberts, in your testimony, you talk about working to develop a nuclear posture that's responsive to today's threats and challenges and instituting declaratory policies that credibly convey that aggression of any kind is not a rational option. what do you mean by that? what kind of policies do we need to have in place? . >> so the concern there is not only having the capabilities to indicate to our adversaries that aggression is not a rational option. but also the political will to make it clear that indeed, if you attack us, you will pay a terrible price. and having that posture, which

right now i feel is difficult to convey, because of the fact that we have for so long undercapitalized our nuclear deterrent, and now we're approaching a time where we've got to replace all of those things at a very high cost. and that's going to be a challenge. >> are you suggesting that we should be prepared to engage in nuclear war against our enemies? >> senator, i believe we should be prepared to engage so we never have to engage. i've often said that our nuclear weapons -- we use nuclear weapons every single day because it's a political tool more than a military one. >> i certainly think that that deterrent made sense against the soviets, and was very effective. i'm not sure it makes as much sense against north korea. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator rounds.

>> thank you, mr. chairman, and let me also add my surprise to that of senator shaheen and senator -- chairman mccain with regard, mr. cernan, to the concern expressed and your response. or rather, i would say perhaps a nonresponse with regard to who would actually be responsible for the cyber challenges that our nation faces. i think it points out, and i would -- i would not suggest that you were wrong in your response. we actually requested members of the white house to actually participate in one of our hearings here to discuss this specific issue. and they declined to even attend. and that type of an attitude is the wrong attitude with regard to finding the appropriate way to respond to a tax and the defense of our country and the cyber. and so mr. cernan, what i would ask is this.

a commitment with regard to your responsibilities to participate and to be able to respond the next time that we ask you to come back in terms of laying out a plan to at least identify a person who would be responsible for cyber defenses within the whole of government within the united states government system. would you commit to that, sir? >> i'm absolutely committed to that. and i would second coming from the military, there needs to be somebody in charge to make it work. and i am absolutely committed to doing that. and bringing the department of defense cyber concerns, cyber perspectives, into helping the whole of government effort. >> and would you, once again, would you agree with us, or would you concur with us that right now it's difficult to determine who is actually responsible for that area or that responsibility today?

>> i would concur that it's difficult. it's difficult to address who that is. i would say, there's lots of activities going on, but it's not focused under one person, that i'm aware of. >> thank you. i'm just curious, with regard to -- and this is for mr. roberts and dr. esper. north korea's nuclear weapons have gotten a lot of attention lately. but i think we should also be mindful of their chemical weapons stockpile. open source documents estimate that north korea has 5,000 tons of chemical weapons and is likely to use them if a conflict breaks out. in 2009, the army published a report on counter weapons of mass destruction, which stated that the army lacks the full range of capabilities required to support the joint force commander and the tactical and operational chemical weapons of a mass destruction missions expected in the future. additionally, in 2015,

identified the magnitude of the weapons of mass destruction threat and dod's resources or resource priorities for counter wmd missions. can either of you speak to the army or dod's readiness to mitigate the impact of potential north korean use of chemical weapons? dr. esper. >> senator, i'll take a first stab at that. that is an area of concern to the army. as i understand it. much like the rest of the army, the forces aren't fully prepared. of the 130 or so cbrne teams, a quarter are ready to go. are deemed ready. and so work needs to continue in that area, because much like as the army is preparing to engage, a near peer adversary at a high-end threat, this is one of the threats you face. that's something i experienced when we went to the gulf war in 1990, the clear threat of chemical weapons used by saddam hussein. clearly, the army needs to get

back to a similar posture as we look at adversaries potentially in asia and europe. >> if i can add, senator. that's an area of concern that i am certainly very concerned about. and we looked at the threat and the focus has been on the nuclear side. clearly, the north koreans have, as you pointed out, a large chemical capability. and frankly, i'm very much worried about the biological capability they have, as well. we know, again, from unclassified reporting that they have a program from deif fector that have told us that. and frankly, this is one we are not really well-prepared for to deal with. and that's one of the things, if confirmed, i plan on addressing very strongly. >> would both of you commit that perhaps time is of the essence with regard to that particular issue? >> yes, sir. >> yes, sir. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator blumenthal. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to join the previous

comments of my colleagues, most particularly, the chairman. and calling attention to the importance of our personnel, for all of the extraordinary equipment and advanced technology that we bring to bear. to the battlefield. it is at the end of the day our people who are our greatest resource. and i would second, senator, the remarks made previously about the excellent qualifications of these nominees. and i want to thank and congratulate each of you. before i ask any questions, i want to just raise for the committee's consideration news about the ruling in a case now pending in guantanamo. in fact, camp justice, as it is

perhaps incorrectly called there. a ruling by air force cornell vance spath, who is presiding over the al that hero case. holding in contempt of court brigadier general john baker, a 28-year marine corps veteran. second-highest ranking, marine corps lawyer. sentencing him to 21 days of confinement. and a $1,000 fine. simply for raising the issue about a potential conflict of interest for ethical problem with the three lawyers who are assigned to that death penalty case at guantanamo. i am deeply troubled by this decision. i find it very, very questionable. indeed, potentially contrary to our justice system. and i hope that our committee will bring oversight to this

matter and this case and to the conduct of military justice at guantanamo. the chairman led this committee in requiring of the last administration a comprehensive plan to end the use of the guantanamo detention facility. unfortunately, the last administration failed to follow through on the chairman's direction. this job now belongs to the present administration and this committee has expressed very constructive interest in making sure that the justice system works there in accordance with our due process requirements. obviously, i'm not asking the witnesses to respond, but i hope that the department of defense will turn its attention and give us a briefing on what is happening there. i also recognize its

possibilities for intervention may be limited. i know all of our thoughts and prayers go out to the victims for the administration, terrorist attack in new york city. and i am troubled by eliminating funding -- whose sole purpose is to train and support first responders who defend the national urban security and technology's laboratories, known as naso, has worked for over 65 years to keep our communities safe from nuclear, biological and radiological attacks. if enacted, these cuts, in my view, they are careless and contradictory, would weaken our defenses against terrorist attacks. and i sent a letter to the appropriations committee urging

$3.4 million for fy-'18. i would like to know whether you will support the funding for this laboratory, which is essential to our national defense. >> senator, i'm not familiar with the lab or the issue. but i certainly will look into it, and more than willing to work with you on this issue. i believe that we need to continue making investments, research and development is critical through the army's future readiness. and on this particular issue, i would like to follow up with you on it, if confirmed. >> i appreciate that. mr. roberts, i think you will have, it particular, jurisdiction over this issue. >> senator, i believe that lab is under the department of homeland security. but saying that, of course,

dealing with the potential attack to our homeland, the department of defense will work closely with the department of homeland security. and identify particular gaps that -- frankly, if this closure would result in a gap, is something we need to address. so i certainly will commit to looking into this, if i'm confirmed. >> i appreciate your saying that you will look into it. i would like you, if you would, after you look into it, to respond in writing. and tell me what your position will be. >> if i'm confirmed. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator ernst. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, gentlemen, for your willingness to continue your service to our great united states. i appreciate it very much. dr. esper, before i begin, i would like to ask you just some simple yes or no questions. question number one, do you commit to cutting wasteful spending and making it a priority? >> yes, senator. >> do you commit to working with

me to combat and prevent military sexual assault and retaliation in the army? >> yes, senator. >> will you provide me with advanced notice, should changes to the gender integration policies be considered? >> yes, senator. >> do you commit to upholding an unbiased and transparent approach throughout the acquisition process? >> yes, senator. >> i appreciate that. those answers very much. now, on to a more open discussion. in your advanced policy questions, you state, quote, i also believe small arms modernization is an area very suitable for outreach to the commercial sector for an off the shelf or easily adaptable solution for a new weapon. end quote. and i do agree with that. wholeheartedly. however, i also feel that full and open competition is paramount to making sure that our soldiers get the very best weapons into their hands. and so can you speak to the importance of full and open

competitions, and can i get your commitment that you will make this a priority? >> yes, ma'am. first of all, let me give you the commitment up front that if confirmed, my aim would be to pursue full and open competition on everything we can. because, answering your first question, my experience both on this side and on the government side, from my time on the hill, and more recently, of course, my time in industry, i've witnessed firsthand that competition does two things. it drives quality and it drives lower price. and so in my mind, the more we can open up the aperture to include the widest number of participants, whether it's traditional defense industry, commercial commercial off the shelf, we should pursue it. in my mind, the key thing is getting the soldiers, the tools and equipment and weapons they need as soon as you can at the best price. best value being the key criterian. >> i appreciate that. at a time when our near peer competitors are outpacing us in

small arms, we have to figure out the best way to get those weapons into our soldiers' hands. so thank you very much. and dr. esper, as i'm sure you know, the military has made progress in reducing the number of sexual assaults from 26,000 down to just slightly less than 15,000 over the past four years. while keeping adjudication of sexual assault cases within the chain of command. yet we need continued improvement. there is no doubt about that. and given your many years of leadership in the army, i'm confident that you understand the responsibility and accountability commanders assume on a daily basis. what i would like you to do is talk a little bit to that, and do you think further reductions in sexual assault like that that we have seen over the fast four years will be possible without the ability to hold our military commanders accountable? and can you outline how the

commanders' role in the process has placed them in a position to be held accountable? >> yes, ma'am. first let me say up front, there is no room whatsoever in the army for sexual harassment, sexual assault or retaliation against anybody in that regard. it's -- it's a terrible thing. it cannot be tolerated. all it does is undermine readiness of individuals, of units. it breaks down cohesion, and so there must be zero tolerance for sexual harassment whatsoever. as i did note in my apqs, and you mentioned, i was a commander. i understand well the commander's duty is to maintain good order and discipline. in my view, having that full tool kit of authorities available to him or her is critical to maintaining a good order of discipline. and it's also critical that the commander understands that it is his or her responsibility to maintain the right culture in a unit to make sure that the soldiers under their command understand that sexual harassment, assault, retaliation of any type will not be

tolerated. and my concern is, if we consider pulling some of those tools out of the tool kit, that the commander will be less able to deal with it, and may feel like it's less of their responsibility. which my concern would be it would set us back rather than set us forward. i think the army has put a number of programs in place. senior leadership is working this issue hard. we see in some cases the numbers moving in the right direction with regard to reductions. and increases in reporting. in other cases, we don't. so i think it's something that i will take very seriously if confirmed. and certainly my aim is to continue to drive that number down. >> and thank you. and while we have seen a decrease in those numbers, they're not yet good enough. >> yes, ma'am. >> so we have to continue. i hope that you will be willing to continue working on this issue with me. we do need our commanders to set that level and culture of dignity and respect in our army units. so thank you very much for your commitment. thank you, gentlemen.

i'd like to thank the senator for all her hard work on this very important issue. thank you. senator heinrich. >> thank you, chairman. welcome, gentlemen. i want to start with you, mr. roberts. as you know, los alamos national laboratory is the nation's center of excellence for plutonium research, and is currently the only facility in the country capable of meeting the pentagon's pit production cost and schedule requirements. i've got a copy of a july 2014 letter from the nuclear weapons council, where in response to section 3114 of the nda, they tell congress that the national nuclear security administration will begin the process of designing and building modular buildings for pit production at los alamos, because it meets those requirements. i know my staff has shared that letter with you, and i understand that senator reed may have actually raised it earlier in the hearing, as well, while i was at energy and natural resources.

so i want to ask you, do you support the continuation of the plutonium pit mission at los alamos as endorsed by the nuclear weapons council for which you will be the executive director? >> thank you, senator. i -- indeed, i did -- and thank you for the letter. i had not seen that before. it's clear what the nuclear weapons council had decided. frankly, once i looked into it and saw the letter that this committee sent in response in september, i was a little surprised that nothing had happened. and, in fact, i agree with the -- your statement or the committee's statement in the letter that the -- analysis of alternatives by nnsa is a rehashing of the decisions that had already been made. so if confirmed, this is, again, a high priority issue. i think we need to look at. because it has major impact on our ability to produce plutonium pits. and i think we're falling behind the mandate of being able to do

that, produce up to 80 by 2027. so i will look into that. >> that is exactly my concern. and i would ask you that if there is any deviation or delay from what the nuclear weapons counsel endorsed back in july 2014, that i have your commitment to simply instruct the pentagon's independent cape office to look at the independent analysis to make sure that the assumptions and conclusions of any proposed alternative actually stack up. >> yes, senator. well, i'm not quite familiar to the extent that i can tell them what to do, i will do it. thank you. >> thank you. dr. esper, this committee has authorized significant funding to train and advise foreign security forces. so that they can take a greater responsibility for their own security. i certainly welcome the army's decision earlier this year to set up five additional brigades that will specialize in this growing mission area.

and as you know, currently there are $170 million worth of new modern facilities currently sitting vacant at white sands missile range. so given the budget constraints that we're under, i just would simply ask you that as you look to where to station security forces assistance brigades or s-fabs, that you will take into account the ability to use existing facilities, rather than build brand-new facilities if they meet the requirements for those locations. >> yes, senator, i will. >> i want to thank you for that. and white sands missile range also has exceptional training areas. it's got a close proximity, obviously, to existing personnel and infrastructure at ft. bliss, texas, as well. and i want to thank you for your work on this. i also want to just take a moment and thank the army

broadly for its assistance on legislation that we've been working on for the last several years regarding some boundary adjustments between white sands missile range and white sands national monument to support the missions of both of those units and indeed conflict some issues they've had over the years. the army staff at the pentagon and at white sands has been very, very helpful during the process of putting that legislation together. i want to shift gears real quickly in my last seconds to mr. cernan. one area of technology that we're seeing a lot of increase in activity in is commercial space activity. i just want to ask you, how should the department and the intelligence community broadly leverage commercial space as part of our overall portfolio addressing space issues? >> i think it's critically important that we leverage

commercial technology in a multitude of forms to include cyber and to include space. i think space is a unique domain now that we ought to treat just like we treat the land domain, the sea domain. because we need to be able to operate freely in space. space provides incredibly important isr support to military operations and a multitude of other things that we do. so i'm an advocate of the mission. and what requirements that we're trying to fill. and we should pursue those requirements from wherever. and i will certainly do that if i'm confirmed. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. chair. >> senator wicker. >> thank you, dr. esper. i appreciate you being here and your testimony and your willingness to serve both in the past and in the future. i wish you well. i have to ask today about two items involving my home state of mississippi. where we manufacture helicopters and also uniforms. and i mention this because it involves the industrial base.

but also, it involves items that our troops need. the first one is the lakota training helicopter, which airbus makes in columbus, mississippi. now, in 2015, there was an award of lakota helicopters. a contract dispute ensued, and those helicopters are being held up, pending the court case. in 2017, the appropriations committee appropriated for 28 lakotas. a separate matter entirely. and they gave clear directive language at the instruction of the army to purchase the 28 lakotas. and i brought this up in a previous hearing with acting secretary of the army, robert spear, as to why this clear

language by the appropriation committee and passed by the congress had not been followed. and he said something to the effect, it's all involved in the court case. well, that's not true. there are 16 lakotas from 2015 involved in a court case. subsequent to that, this congress ordered the army to purchase 28 lakotas. and that is not being held up in a court case. sounds like an excuse to me. i want you to be aware of the detrimental impacts this situation is having on the industrial base, but also on army pilot training. and i want to ask you, do you believe that the army secretary is required to follow clear and directive language expressed in legislation? >> yes, senator, i do. >> okay. are you familiar with this case? >> i am a little familiar with the case, yes, sir. >> okay. well, have i got it wrong?

at all? >> senator, i trust you have your facts accurately. >> okay. if confirmed, will you do all in your power to expedite the contracting actions required and to issue a production contract as outlined in the congressionally enacted and signed into law fy defensive appropriations act. >> yes, senator. if confirm, i will work this issue. i want to work closely with your office to resolve it as quickly as possible. >> we really do need to resolve it. the other thing involves uniforms. and treating the uniforms with inse inse inse insectcides. we have been doing this for years. they manufacture the uniform and then put the insecticide on. now, someone in their wisdom in the department of the army decided we should treat the fabric first.

and then cut it and sew it into a uniform. i can tell you, the people working at the plants don't like this. because obviously, you've got -- a chemically treated piece of fabric. you're cutting it, and it gets out into the air that they breathe. and becomes a problem. i cannot fathom why the army would want to change an efficient and proven process that leaves no environmental waste. and that's to make the uniform, then treat it. if confirmed, will you get somebody to look into this issue and get back to us and try to make some sense out of that? >> yes, sir, for sure. >> all right. good. i will yield back the remaining 50 seconds of my time. and thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator peters. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you to each of our nominees here today for your

willingness to serve in what are certainly very important positions. dr. esper, i'd like to ask about ground vehicle modernization, particularly the abrams platform. i believe modernization of the army's ground combat vehicles is probably one of the most pressing national security issues that we currently face as a nation. earlier this year, at an air lands subcommittee hearing on army modernization, lieutenant general murray testified that the abrams tank now remains only towards the top of its class with parity, and not overmatch. compared to our allies and competitors. this is a very concerning i think to all of us. i know it's concerning to you, as well. because we want to make sure that our soldiers always have the advantage. never a fair fight. and this information is of great concern. last year, general mcmaster testified before the airline subcommittee that at the current funding levels, the bradley fighting vehicle and abrams

tank -- this is quote, will soon be obsolete, but they will remain in the army inventory for the next 50 to 70 years. our allies and near peer competitors alike are investing significant resources into rapid modernization, but current projections estimate it's going to take us 20 years to upgrade the existing armor fleet, unless we fast-track ground combat vehicle modernization strategy. as was discussed earlier, there are a number of options to modernize the fleet at a much faster pace, which could save billions of dollars over the life cycle of the modernization program, multiyear procurement, block buy contracting or options that offer potential savings. so my question to you, dr. esper, how do you believe the army should increase the force structure and upgrade the abrams fleet to address known vulnerabilities and emerging threats? >> senator, first of all, i share your concerns about the age of our current ground combat vehicles. they have been in service as

long as i had been, going back to the early '80s. of course, the army has made a number of upgrades through the years to keep them as effective on the battlefield as possible. but nonetheless, with the projections as you cited from general mcmaster, i am deeply concerned about at what point we are no longer able to upgrade them and to ensure that they have overmatch on the battlefield. so one of the things, if confirmed i hope to look at are time lines and look at ways to accelerate so we can field a new ground combat vehicle and tank sooner rather than later. i know the -- this committee has put important language into the fy-'18 nda on this matter, which i think is helpful, which calls for prototyping and demonstrating vehicles. i think in this regard we should look at what other militaries, our partners are developing, to see if there are designs we can adopt or build from. in the meantime, i think it's critical that we continue with the upgrades that are happening to both the bradley and to the

abrams. with the abrams, it's obviously the v-3 upgrades that are enhancing its power, its survivability, its optics, it's lethality. i think those are critical to ensuring overmatch. and so all of those need to continue in the meantime. >> but we can't wait another 10, 15, 20 years to design/build a new vehicle, either. >> i'm encouraged about that answer, as well as your mention of proto typing. so you see prototyping as something that we can use to accelerate this process? >> absolutely, senator. i think we should prototype on almost any program we can. i think it's critical. we could prototype earlier in the process, which means if we had those prototypes, we can test and evaluate them using soldiers, either in training scenarios or real-world deployments, where we might be able to use them. so i think prototyping is a way we need to continue to go. >> dr. esper, when we had the opportunity to meet in my office, we had a detailed discussion about autonomy, robotics, some of the advanced capabilities that come out of

artificial intelligence and other types of technological advances. as i spoke with you at our office, talked about the work we're doing in michigan and the army's research and development arm in michigan, which is engaged in some pretty cutting-edge technology. we also talked about how we need to capitalize on innovation that we're seeing in the private sector. so, for example, in tar dak, working closely with general motors, tardak has a wonderful prototype, and in hydrogen fuel cell technology for special forces operations. but there's a host of other types of areas that we need to explore, as well. how do you believe the army can best capitalize on the leaps in technology by working with the private sector, and how would you do that if confirmed? >> senator, i think we absolutely need to do that. the army needs to engage the private sector, research facilities, companies and entities are actually looking at robotics and autonomy. i think one of the things we discussed, which a vision for me would be is looking at ground

convoys. you can envision a future whereby rather than scores of trucks moving between destinations, much as we had during the iraq war, between kuwait and baghdad, hauling supplies and what not, you could now do that autonomously, no longer putting at risk soldiers to do such tasks and yet completing them probably more efficiently. and what that does is also frees up man power to fill out your ranks and other areas. so that's just one example of a future i can envision, which would buy us greater effectiveness and efficiency. and i think we need to look across the board. and the army is doing this in a number of areas, not just autonomy, but robotics to help the soldier. drones, of course, critical in terms of providing tactical isr capability. so all of these things are critical. in many ways, the commercial -- the private sector is outpacing what the military can do on its own. so there needs to be greater outreach, greater partnership between the private sector and dod on these matters. if we are really going to retain the overmatch we need on future

battlefields. >> thank you very much. >> senator king. >> thank you, mr. chairman. dr. esper, i serve as ranking member with chairman tom cat ot on the air land subcommittee, and we've had a number of hearings on issues such as readiness and modernization. i agree with senator mccain and senator reid that modernization is your number one priority. and in fact, may be your legacy. we've had a series of failures over the past dozen or 20 years. it just can't -- it can't continue. modernization is the future of readiness. and if we don't have that, we're not going to get there. and i just want to have your earnest commitment to this significant challenge. >> absolutely, senator. modernization is critical to future readiness. i'm convinced, however, we will

not be able to modernized the force unless we completely overhaul the current acquisition system. >> so you anticipated my next question. >> so my commitment is to working with the army senior leadership to do just that. i think they've gotten off to a good start with the ideas that have been discussed and that they are putting into play. and i think that will help us get the current system into a position where we could do a much better job in terms of delivering to the soldier that tools equipment systems, weapons they need when they need it, best value, at a good cost. >> over the past four or five years, i've probably been to a dozen hearings or more, maybe 20, that have touched on procurement in one way or another. and i keep hearing certain themes. one is, build off a stable design. get a design before you build. and the second is likened to it. don't do r & d while you're in the middle of building. and quite often, that's an issue. trying to do r & d in the middle

of constructing large objects like aircraft carriers. third, use off-the-shelf technology as often as possible. senator mccain has made a point in the past for a spec for a new handgun. let's talk about off-the-shelf. that should be the first option, rather than the last option. number four, design platforms with an open architecture that are modular. when you're doing a large platform like a new tank or a land combat vehicle, the danger is the technology in that vehicle will be obsolete by the time it's built. therefore, it should be designed in such a way as to be able to pull out technological parts and replacement. and finally, and this is one i've heard repeatedly, you've got to really take some care as to who is in charge of this procurement process, and provide continuity. see if you can keep people in that with a program for some

period of time, so it doesn't stop and start. do you concur with those suggestions? that's just based on what i've been hearing. >> senator, absolutely. i think you've hit many of the key elements i outlined in my apqs with regard to the approach. your last is probably the most important, accountability. making sure you know who is in charge. and that requires, again, changing the personnel system so that from a top-down, particularly when you get to program managers, there is clear alignment and responsibility and handoff from milestone to milestone or from phase to phase of the process. >> but part of that is also making the procurement process reasonably timely so people don't reach retirement age while still waiting for a system to move through. >> yes, senator. you know, the challenge in the past is the reach exceeded the grasp in terms of requirements. and so rather than striving for the perfect, i think we need to get away from -- we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the better. so pursuing the 80% solution now, and then building in mod layerty so we can upgrade in

later iterations is critical. i think the success of the big five systems, apache, abrams, bradley, et cetera, going back to the '80s was so because of secretary marsh protected them in terms of funding and protected them in terms of good ideas that came up later in the process. and without that, and there's a classic story about the apache, and apache long bow, those systems wouldn't have been filled in time for desert shield, desert storm. and so i think those are the many things that you outline we need to pursue. i've outlined them in my apqs. there have been more than enough studies on this. time to get to work and get the system right. >> when my people talk to me about how long things are going to take, i always find it salutary to remind them that eisenhower retook europe in 11 months. that's a good time frame. final question. mr. cernan, just -- not really a question, but you're taking on a very important position, and my main concern as a member of this committee and the intelligence committee is redundancy and

overlap in terms of military intelligence and civilian intelligence. we're talking about $70 billion a year between the two functions. so i just hope that that can be a focus and where there is an >> yes, if i'm confirmed i'll be completely committed to that. we can't afford to do that. weicide look across it intelligence community and collectively we ought to have what we not but no dupelicity. >> i appreciate that. >> senator warren. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the chance we had to meet in my office and like chairman mccain i'm concerned about it number of defense appointees coming from the big five defense contractors and as you know from our meeting avoiding conflicts of interest

is very important to me. your letter to the dod ethics office states that you will not marticipate involving in your former employer for a period of one year but your letter also states that you'll comply with the white house ethics pledge that requires you to recuse yourself for two years. can you say you'll recuse yourself for two years in all matters concerning rathion. >> yes, ma'am. >> and i'd like to ask you about the specifics of your job when you served as vice president of government relsations for the last seven years, which particular army programs did you lobby on behalf of during your time there. >> yes, ma'am, let me fist say

as vice president for government relations, i spent an overwhelming majority on the business-end of the company. so -- >> very eff but i'd like to know about the programs. >> there are three army programs that were such importance that i'm personally engaged on the hill on. over it past two years. the patriot radar system in support of the army's budget request for that and pushing the army to accelerate its development of its next generation radar because the company felt we could provide a capability to the soldier sooner than what was on the timeline. second is elevated air stat with surveillance and fire control radars. that program has now ended. the third program i worked on was distributed common ground system two. the congress was pushing for a commercial only solution. and rathion ask that it be open

not just to commercial but traditional industries as well to drive down price and quality. >> so those were the three and you use the word personally. so those were it three you personally lobbied on. did you over see lobby in other area snz. >> the team that reported to me, i overau all their activities. >> so everything that rathion lobbied on basically? >> yes, that was one of my responsibilities of many. >> skb it allows you to seek a regulatory or waver from matters involving your former employer. i know you've had conrrsations about this and you've pledged to not seek a waver. but i hope that you might gefurther than the twof h-year

recusal requirement? would you be willing to recuse for the duration of your time of the office? >> i don't see that a problem. >> is that a yes? >> no, it's not. if confirmed is come back to you in a couple years and revisit the issue with you again if lat possible. >> i think it's important to take these ethics obligations seriously. the american people need to have confidence that top officials are working for them and that starts with completely and fully stepping back from decisions that will have a financial impact on the former employees of those -- former employers of those officials. i'd like to ask one other question really quickly. i received several complaints from the massachusetts national guard officers in recent months about the delays in federal recognition of their promotions. according to a letter my office

received from the national guard bureau, the current processing time is six to eight months. this is becoming a morale issue and i imagine it's a problem in other state guard units as well. if confirmed, will you consider getting back and briefing me and my staff on why these delays are occurring? >> yes, ma'am, if confirmed i will. >> we have to find a way to speed this up before this morale problem spreads. thank you, for chairman. >> i'd like to say to my friend from massachusetts we will look if had to that but it seems i'm not that familiar with it. but it seems to me it's a problem that is not directly connected to the guard promotion but other aspects of it. is that your understanding?

>> fair enough. i've heard about this more specifically from the guard and that's how i've seen it. but it it reflects a larger problem, we need deal with the larger problem. >> i would beeger to engage with you on tis issue. we cannot have these kinds of delays and keep people serving. so honestly this is the first i've heard of it. i'd be glad to get to work on with it you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i want to say thoo nominees thank you for appearing. we will convene the committee probably tomorrow if we've got all the paperwork done so that we can report out your nominations to the full senate and then it will be a matter obviously of scheduling, which

there seems to be problems with lately but i hope we could, given the aspects of these responsibilities that we could go ahead and move them, rather than 30 hours of nondebate, debates. so i thank you all, jack? >> no, mr. chairman. thank you very much. >> i thank the witnesses and this hearing is adjourned.